manner analogous to traditional public fora such as streets,
sidewalks, and parks, in which content-based restrictions are
always subject to strict scrutiny.


Under strict scrutiny, a public library's use of filtering
software is permissible only if it is narrowly tailored to
further a compelling government interest and no less restrictive
alternative would serve that interest. We acknowledge that use
of filtering software furthers public libraries' legitimate
interests in preventing patrons from accessing visual depictions
of obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of minors,
material harmful to minors. Moreover, use of filters also helps
prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently
offensive, sexually explicit content on the Internet.


We are sympathetic to the position of the government,
believing that it would be desirable if there were a means to
ensure that public library patrons could share in the
informational bonanza of the Internet while being insulated from
materials that meet CIPA's definitions, that is, visual
depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or in the case of
minors, harmful to minors. Unfortunately this outcome, devoutly
to be wished, is not available in this less than best of all
possible worlds. No category definition used by the blocking
programs is identical to the legal definitions of obscenity,
child pornography, or material harmful to minors, and, at all
events, filtering programs fail to block access to a substantial
amount of content on the Internet that falls into the categories