Most Baltimore area librarians are united in their opposition to a congressional attempt to require them to adopt software filters or other methods to screen children from Internet pornography.

Some area libraries are using software to block children's access to Internet pornography, but most feel that decisions on what might be blocked and how to block it should be left to individual libraries.

The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to consider a 2000 law that would deny federal Internet technology funding for libraries that don't use filters.

The local librarians say they are committed to protecting children and wish the government would trust administrators, boards and community members to make suitable policies.

"This should be a local issue and not a national issue," said Jim Fish, director of the Baltimore County Public Library.

It was a sentiment echoed at libraries in Howard and Anne Arundel counties and Baltimore City.

"We offer Internet use at the Howard County Public Library that is unfiltered," director Valerie J. Gross said. "We believe this serves our community very well.

"It seems to me that it's difficult to determine at [the federal] level what is appropriate for individual communities."

The Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore and the Anne Arundel County Public Library don't use filters either. All three rely on policies banning pornography and enforcement by librarians.

The Baltimore County library has a policy plus filters on most of its computers. They are usually activated in areas children are likely to use and, because patrons requested it, turned off in other areas, Fish said.

The Carroll County library has opted for filters on all 80 computers with public Internet access.

"The library's board of trustees felt it was the right choice for Carroll County," said Ann Wisner,a library spokeswoman. She said the filters can be taken off if someone asks, but she has heard of few complaints.

Like Carroll, Harford County uses filters on all of its terminals, with tougher limits on those used by children.

Whether they use filters or not, virtually all area libraries rely on education to steer children away from pornography, violence, hate sites or other potentially harmful Internet content.

Brochures and classes help parents and children learn safe surfing habits, while library Web sites and children-friendly search engines direct youngsters to appropriate online resources.

Beyond that, "we believe the parent is the child's best filter," Gross said.

If the Supreme Court supports the legislation, some libraries, such as Anne Arundel's, will continue their current policy because they don't plan to receive money from the federal "E-rate" technology program that is tied to the legislation.

Gross said the Howard County library is willing to forgo $2,800 it qualified for under the program if it is asked to spend an estimated $8,700 to install filtering software and $20,000 in yearly personnel costs to maintain it.

But many libraries across the United States rely on the $255 million the program has provided over the past four years to libraries and schools in discounted Internet technology. More money is given to low-income and rural areas.

The Enoch Pratt Free Library is reluctant to give up an average $500,000 in funding even as it faces hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade and maintain a filtering system, said Carla D. Hayden, director of Enoch Pratt.

Baltimore County wants to apply for E-rate funding in the future, having received $80,000 two years ago. It has not applied since then.

A big part of the argument is whether filters really work.

Opponents worry that imperfect programs still let in inappropriate sites and block out good ones, including ones on health, social issues and politics. Breast cancer and Super Bowl XXX are common examples of incorrectly blocked topics.

"Existing filters that are out today will filter out important information for the entire public," said Hayden, who is also president-elect of the American Library Association. That group challenged the law in court with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We don't want parents to have a false sense of security," Gross said. With more than 1 million new Web sites each day, "technology can't keep up."

But Baltimore County sees the filters as filling an important role in stopping the majority of objectionable sites.

"Our approach is people need choices," Fish said, " ... and parents need some assistance with what those choices might be."

Carroll and Harford are happy with their filter systems, which block a list of Internet addresses rather than looking for keywords on the site. The libraries are able to identify the categories of material they want to block

"I think, for the most, part filters work well," Wisner said. "They've come a long way."

But others think filters aren't the answer.

"We're just as concerned as anyone about protecting children," Hayden said, "but we're also concerned that everyone get access to the information they need."