The nation's librarians, set back by a Supreme Court ruling upholding requirements for Internet filters to block pornography, plan to step up pressure on software vendors to disclose more about how their products work.

Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, in Philadelphia, considers the moment "an opportunity for these companies to shed a little sunshine on what's going on."

Filtering vendors have historically given few details about their criteria for blocking sites, saying the information is proprietary.

That has raised concerns that private companies essentially will be implementing public policy in secret now that the Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. American Library Association. that the government can force libraries to install the blocking software or forfeit federal funds. Libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technology subsidies.

A lot of questions about the Court's ruling remain unanswered. The ruling does not provide guidelines to libraries, nor does it spell out specifics on the type of filter that would be required or how the government intends to enforce the requirement. The ALA said it was working on a plain-language version of the Supreme Court decision to give libraries some guidelines.

The library association and other critics fear that some filters have been designed with politically conservative or religious biases — a charge denied by leading vendors such as N2H2 Inc.

"We have spent literally tens of millions of dollars on compiling this list and keeping it up to date," said David Burt, an N2H2 spokesman. "We don't publish it because we don't want our competitors to take it."

He questioned whether the information was in demand at all. Of the hundreds of libraries and thousands of schools that have installed N2H2 filters, Burt said, none ever has asked to see their list.

The June 23 Supreme Court decision opens up a potentially lucrative new market for the vendors, as about 60% of the 9,000 library systems nationwide had been awaiting the Court’s ruling before deciding whether to install filters, according to the library group. The ruling boosted the stock prices of several filtering companies.

The ruling also may force the hand of filtering companies to show their block lists or risk losing business, Krug said. She said her group would recommend that libraries use only those that agree to disclose.

One company says it already shares such data.

Individuals “can choose based on their own beliefs and concerns," said Andrew Tull of Bellevue, Wash.-based BioNet Systems LLC. "We are not in the business of dictating morality."

BioNet's Net Nanny program allows authorized users, such as parents or librarians, to download lists of permitted and restricted Web sites and words, then add or subtract from that list. Tull said the feature should give the product an advantage in the minds of librarians and other critics who have likened filters to "electronic book-burning."

However, N2H2, SurfControl and other companies that keep their lists secret say they offer ways for people to check whether a particular site is blocked by simply typing in a Web address.

"The ruling itself does not change anything for SurfControl, but it does remove any doubt about the constitutionality of the law," said Susan Getgood, senior vice president at the California-based company.

Getgood said the company focuses on corporate accounts and doesn't expect any major push for libraries' business.

NetNanny, which has catered mainly to parents seeking safeguards for home computers, will be making a major play for libraries, Tull said.

Following is a sampling of other reaction to the Supreme Court decision from around the country.

Alaska: Fairbanks libraries reconsider porn filters
FAIRBANKS, Alaska — The Fairbanks North Star Borough is considering anti-pornography filters for Internet computers at its two libraries because of the Supreme Court’s decision allowing the federal government to withhold funding from libraries that do not have them.

The Noel Wien Public Library and the North Pole Branch Library are among an estimated 22 of 88 public libraries in the state affected by the decision.

Noel Wien director Greg Hill is studying the filters' effectiveness and cost. Hill will advise Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Rhonda Boyles on whether the library should purchase filters or forgo federal money.

Little of the library's $3.5 million budget is in jeopardy. The federal government pays for the library's Internet service provider, a subsidy of $2,795 this year.

"We want to comply with the law," Hill said. "At the same time, we want to maintain as much access for our customers as possible. We're going to try to do a balancing act."

The Supreme Court decision said adult computer users could ask that filters be shut off, although, as written, the Children’s Internet Protection Act does not mention such a provision.

Hill said even the best filters allow 10% of the problem sites to be displayed and also block some nonpornographic sites. Currently, the library's Internet computers have filters that can be turned on and off by users.

At the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, pornography blocks are already in place. The district bought the blocks after monitoring sites students and staff were viewing and finding that some were pornographic.

It's unlikely the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, which does not have anti-porn blocks, is affected by the Supreme Court decision, said Rheba Dupras, head of information services there.

"Our audience is adult," she said.

George Smith, acting state librarian, is advising public libraries on what the high court’s decision means and what filters are on the market. He's not telling communities whether to buy the filters. That decision lies with each community, he said.

"Some of the communities in our state will clearly not filter, and they'll just not ask for the federal (Internet provider money,)" he said.

Maine: Librarians question decision
AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine librarians say the Supreme Court provided a solution to a problem that doesn't exist when it endorsed a government policy to require public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.

Wendy Miller of the Charles Bailey Public Library in Winthrop said the decision "is like killing a mosquito with a semiautomatic machine gun."

At stake in Maine is about $3 million in annual federal funding that provides public libraries with Internet access and equipment.

Miller said Maine librarians don't tell their patrons what books they may or may not read. "Truthfully, I don't feel it is my role to decide what people view or don't view," she said.

"I feel like rights are being taken away from people," said Justina Nazar, director of the Ludden Memorial Library in Dixfield. "It's like Big Brother watching over you."

