Blocking the blockers.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Contrary to the claims of strident critics, Congress was not trying to play the role of a civil liberties-trampling "Big Brother" two years ago when it attempted to protect children from the very real threat of Internet pornography in public libraries across the country. Federal lawmakers were well justified in expressing concern about vulnerable youngsters being exposed to the cyberfilth that's readily available on the Internet.

But even the best of intentions can result in abysmal legislation. Such was the case with the Children's Internet Protection Act, which a federal court panel rightly struck down last week as unconstitutional.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that the government may not require public libraries to install pornography-blocking filters on computers, because the technology is so imprecise and so flawed that it violates library users' First Amendment rights.

The law, which was contested by the Multnomah County Public Library and the American Library Association, would have forced 9,000 libraries across the nation to install software filters to prevent access to child pornography and materials considered obscene or harmful to minors. Public libraries that refused would have forfeited much-needed federal funding for computers and Internet access.

While concern about the vulnerability of children to Internet pornography is valid, Congress erred, as Congress so often does, by imposing a one-size-fits all solution. Lawmakers ignored the reality that the vast majority of public libraries in Oregon and the rest of the nation already have thoughtful, largely effective Internet-use policies, some of which include filters, child-friendly Web pages and monitoring by library employees.

The law also made no distinctions between computers used by adult patrons and those used by children. That presented librarians with the intolerable choice of violating the constitutional rights of adult patrons by installing pornography filters or forfeiting their share of the more than $2 billion that the federal government provides each year in technology grants to school and public libraries.

In approving the law, gullible lawmakers were bamboozled by rigged demonstrations that convinced them that commercial software was available that could block hard-core pornographic sites without also blocking access to legitimate sites. That wasn't - and isn't - the case. Internet filters remain ineffective, and they routinely block access to medical, political and arts information. Knowledgeable computer users, both young and old, can easily find ways to breach the fire walls of even the best filtering system.

The Justice Department should abandon any plans to appeal the federal court ruling. Attorney General John Ashcroft should reflect on the U.S. Supreme Court's record of taking strong First Amendment stances on matters concerning the Internet - and then tend to more pressing matters.

As for Congress, the Children's Internet Protection Act marked the body's third effort since 1996 to protect children from Internet pornography. Congress should also read the legal tea leaves and leave the protection of kids to local librarians, teachers and parents who are infinitely better equipped than the federal government to determine what content is unacceptable for children and how to protect them from it.