restricted on the ground that restricting speech will reduce
crime or other undesirable behavior that the speech is thought to
cause, subject to only a narrow exception for speech that "is
directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio,
395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam). "The mere tendency of
speech to encourage unlawful acts is insufficient reason for
banning it." Ashcroft, 122 S. Ct. at 1403.
Outside of the narrow "incitement" exception, the
appropriate method of deterring unlawful or otherwise undesirable
behavior is not to suppress the speech that induces such
behavior, but to attach sanctions to the behavior itself. "Among
free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent
crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not
abridgement of the rights of free speech." Kingsley Int'l
Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of the State of New York,
360 U.S. 684, 689 (1959) (quoting Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357,
378 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)); see also Bartnicki v.
Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 529 (2001) ("The normal method of deterring
unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate punishment on the
person who engages in it.").


4. Summary
In sum, we reject a public library's interest in preventing
unlawful or otherwise inappropriate patron conduct as a basis for
restricting patrons' access to speech on the Internet. The
proper method for a library to deter unlawful or inappropriate
patron conduct, such as harassment or assault of other patrons,
is to impose sanctions on such conduct, such as either removing