; sense of Congress (a) Findings Congress finds the following: (1) Over the 3 decades preceding the date of enactment of this Act, Congress has passed several bills to protect minors from access to online pornographic content, including title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( Public Law 104–104 ) (commonly known as the Communications Decency Act ), section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 231 ) (commonly known as the Child Online Protection Act ), and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (title XVII of division B of Public Law 106–554 ). (2) With the exception of the Children's Internet Protection Act (title XVII of division B of Public Law 106–554 ), the Supreme Court of the United States has struck down the previous efforts of Congress to shield children from pornographic content, finding that such legislation constituted a compelling government interest but that it was not the least restrictive means to achieve such interest. In Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), the Court even suggested at the time that blocking and filtering software could conceivably be a primary alternative to the requirements passed by Congress. (3) In the nearly 2 decades since the Supreme Court of the United States suggested the use of blocking and filtering software , such technology has proven to be ineffective in protecting minors from accessing online pornographic content. The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that filters do not work on 1 in 10 pornography sites accessed intentionally and 1 in 3 pornography sites that are accessed unintentionally. Further, it has been proven that children are able to bypass blocking and filtering software by employing strategic searches or measures to bypass the software completely. (4) Additionally, Pew Research has revealed studies showing that only 39 percent of parents use blocking or filtering software for their minor’s online activities, meaning that 61 percent of children only have restrictions on their internet access when they are at school or at a library.