law enforcement, in the appropriate case. Less restrictive
alternatives to filtering that further libraries' interest in
preventing minors from exposure to visual depictions that are
harmful to minors include requiring parental consent to or
presence during unfiltered access, or restricting minors'
unfiltered access to terminals within view of library staff.
Finally, optional filtering, privacy screens, recessed monitors,
and placement of unfiltered Internet terminals outside of sight-
lines provide less restrictive alternatives for libraries to
prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to sexually
explicit content on the Internet.
In an effort to avoid the potentially fatal legal
implications of the overblocking problem, the government falls
back on the ability of the libraries, under CIPA's disabling
provisions, see CIPA Sec. 1712 (codified at 20 U.S.C. Sec. 9134(f)(3)),
CIPA Sec.1721(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 254(h)(6)(D)), to unblock
a site that is patently proper yet improperly blocked. The
evidence reflects that libraries can and do unblock the filters
when a patron so requests. But it also reflects that requiring
library patrons to ask for a Web site to be unblocked will deter
many patrons because they are embarrassed, or desire to protect
their privacy or remain anonymous. Moreover, the unblocking may
take days, and may be unavailable, especially in branch
libraries, which are often less well staffed than main libraries.
Accordingly, CIPA's disabling provisions do not cure the
constitutional deficiencies in public libraries' use of Internet
filters.


Under these circumstances we are constrained to conclude