a public library might have a compelling interest in protecting
library patrons and staff from unwilling exposure to sexually
explicit speech that, although not obscene, is patently
offensive.
3. Preventing Unlawful or Inappropriate Conduct
Several of the librarians proffered by the government
testified that unfiltered Internet access had led to occurrences
of criminal or otherwise inappropriate conduct by library
patrons, such as public masturbation, and harassment of library
staff and patrons, sometimes rising to the level of physical
assault. As in the case with patron complaints, however, the
government adduced no quantitative data comparing the frequency
of criminal or otherwise inappropriate patron conduct before the
library's use of filters and after the library's use of filters.
The sporadic anecdotal accounts of the government's library
witnesses were countered by anecdotal accounts by the plaintiffs'
library witnesses, that incidents of offensive patron behavior in
public libraries have long predated the advent of Internet
access.


Aside from a public library's interest in preventing patrons
from using the library's Internet terminals to receive obscenity
or child pornography, which constitutes criminal conduct, we are
constrained to reject any compelling state interest in regulating
patrons' conduct as a justification for content-based
restrictions on patrons' Internet access. "[T]he Court's First
Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds,
between ideas and conduct." Ashcroft, 122 S. Ct. at 1403. First
Amendment jurisprudence makes clear that speech may not be