Should we accept federal money to install filters on library computers that limit public access to porn sites? Even the

128-year-old American Library Association, the group that now includes 64,000 librarians and library patrons, is starting to say yes.

The Minneapolis Public Library Board voted last month to install filtering software on the public access computers, reasoning — correctly — that protecting access to all sites — including ones that contain porn — isn't as important as securing federal funds.

The librarians at the Corvallis-Benton County Public Library are pondering whether to accept the $4,000 in telecommunications discounts that would come from installing

filters.

It shouldn't be an anguished decision. Even those who would bleed to defend our nation's freedom of speech guarantees are not pained at the notion of limiting access to pornographic sites, especially for children. Yes, the filters are technically flawed and could limit access to some legitimate sites as well. But with the oceans of Web sites out there, the omitted sites likely won't amount to a raindrop.

The filters can be turned off and on. Adults who request the ability to do searches without a filter still could do so.

Besides, pornography never has been afforded the same total legal protection that rightfully applies to most other forms of spoken, printed or broadcast material.

And although the definition of what is obscene still occasionally sparks a lively court debate, it would be downright funny to watch a lawyer trying to defend the porn sites available on the Web under the now-quaint "socially redeeming content" test.

Only the most devoted libertine would try to argue that what appears on Internet porn sites is intended to do anything other that arouse. It's reasonable not to want kids under 17 to be accidentally running into this stuff online, but to continue to allow adults the option of Web searching unfettered — and unfiltered.