Overshadowed by its decisions in two University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Monday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Internet pornography is still important and useful in protecting children from the wilder regions of the World Wide Web.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices rejected a constitutional challenge to a law that requires libraries that receive federal funds to install software on their computers that blocks sexually explicit Web sites.
Civil libertarians and some library officials had worried that the filtering law was the thin edge of the wedge of federal censorship, which might in the future screen out politically incorrect material as well as pornography.
There was also a concern that some filtering software designed to suppress pornography actually blots out important medical sites -- the classic example is a search for the term "breast" that might block Web sites about breast cancer.
On the other side of the scales of justice was a legitimate concern that children using a public library might happen on -- or even seek out -- raunchy sites on the Internet. In upholding the filtering law, the Supreme Court gave legitimate weight to that concern, while also protecting the rights of adult library customers.
Only four justices gave unqualified support to the law. Two others upheld it on the assumption that adult library customers would be able to ask librarians to remove the filter when they wanted to search the Web. Three other justices would have struck down the law.
Piecing together the opinions, even the American Civil Liberties Union -- while insisting that the filtering law amounted to censorship -- reacted in a measured way to the ruling. The ACLU's senior staff attorney saw a "silver lining" in the fact that the justices "essentially rewrote the law to minimize its effect on adult library patrons."
In Western Pennsylvania, the Carnegie Library system has been using filters on computers in children's sections while reminding parents that they have a responsibility to monitor their children's Internet use.
Even if the local system has to add filters to more computers, the rights of adults can still be protected. Presumably, if an adult wants to use a computer to browse the Web without the filter, he will be able to ask for it to be removed. The Supreme Court was right to conclude that such a minimal inconvenience does not rise to the level of a First Amendment violation.
E-mail this story 