Elizabeth Pohl, director of Lithgow Library in Augusta, said filtering devices don't work on all sites and often block sites containing legitimate information, such as medical, art and graphics subjects.

"They overblock and underblock sites, and give the public a false sense of security," said Pohl, adding that "kids visiting porn sites is not a problem at Lithgow Library. It never has been."

Lewiston Public Library Director Rick Speer agreed, saying, "The filtering doesn't work."

Brewer Library Director Elise Adams said filters can be turned off if they prevent a child from getting access to material for a report, adding that "if a child runs into problems, there are plenty of books here."

Linda Lord, director of library development for the Maine State Library, said she was surprised the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision issued about a year ago that said libraries did not have to filter Internet access.

The Internet is a huge and growing source of information for library patrons, Lord said. She said she expected that some libraries would refuse to install filtering software and could instead seek to pay for their own Internet connections.

Currently, most public libraries in Maine receive free Internet connections paid for, in part, by about $3 million in annual federal funding.

The Maine Library Association's Web site says it endorses full and free access to the Internet in libraries.

Montana: Librarians determining effect of ruling
MISSOULA, Mont. — Public libraries across the state are reviewing how United States v. American Library Association will affect them.

At the Missoula Public Library, officials said they didn't believe the ruling would have any significant affect on their operations. That's because the library's funding is not based heavily on federal money allocated for Internet communications technology, said Claire Morton, the library's operations manager.

The library has one computer with Internet access available to children ages 8-12, located within sight of the children's librarian desk and unfiltered. Only once has a child accessed an inappropriate site and that child was reprimanded, she said.

Children age 7 and under are not allowed to use the computer without a parent present, said Linette Ivanovitch, a librarian in the young-adult section. For adolescents and teens ages 12-18, the library has two young adult computers. Both offer unfiltered access to the Internet.

Morton said she expected the ruling to affect some libraries more than others. Smaller libraries may feel greater shock waves than larger ones because they are more dependent on the federal dollars, she said.

The Bitterroot Public Library in Hamilton has no idea yet how the ruling would affect operations.

"It is way more complicated than the simple choice of, ‘Do we filter it or not?’," said Gloria Langstaff, library director.

Currently the library doesn't filter its Internet, but anybody under age 18 who uses the computers must sign an agreement to follow guidelines and have their parents sign a form that gives them permission to use the public computers.

"We've never had a problem with it," Langstaff said. "We've been very proud of our record and the use of our computers. We don't want to filter at all. Filtering is not the answer. If it were, we'd all do it."

Langstaff is concerned what a filtering system would mean to the library's budget. "We're already having to cut this year," she said.

At the Great Falls Public Library, no filters are used because they don't block all inappropriate Web sites and sometimes block educational sites, library officials said.

"The remarkable thing to me is that in the eight years that we've had Internet access available for the public, we've had virtually no complaints about any type of problem," said director Jim Heckel.

Parmly Billings Library already has Internet filters in the children's section and the Teen Pit, said director Bill Cochran, but he also was concerned about their effectiveness.

"There are different types of filters, and we don't know if (the ruling) sets a standard," Cochran said. "There is a lot of interpretation and detail to be identified."

New Mexico: Tough decisions ahead
SANTA FE — The U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Children's Internet Protection Act is creating a tough decision for New Mexico's public libraries.

The decision, some argue, boils down to a choice between money and freedom of expression.

"Who are we to say what you should or shouldn't look at?" said Marilyn Reeves, director of the library in Espanola.

Acting state Librarian Heather Gallegos-Rex said hard-pressed libraries might be tempted to comply with the ruling, but, "I know more who will not filter under any circumstances."

Librarians and other First Amendment advocates opposed the law's filtering requirement, arguing that the software available to libraries not only screens out offensive material but legitimate content as well.

"It's censorship," said Susan Sheldon, director at the Vista Grande Public Library in the rural Santa Fe county subdivision of Eldorado. "The filters aren't reliable."

Critics warned that serious researchers would boycott libraries that filter their Internet-access computers.

Reeves said the decision "is a very tough one," especially for her library that got $30,000 in federal E-rate subsidies to set up a technical center.

Espanola is among the dozens of communities in New Mexico that receive federal subsidies under the government's E-rate program.

In Portales, the library is expecting $6,500 in Internet-access discounts next year from the federal government. Librarian Denise Burnett included the E-rate subsidies in the $180,000 budget she submitted for the fiscal year that began July 1.

She said it was too late to cut her budget now. "This year, I have almost no option," Burnett said.

If libraries are required to install the filters immediately then "we are going to have to do it," she said. But in the future, Burnett said she planned to go without the federal money.

She said librarians feel it is parents' responsibility to monitor their children's use of the Internet. But Portales, like other New Mexico libraries, still has an Internet-use policy forbidding displays of graphic nudity on library computer screens. It has revoked library privileges of violators about a dozen times since 1995. Unlike some other libraries in the state, it does not require parental permission for children to use the computers.

