EVERETT — Everett Public Library director Mark Nesse is recommending that the library reject federal Internet funding rather than activate filters for sexually explicit material whenever kids under 17 use library computers.

The Sno-Isle Regional Library System is moving in the other direction.

The system’s board will vote Monday whether to accept a committee recommendation to require the filters even for teenagers and children whose parents say they want their kids to have uncensored access to the Internet.

The Sno-Isle system would lose about $8,300 if it does not comply with the act. The Everett library would lose $416 if it does not comply.

The library boards are reacting to a June U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which denies federal Internet funding to libraries that do not require filters for kids 16 and younger.

Act supporters say the filters are necessary to protect children from viewing pornographic images.

The Everett library board will meet Tuesday to vote on the issue. Three of the five board members said Thursday that they are leaning toward spurning the $416 in annual federal funding so the library can continue its policy of letting parents decide if their kids should have unfiltered access.

"A library is a bastion of free speech, and librarians as a group are against any sort of censorship," board President Rich Anderson said. "In my mind, this is a parenting decision."

Although the library would lose some federal funding if it does not comply, it would likely have to spend more than that reconfiguring its computers in order to comply with the act, Nesse said.

Everett librarians rarely have encountered library patrons using computers to access pornography, he added.

Under current policy, parents decide when applying for their children’s library cards whether to allow full access to the Internet. That information is coded on the library cards, and librarians turn on filters for minors whose parents request them.

The parents of more than 83 percent of library patrons under 18 choose filters. But the parents of nearly 1,300 children want full Internet access for their children, and Nesse said they, not the library and federal government, should decide what’s appropriate for their kids.

"If we were to comply with this law, parents would not have that choice for their kids," he said.

Rick Forcier, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Washington State, which supports filtering, said parents don’t always realize that kids can come across pornographic sites even if they’re not looking for them.

"It’s hard for adults in our homes and offices to not run across that stuff," he said. "Parents aren’t with their children 24 hours a day and depend upon the community at large to protect them."

Dan Anderson, an Arlington City Council member who has lobbied for filters, said it’s not just parents who should decide what material is transmitted through public library computers.

"We all pay taxes for these computers, and it’s a reasonable constraint to filter access to these things," he said.

The Supreme Court ruled that libraries requiring filters for children must let those 17 and older have the option of turning off the filters. But many adults would be embarrassed to make such a request, fearing the librarian would believe they were trying to access pornography, said Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, which fought the Children’s Internet Protection Act in court.

The devices not only block pornographic images, but also general information on homosexuality, breast cancer, menstruation, sexually transmitted diseases and other topics, Krug said. And just as spam filters don’t catch all spam, anti-pornography filters let some pornographic images get through, she said.

Sno-Isle board President Art Kirschenbaum also wondered whether the filters cast too wide a net.

"There is no doubt that the filters might filter out information that is age-appropriate and is needed for school purposes or for health purposes," he said. "I believe people should have as much information as possible, and it’s not up to the library to be policeman.

"This is a debate between free speech and adhering to the law of the land," said Kirschenbaum, who declined to say how he stands on the issue.

Jeanne Steffener, who as a member of Sno-Isle’s system services committee recommended that Sno-Isle comply with the act, said that, despite her recommendation, she hasn’t decided how to vote when the Sno-Isle board meets Monday.

The other board member who recommended mandatory filtering, Denise DuPont, did not respond to a request for an interview. The four other Sno-Isle board members either did not respond to requests for interviews or declined to state their positions.

Reporter David Olson: 425-339-3452 or dolson@heraldnet.com.