Just what is "sex" on the 'Net?

States are having a hard time controlling what could be considered the raunchier portions of the freewheeling Internet. Case in point: A federal judge struck down a Virginia law in February that barred state employees from using state-owned computers to surf sexually explicit Internet sites.

The law was intended to keep state workers from wasting time and state money on inappropriate Internet searches. But because it defined nudity as sexually explicit material, the law also affected material that professors at state colleges wanted to use in such courses as art history, human sexuality, English literature and psychology, according to Kent Willis, Virginia director, American Civil Liberties Union.

Six college professors and the ACLU filed the suit, arguing it was technically illegal for the Virginia instructors to do Internet research on nude portraits or classic literature that used erotic language. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that the law was overly restrictive of free speech even though the state allowed employees to apply for exemptions that would let them access explicit Web sites.

Meanwhile another storm is brewing in Loudoun County, Va., in a lawsuit filed by library patrons who have been denied access to information on breast cancer, sex education, and gay and lesbian rights, among other things, by a software screening program that cannot discriminate between obscene material and other information on sexual topics. Patrons have even been barred from the Yale University biology department as well as the Quaker site on the World Wide Web.

Richard Black, the library board member who wrote the policy, won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in a special February election after a campaign that made the policy a centerpiece.

A newly formed organization, SurfSmart! of Concord, Mass., has been calling for a new approach to Internet safety. The group advocates teaching children "common sense" Internet safety.

"Up until now, [child Internet safety] has been perceived as a problem to be tackled only by technological solutions - such as blocking software - or legal remedies - such as new laws or stepped-up surveillance by police," says Deborah Bier, director. "While these may be important tools, we believe they will never be more than partial solutions."