public libraries to violate the First Amendment, the plaintiffs
contend that given the limits of the filtering technology, CIPA's
conditions effectively require libraries to impose content-based
restrictions on their patrons' access to constitutionally
protected speech. According to the plaintiffs, these content-
based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny under public
forum doctrine, see Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of
Va., 515 U.S. 819, 837 (1995), and are therefore permissible only
if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state
interest and no less restrictive alternatives would further that
interest, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997). The
government responds that CIPA will not induce public libraries to
violate the First Amendment, since it is possible for at least
some public libraries to constitutionally comply with CIPA's
conditions. Even if some libraries' use of filters might violate
the First Amendment, the government submits that CIPA can be
facially invalidated only if it is impossible for any public
library to comply with its conditions without violating the First
Amendment.


Pursuant to CIPA, a three-judge Court was convened to try
the issues. Pub. L. No. 106-554. Following an intensive period
of discovery on an expedited schedule to allow public libraries
to know whether they need to certify compliance with CIPA by July
1, 2002, to receive subsidies for the upcoming year, the Court
conducted an eight-day trial at which we heard 20 witnesses, and
received numerous depositions, stipulations and documents. The
principal focus of the trial was on the capacity of currently
available filtering software. The plaintiffs adduced substantial