At first glance, the Children’s Internet Protection Act might seem like a sensible way to help protect youngsters from online pornography and other inappropriate materials while using computers at public schools and libraries.

Passed as part of the $450 billion appropriations bill approved just before Congress adjourned, the bill mandates that every public school and every public library in the nation must install filtering software or forfeit federal funds that help pay for Internet access and other telecommunications services. The software would block access to Web pages that publish materials deemed unsuitable for minors because it is sexually or violently graphic, or promotes “hate group” agendas. And who could oppose that? Don’t we want to protect impressionable minds from perverted images or, even worse, from predators who skulk about the online world, waiting to entice vulnerable youngsters?

The question isn’t whether we need protective strategies, however; the question is who do we trust to decide which strategies to employ? Do you want those decisions made by federal bureaucrats and for-profit software companies salivating at the sudden windfall driven by this legislation? Or should parents, local school and library officials and others concerned about the issue have the flexibility to develop policies for their own particular communities?

It’s ironic that many conservative congressmen who tout local control and greater parental involvement in children’s issues have backed this or similar legislation. While Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), the main proponents of the law, have tried to suggest that it will give local schools and libraries the leeway to “customize” filters, it strips away the right of Rowan and other counties to decide what works best for them. In Rowan County, for example, the school system already uses a software filtering system. That works well in its case, but schools serve a very specific population with similar research needs. The Rowan County Library, on the other hand, has an Internet use policy that requires minors to have their parents’ permission before using online terminals and prohibits all patrons from viewing unsuitable materials. Those who do lose library privileges. That policy has worked well here — so well, in fact, that it has helped libraries elsewhere develop their own Internet use policies.

Are either of those systems perfect? No — no system is. Some library patrons will violate the rules, and all filtering systems have flaws, either failing to block out unsuitable sites or blocking out legitimate sites that patrons should be able to access.

What’s particularly onerous is that this version of the Children’s Internet Protection Act supplanted a much less heavy-handed measure approved earlier in the Senate. Under that bill, proposed by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), communities had the discretion to set policies for their schools and libraries.

Unfortunately, cooler heads did not prevail in the House. We are thus left with this ill-conceived legislation that was tucked away in a major budget bill and quietly passed without debate. It will provoke plenty of debate now, however, as the ACLU, the American Library Association and other groups challenge the law’s Constitutionality. Even if it’s upheld in court, however, that will be a hollow victory, considering how it erodes parental rights and runs roughshod over local control of important community institutions.