WASHINGTON — Public libraries that receive federal funds may be forced to install software filters on their computers to shield children from pornography, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Library patrons do not have a free-speech right to view pornography, the court said. Moreover, the government is entitled to take special measures to protect children, the justices said.
The 6-3 decision revives a law passed by Congress three years ago that ties federal subsidies for libraries to their use of computer software designed to block Web sites with sexually explicit material that is "harmful to minors." Adults may ask that the filters be turned off.
"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said in upholding the law.
About 14 million people use library computers to connect to the Internet. Last year, Congress gave public libraries more than $200 million in grants and discounts for Internet service.
It is now up to libraries to decide how to comply with the law.
In Southern California, some library officials said the ruling will have little effect.
Los Angeles County library officials said they installed a voluntary filter program in all 84 libraries last winter in response to local concerns about children's access to pornography. Children who sign on to the county's computers automatically trigger a filter unless their parents have decided to let them have unfettered access, said library spokeswoman Nancy Mahr. Adults can choose to view the Internet with or without the filter, she said.
The city of Los Angeles' 68 branch libraries do not receive federal funds and should not be affected, said spokesman Peter Persic. However, library officials and the city attorney's office will review the decision to see whether it has implications for the city libraries, he said.
Orange County Librarian John Adams said the county has filters on its 500 computers in 30 libraries. He said federal funds account for $35,000 of the system's $30-million budget -- not an amount, Adams said, that would compel the county to "cooperate or not."
"What I find disturbing about this is that the question [of filtering] is no longer to be decided by local residents," Adams said. "It runs counter to why I think libraries have been successful in reflecting the interests and standards of our communities."
