FOOTNOTES

Plaintiffs advance three other alternative, independent
grounds for holding CIPA facially invalid. First, they submit
that even if CIPA will not induce public libraries to violate the
First Amendment, CIPA nonetheless imposes an unconstitutional
condition on public libraries by requiring them to relinquish
their own First Amendment rights to provide unfiltered Internet
access as a condition on their receipt of federal funds. See
infra n.36. Second, plaintiffs contend that CIPA is facially
invalid because it effects an impermissible prior restraint on
speech by granting filtering companies and library staff
unfettered discretion to suppress speech before it has been
received by library patrons and before it has been subject to a
judicial determination that it is unprotected under the First
Amendment. See Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S.
546, 558 (1975). Finally, plaintiffs submit that CIPA is
unconstitutionally vague. See City of Chicago v. Morales, 527
U.S. 41 (1999).
CIPA defines "[m]inor" as "any individual who has not
attained the age of 17 years." CIPA Sec. 1721(c) (codified at 47
U.S.C. Sec. 254(h)(7)(D)). CIPA further provides that "[o]bscene"
has the meaning given in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1460, and "child
pornography" has the meaning given in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256. CIPA Sec.
1721(c) (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 254(h)(7)(E) & (F)). CIPA
defines material that is "harmful to minors" as:

any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual