the patron from the library, revoking the patron's library
privileges, or, in the appropriate case, calling the police. We
believe, however, that the state interests in preventing the
dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of
minors, material harmful to minors, and in protecting library
patrons from being unwillingly exposed to offensive, sexually
explicit material, could all justify, for First Amendment
purposes, a public library's use of Internet filters, provided
that use of such filters is narrowly tailored to further those
interests, and that no less restrictive means of promoting those
interests exist. Accordingly, we turn to the narrow tailoring
question.
2. Narrow Tailoring


Having identified the relevant state interests that could
justify content-based restrictions on public libraries' provision
of Internet access, we must determine whether a public library's
use of software filters is narrowly tailored to further those
interests. "It is not enough to show that the Government's ends
are compelling; the means must be carefully tailored to achieve
those ends." Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S.
115, 126 (1989). "[M]anifest imprecision of [a] ban . . .
reveals that its proscription is not sufficiently tailored to the
harms it seeks to prevent to justify . . . substantial
interference with . . . speech." FCC v. League of Women Voters
of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 392 (1984).
The commercially available filters on which evidence was
presented at trial all block many thousands of Web pages that are
clearly not harmful to minors, and many thousands more pages