Because of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, patrons at the Austin Public Library may eventually notice a slight change if they're using the Internet.

Monday, the court ruled libraries that receive federal funds must install filters, which, for instance, would shield children from pornographic Web sites.

However, the decision is not without its critics, who object the ruling.

Ann Hokanson, the director at the public library, noted that parents are the ones who ultimately should be responsible for what their children view, and not libraries.

"It's a false sense of security," she said. "Filters are not perfect. It's important that parents and people that work with children know that a library computer is in a public place. I don't think that children should be unsupervised on a computer, but I don't think a filter is a good substitute for that, either."

Hokanson said the Southeastern Minnesota Libraries organization (SELCO) is the library's internet service provider, meaning it's up to that group whether or not the filter is installed. However, Hokanson said the filters will eventually be installed, because SELCO receives federal funds.

"The law doesn't talk about a timetable, so SELCO said it would respond as quickly as possible," Hokanson said. "But they will also take their time to implement their actions correctly."

More than 14 million Americans a year use public library computers, including many children, and the Supreme Court said patrons of all ages were being exposed to unseemly sex sites on the Web.

The 6-3 ruling leaves libraries scrambling to decide whether to comply with the law, which had been struck down last year by a three-judge panel.

Libraries had argued that the technology blocks a vast amount of valuable information about science, medicine and other topics along with dirty pictures. Still, those that buck Congress to avoid that will face a hefty penalty; libraries have received about $1 billion since 1999 in technology subsidies.

"It's biggest impact is going to be in rural communities with small libraries and urban communities with people who cannot afford to have their own computers at home," said Tulane constitutional law professor M. David Gelfand.

Andra Addison, spokeswoman for Seattle Public Library, said the library has already had to scale back.

"We've had cut after cut after cut. So $200,000 out of our budget may not seem significant, but with the budget hits we've had to take, that is really is significant. It's really tough," Addison said.

She said their system has some filters now, but only on computers used by children.

Some library systems, like the Los Angeles city library, already turn down federal funds. Others, like the Seattle system, receive several hundred thousand dollars a year.

Four justices said the law was constitutional, and two others said it was allowable as long as libraries disable the filters for adult patrons who ask. The law does not specifically require the disabling.

Judith Krug, with the American Library Association, said patrons may be embarrassed to request the filter change. "The fact that the librarian can flick a switch isn't going to change the stigma that's attached to it," she said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the Constitution "does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment."

Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer agreed with the outcome.

At a public library Monday, great-grandmother Susannah Clarke said she was glad the court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act.

"Sex is something that's like a gun: dangerous if you don't know how to use it. I'm all for them putting regulations in a public place," said Clarke, who visits her library branch in Washington, D.C., twice a week.

-- The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dan Fields can be reached at 434-2230 or by e-mail at dan.fields@austindailyherald.com