Washington ? The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would decide whether the government could restrict Internet surfing at public libraries, the third case pitting free-speech concerns against efforts to shield children from online pornography to reach the justices.

The court will resolve whether federal funding can be stripped from libraries that don’t install filters on computers to block sexually explicit Web sites.

The decision would affect more than 14 million people a year who use public library computers to do research, send and receive e-mail, and, in some cases, log on to adult sites.

A three-judge federal panel in Pennsylvania ruled last spring that the Children’s Internet Protection Act violates the Constitution’s First Amendment because the filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other nonpornographic topics.

The judges recommended less restrictive ways to control Internet use, such as requiring parental consent before minors are allowed to log in on an unfiltered computer or having a parent monitor a child’s Web use.

“The filtering turns the Internet into something fit for a 5-year-old, and not even that. It blocks enormous amounts of protected speech,” said Charles Sims, a First Amendment lawyer in New York. “Congress can’t get it right.”

Lawmakers have passed three child protection laws since 1996, but the Supreme Court struck down the first and blocked the second from taking effect. Those dealt with regulations on Web site operators.

The new law regulates only libraries that receive federal funds. Two years ago, lawmakers attached the protection law to a large spending bill. They said the federal government should not subsidize the spread of hard-core pornography.

Among other action Tuesday, the justices:

• Agreed to decide whether the government can withhold information on some gun purchases and crimes, including details of database checks like those used to track weapons in the Washington-area sniper case.
• Refused to consider whether workers can be forced to pay for union organizing activities in other workplaces against their wishes.
• Heard arguments from lingerie retailer Victoria’s Secret that a Kentucky store named Victor’s Secret improperly infringed on its trademark. Victor’s Secret is owned by Victor and Cathy Moseley.