Two lawsuits filed March 20 ask a federal court to overturn a new law that mandates the use of Internet filtering software in public schools and libraries. If the misguided law survives the court challenge, it could easily end up damaging the education of many children.

Many sites on the Internet showcase ideas, activities and dialogue that may be inappropriate for children and teen-agers. In late December of last year, Congress and President Clinton responded by requiring the use of Internet filtering software in all schools and libraries that receive federal funds for computers and Internet access. But as many critics have noted, software filters can do a lot more harm than good.

Filtering software is infamous for blocking Web sites on subjects ranging from breast cancer to animal mating patterns merely because the sites contain words like “sex” or “breast.” Meanwhile, crafty porn sites that do not feature such keywords slip through filters undetected. One popular keyword filter blocks access to Web sites on topics such as campaign finance reform, the history of Memorial Day, and “How A Bill Becomes A Law.”

Programs that block on a site-by-site basis are equally problematic. Many of these restrict access to ideas that their creators find objectionable, for whatever reason. The “sex” category of one filter, for example, filters out pornography just as it blocks information on sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, which may be both appropriate and beneficial to students.

Software filters on school and library Internet terminals may hinder a student’s education in another way as well. While filters may protect kids from some of the filth on the Internet, they can’t teach kids how or why they should avoid such material at those inevitable times when they’re surfing without a filter.

These are just a few reasons a congressional committee appointed to study the topic declined to recommend mandatory filtering. Congress, however, chose to ignore their recommendations and passed the troublesome legislation as a federal rider to the Labor HHS Education Appropriations Bill. In a pattern that is all too common in Washington, opportunistic politics explains bad policies. But some groups are challenging the law.

Two legal challenges, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association, contend that the filtering law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. There’s a good chance the measure will be overturned, considering that a 1998 federal District Court ruling found mandatory filtering laws for public libraries to be unconstitutional.

Legislators should recognize that software filters are not a suitable alternative to education. A better plan would create school programs designed to help kids gain the decision-making skills to make safe and responsible choices when they are using the unfiltered Internet.

Schools can start by introducing acceptable use policies for the Internet and closely monitoring students’ usage to ensure that they are not accessing off-limit sites. By giving students the chance to choose right over wrong, schools can help students learn to make sound choices based on internalized control, not compulsion.

Already, more than 90 percent of school districts have adopted an acceptable use policy for the Internet, according to a recent Quality Education Data survey. And the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois reports that almost 95 percent of public libraries that offer Internet access have Internet use policies in place.

The same study shows that a full 80 percent of public libraries purposefully place computer terminals in open spaces to allow for monitoring, and 46 percent of the libraries surveyed offer Internet education classes.

Educational and disciplinary efforts will likely strengthen as local officials and constituents become more aware of the dangers of the Internet. The mandating of unreliable software filters, however, could work against this goal by creating a false sense of security among both parents and librarians.

Children should learn to exercise personal discipline and responsibility in life, and cyberspace is no exception. Instead of mandating the use of undependable software filters, legislators should require schools to teach kids to navigate away from the Internet’s dark side. To do otherwise would deprive kids of a chance to develop and exercise decision-making skills, valuable both online and off.

Helen Chaney is a public policy fellow in the Center for Freedom and Technology at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. She can be reached via email at hchaney@pacificresearch.org.