Members of the task force studying internet access at the Central Library gave a preliminary update on their work on Monday. Their report, in essence: they've talked to city and county attorneys and to county and library information technology staff. Specifics will come when they release their final report, expected by April 12.

The group was formed after County Executive Maggie Brooks threatened to pull $7.5 million from the library last month. Her reason: a television report that adults were viewing what Brooks considered inappropriate material using library computers.

It's likely that the task force got conflicting opinions from the city and county attorneys. The county has argued that unrestricted access exposes too many people -- particularly children -- to objectionable material. The city and central library officials argue that this is a matter of free speech, and that people have a right to view legal material without restriction. That view is shared by the American Libraries Association.

"There are definitely First Amendment rights that need to be taken into account," says Jeffrey Eichner, a municipal attorney with the city.

In addition, filters can block important health information -- on breast or testicular cancer, for example.

Also at issue: a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the Children's Internet Protection Act. The law requires any library receiving federal funding for internet connections to install filtering software on the computers. But there's disagreement about the court ruling.

The city and the library argue that the ruling requires librarians to turn off the filters if an adult patron requests it. The county argues that the ruling says libraries may -- but are not required to -- disable the filters at the request of adult patrons.

County attorney Daniel DeLaus Jr. did not return City Newspaper's calls seeking an interview.

City attorney Eichner says that patrons should have a right to view the material they wish, unless it is illegal or it is not protected speech. How that would be done in the future is up to the task force, he says.

In some cases, there is no question that some material should be blocked, he says: child pornography and obscenity, as defined legally, for example. And children should be treated differently when it comes to internet access, says Eichner. When they use a library computer, it should be filtered

But one of the issues that the task force has to grapple with, he says, is how a subject like this is even addressed. The decision to bring the internet into a library, he says, is similar to a library's decision about whether to purchase a particular book. Just as they once had to do with a book like "Lolita," libraries at one point had to decide whether to connect their facilities to the internet.

With most libraries already wired, the decision now is whether and how to restrict information. That decision could be similar to deciding whether to rip offensive pages out of "Lolita," a once controversial novel now considered a classic by many.

"Once you make the decision to get the internet into the library," asks Eichner, "does that sort of tie you into everything that comes with the internet?"