the library has acquired Internet access.  Id. at 793-94.  We disagree.  Nearly every librarian who testified at trial stated that patrons’ demand for Internet access exceeds the library’s supply of Internet terminals.  Under such circumstances, every time library patrons visit a Web site, they deny other patrons waiting to use the terminal access to other Web sites.  Just as the scarcity of a library’s budget and shelf space constrains a library’s ability to provide its patrons with unrestricted access to print materials, the scarcity of time at Internet terminals constrains libraries’ ability to provide patrons with unrestricted Internet access: 

The same budget concerns constraining the number of books that libraries can offer also limits the number of terminals, Internet accounts, and speed of access links that can be purchased, and thus the number of Web pages that patrons can view.  This is clear to anyone who has been denied access to a Website because no terminal was unoccupied.

Mark S. Nadel, The First Amendment’s Limitations on the Use of Internet Filtering in Public and School Libraries:  What Content Can Libraries Exclude?, 78 Tex.  L. Rev. 1117, 1128 (2000). 
        We have found that approximately 14.3 million Americans
access the Internet at a public library, and Internet access at public libraries is more often used by those with lower incomes than those with higher incomes.  We found that about 20.3% of Internet users with household family income of less than $15,000 per year use public libraries for Internet access, and approximately 70% of libraries serving communities with poverty levels in excess of 40% receive E-rate discounts.  The widespread availability of Internet access in public libraries is due, in part, to the availability of public funding, including state and local funding and the federal funding programs regulated by CIPA. 
       We acknowledge that traditional public fora have
characteristics that promote First Amendment values in ways that the provision of Internet access in public libraries does not.  For example, a significant virtue of traditional public fora is their facilitation of face-to-face communication.  “In a face-to-face encounter there is a greater opportunity for the exchange of ideas and the propagation of views . . . .”  Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 798.  Face-to-face exchanges also permit speakers to confront listeners who would otherwise not actively seek out the information that the speaker has to offer.  In contrast, the Internet operates largely by providing individuals with only that information that they actively seek out.  Although the Internet does not permit face-to-face communication in the same way that traditional public fora do, the Internet, as a medium of expression, is significantly more interactive than the broadcast media and the press. “[T]he Web makes it possible to establish two-way linkages with potential sympathizers.  Unlike the unidirectional nature of most mass media,