EVERETT — The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld public libraries’ use of filters to block adults from viewing a range of Internet content, but the ruling isn’t expected to change rules for computer users in Snohomish County libraries.

The court’s majority concluded libraries can refuse to disable filters without running afoul of the state constitution. In a 6-3 ruling, they said deciding which websites are accessible is much the same as deciding which magazines and books to stock on the shelves.

“A public library can decide that it will not include pornography and other adult materials in its collection in accord with its mission and policies and, as explained, no unconstitutionality necessarily results,” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the majority. “It can make the same choices about Internet access.”

The case centered on an Eastern Washington library district’s use of filters to bar adults from viewing pornography along with content about computer hacking, gambling and personal ads on Craigslist. Three library patrons challenged the policy saying the library was denying them access to constitutionally protected material.

Today, public libraries in Snohomish County allow adults — and in some cases minors — access to such sites.

And officials at Everett Public Library and the Sno-Isle Library District didn’t view Thursday’s ruling as an invitation to tighten those policies. “I don’t think there is anything in there that would require us to do anything different than we do now,” said Eileen Simmons, director of the Everett Public Library.

The library uses filters to keep young children from viewing social networking sites and e-mail as well as adult web sites, she said.

However, adults can view such content and parents can allow their children to do so, too, she said. “We let parents make the choice,” Simmons said.

In Sno-Isle libraries, those under the age of 17 are not going to have access to adult content such as pornography, said Community Relations Director Mary Kelly. Those 17 and over will, upon logging into a computer, be given a choice to have filtered or unfiltered Internet access, she said.

The district board adopted its policy in 2003 following a U.S. Supreme Court decision. That court upheld the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act, which requires public libraries to install Internet filters in order to receive federal money. That decision also made clear adults should be able to view constitutionally protected free speech online.

“Our board of trustees considered the issue for six years before finally having a policy,” Kelly said. “We think we have a solid policy that serves the community.”

The Washington case was sparked by a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington in 2006 against the five-county North Central Regional Library District in Eastern Washington. The U.S. District Court in Spokane asked the state Supreme Court to review the case.

The plaintiffs include a Ferry County woman who wanted to do research on tobacco use by youth; a professional photographer blocked from using YouTube and from researching art galleries and health issues; and an Okanogan man unable to get access to his blog, as well as information relating to gun use by hunters.

The ACLU represented three library users and the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation, arguing the district should be ordered to provide unblocked access to the Internet when adults request it.

The majority said libraries can but are not required to do so.

In dissent, state Supreme Court Justice Tom Chambers, relying on the 2003 Supreme Court ruling, said under the First Amendment, “the library’s filtering policy is at best doubtful and, I predict, will be struck down.”

Chambers wrote that censoring material on the Internet is not the same as declining to purchase a particular book.

“It is more like refusing to circulate a book that is in the collection based on its content,” he wrote.

He wrote that the entire filter should be removed if requested by an adult patron, because the state “has no interest in protecting adults from constitutionally protected materials on the Internet.”

“Concerns that a child might see something unfortunate on the screen must be dealt with in a less Draconian manner,” he wrote.

Reporter Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623; jcornfield@heraldnet.com.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FYI

The case is Sarah Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District, No. 82200-0. To read the decision, go to www.courts.wa.gov.