prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its
goals." Playboy, 529 U.S. at 816; see also Reno, 521 U.S. at 879
("The breadth of this content-based restriction of speech imposes
an especially heavy burden on the Government to explain why a
less restrictive provision would not be as effective . . . .");
Fabulous Assocs., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 896 F.2d 780,
787 (3d Cir. 1990) ("We focus . . . on the more difficult
question whether the Commonwealth has borne its heavy burden of
demonstrating that the compelling state interest could not be
served by restrictions that are less intrusive on protected forms
of expression.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).



We find that there are plausible, less restrictive
alternatives to the use of software filters that would serve the
government's interest in preventing the dissemination of
obscenity and child pornography to library patrons. In
particular, public libraries can adopt Internet use policies that
make clear to patrons that the library's Internet terminals may
not be used to access illegal content. Libraries can ensure that
their patrons are aware of such policies by posting them in
prominent places in the library, requiring patrons to sign forms
agreeing to comply with the policy before the library issues
library cards to patrons, and by presenting patrons, when they
log on to one of the library's Internet terminals, with a screen
that requires the user to agree to comply with the library's
policy before allowing the user access to the Internet.
Libraries can detect violations of their Internet use
policies either through direct observation or through review of