"We believe your age doesn't matter," Burnett said. "You are a user of the library, and we try to give everybody equal access and equal respect."

Gallegos-Rex said the state had received more than $800,000 in E-rate discounts in the last five years. The amount is based on the community's poverty level.

In New Mexico, no participating library receives less than a 50% discount and some receive as much as 90%.

"This is huge," Gallegos-Rex said.

North Dakota: Committee will discuss filters
BISMARCK, N.D. — State Librarian Doris Ott says a special committee on filtering will help libraries deal with the Supreme Court ruling on filters.

Ott said most libraries already have filters on computers in their children's section.

"We'll be working with the Information Technology Department to set up a statewide filter because we cooperate with them to connect libraries across the state," she said.

Oklahoma: No funds for filters
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Supreme Court’s filtering ruling has left local libraries saying they need guidance and funds.

Ada Public Library needs the federal Internet-access money because it has none in this year's budget for filters. The library has two of its 10 public computers filtered — the ones used by children — and now must find a way to put filters on all the computers, even staff computers.

"The law indicates that this is something that we will have to do to get our E-rate money," said Jennifer Greenstreet, library manager in Ada. "I'm just going to have to cut back somewhere else to pay for this."

Ada is not alone. Many independent libraries have called the Oklahoma Department of Libraries asking what to do.

"Since this is in the middle of June, most of the libraries have already made their budgets for the next year," said Vicki Mohr, public library consultant at Oklahoma Department Libraries. "This is basically an unfunded mandate. Right now they can't apply for federal E-rate money."

Mohr said E-rate money currently pays for forms of telecommunications, but does not pay for computers or filtering software.

The $2.5 million that is distributed annually to libraries comes from surcharges on consumers' telephone bills, said Susan McVey, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries.

The Supreme Court ruled on the Children's Internet Protection Act, a 2000 law authored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. Micah Swafford, Istook's press secretary, said the libraries have been receiving federal money since the law was passed in 2000 — even if they did not install filters — because it was not being enforced pending the Supreme Court challenge.

Swafford said that money should be paying for filters. "These dollars were appropriated for software, computers and computer access," she said.

Norman Public Library does not have filters because its board of trustees has decided against them.

"We don't feel like the filters actually work because there is no guarantee that filters will keep out the obscenity or that they will keep the good content," said Andrew Peters, associate director for technology.

E-rate money goes directly to the library's Internet service provider and lowers its bill, Peters said. He said the cost of installing filters could equal the money saved on the Internet bill if the library continues not to filter.

Librarians still will have to intervene if someone is viewing something objectionable no matter if filters are there or not, he said.

Vermont: Librarians wary for patrons’ sake
BARRE, Vt. — Some librarians say a Supreme Court decision that will require them to install pornography filters on computers will limit their patrons' right to freely access information.

Some local librarians say they already have procedures in place to protect children, and say federal interference will do more harm than good. They say the software filters limit access to many non-pornographic sites dealing with subjects including breast and prostate cancer.

"This is extremely upsetting," said Hillary Farrington of Montpelier's Kellogg-Hubbard Library. "The solution at Kellogg-Hubbard has been to keep all computers in public areas and we've had absolutely no problems. The filters filter out odd (non-pornographic) things as well and no one can understand why."

Farrington played down some justices’ suggestion that adult patrons could ask the library to turn off the filtering on their computer for the length of their session. "They filter out things like breast and prostate cancer (sites) and to have to go to a librarian and ask for the filtering to be turned off in those situations can be humiliating."

Gail Weymouth, librarian at the Sherburne Public Library in Killington and chairwoman of the Vermont Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, said the decision would have a serious effect on poorer communities where libraries rely on federal money.

Any library that fails to conform with the law will lose discounts on telecommunications costs.

"Once again, it's the haves and the have-nots," she said. "People who need information the most are going to suffer. Communities that rely on federal money, like in the Northeast Kingdom (region of Vermont), are going to be hit very hard."

Librarian Karen Lane, who oversees the Aldrich Public Library in Barre, says that parents, not libraries or the federal government, should monitor their children's access.

"The parent is the best person to be making these decisions," she said. "None of these filters have been shown to be foolproof in removing pornography and (they) also filter out important content."

Washington: Filter rejects town’s name as porn
YAKIMA, Wash. — Don't bother trying to find Toppenish on the Internet using filtered computers in Yakima Valley Regional Library System — even at the library in Toppenish.

"Bess," a widely used anti-pornography filter installed on some of the regional library's terminals, zeros in on the fourth through eighth letters and blocks any site mentioning the lower Yakima Valley town as inappropriate for children.

Director Monica Weyhe said the high court’s filtering ruling is likely to have little impact on the 19-library south-central Washington system because, like most others in the state, it is funded almost entirely by local property taxes.

Out of a $4.5 million budget, the Yakima system receives roughly $40,000 in federal telecommunications reimbursements and as little as $3,500 may be affected by the requirement, she said.

Installing Bess on all of the library's 193 staff and public computers would likely cost a lot more than giving up the subsidy, Weyhe said.