Jeff: As pointed out in the original post, the ACLU did mention some obscene elements in the heading of the complaint, but dropped back to the non-obscene material in the specific plaintiff references. It is this duality that concerns me.

It seems easy to explain. The first quote is simply a laundry of list of the blocked categories. It is containted in the “Facts” section and it’s probably safe to assume that they won’t be challenged.

Not all of them applied to the plaintiffs, so it really shouldn’t be a surprise that some were not mentioned in subsequent sections. It should also be noted that non-sexual categories such as “Chat”, “Game/Cartoon Violence”, “School Cheating Information” were also part of the laundry list, despite being mostly irrelevant to these particular plaintiffs.

I can see only two reasons for the ACLU to take the position it has in this case. Either to set the foundation to overturn CIPA, or to provide a token case to counteract the negative press they have been seeing of late.

Or maybe they just oppose censorship even on non-sexual speech?

As you know, sometimes the ACLU supports the good guys

I am with you on the ACLU and the ALA, but the above quote threw me. I can see only two reasons for the ACLU to take the position it has in this case. Either to set the foundation to overturn CIPA, or to provide a token case to counteract the negative press they have been seeing of late.

This matter can be quickly addressed by the FCC and American Library Association providing some very specific guidance for the implementation for CIPA.

Clarification and Guidance are always good things. Assuming it’s reasonable, of course.

So what is the ACLU trying to do here? I believe that the ACLU is trying to set up a chain of precedent which it can use to erode CIPA

That may very well be the endgame, but what’s wrong with their position on these three cases? None of them seem to involve obscenity or children, so it would seem that CIPA has no bearing on them.