did not prevent the viewing of sexually explicit materials in the
library, the Board at one point considered discontinuing Internet
access in the library. The Board finally concluded that the
methods that it had used to regulate Internet use were not
sufficient to stem the behavioral problems that it thought were
linked to the availability of pornographic materials in the
library. As a result, it implemented a mandatory filtering
policy.


We note, however, that none of the libraries proffered by
the defendants presented any systematic records or quantitative
comparison of the amount of criminal or otherwise inappropriate
behavior that occurred in their libraries before they began using
Internet filtering software compared to the amount that happened
after they installed the software. The plaintiffs' witnesses
also testified that because public libraries are public places,
incidents involving inappropriate behavior in libraries (sexual
and otherwise) existed long before libraries provided access to
the Internet.
2. Methods for Regulating Internet Use
The methods that public libraries use to regulate Internet
use vary greatly. They can be organized into four categories:
(1) channeling patrons' Internet use; (2) separating patrons so
that they will not see what other patrons are viewing; (3)
placing Internet terminals in public view and having librarians
observe patrons to make sure that they are complying with the
library's Internet use policy; and (4) using Internet filtering
software.
The first category – channeling patrons' Internet use –