the library's Internet use logs after the fact, which alleviates
the need for library staff to directly confront patrons while
they are viewing obscenity or child pornography.


Similar less restrictive alternatives exist for preventing
minors from accessing material harmful to minors. First,
libraries may use the tap-on-the-shoulder method when minors are
observed using the Internet to access material that is harmful to
minors. Requiring minors to use specific terminals, for example
in a children's room, that are in direct view of library staff
will increase the likelihood that library staff will detect
minors' use of the Internet to access material harmful to minors.
Alternatively, public libraries could require minors to use
blocking software only if they are unaccompanied by a parent, or
only if their parent consents in advance to their child's
unfiltered use of the Internet. "A court should not assume
that a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be
ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full
information, will fail to act." Playboy, 529 U.S. at 824.
In contrast to the "harmful to minors" statute upheld in
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), which permitted
parents to determine whether to provide their children with
access to material otherwise prohibited by the statute, CIPA,
like the Communications Decency Act, which the Court invalidated
in Reno, contains no exception for parental consent:
[W]e noted in Ginsberg that "the prohibition against
sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from
purchasing the magazines for their children." Under
the CDA, by contrast, neither the parents' consent –