“objectionable,” “racially offensive,” or simply “inappropriate.”  Other libraries restrict access to Web sites that the library just does not want to provide, even though the sites are not necessarily offensive.  For example, the Fulton County Public Library restricts access to the Web sites of dating services.  Similarly, the Tacoma Public Library’s policy does not allow patrons to use the library’s Internet terminals for personal email, for online chat, or for playing games.  In some cases, libraries instituted Internet use policies after having experienced specific problems, whereas in other cases, libraries developed detailed Internet use policies and regulatory measures (such as using filtering software) before ever offering public Internet access.  Essentially four interests motivate libraries to institute Internet use policies and to apply the methods described above to regulate their patrons’ use of the Internet.

First, libraries have sought to protect patrons (especially children) and staff members from accidentally viewing sexually explicit images, or other Web pages containing content deemed harmful, that other patrons are viewing on the Internet.  For example, some librarians who testified described situations in which patrons left sexually explicit images minimized on an Internet terminal so that the next patron would see them when they began using it, or in which patrons printed sexually explicit images from a Web site and left them at a public printer.  Second, libraries have attempted to protect patrons from unwittingly or accidentally accessing Web pages that they do not wish to see while they are using the Internet.  For example, the Memphis-Shelby County (Tennessee) Public Library’s Internet use policy states that the library “employs filtering technology to reduce the possibility that customers may encounter objectionable content in the form of depictions of full nudity and sexual acts.”

Third, libraries have sought to keep patrons (again, especially children) from intentionally accessing sexually explicit materials or other materials that the library deems inappropriate.  For example, a study of the Tacoma Public Library’s Internet use logs for the year 2000 showed that users between the ages of 11 and 15 accounted for 41% of the filter blocks that occurred on library computers.  The study, which we credit, concluded that children and young teens were actively seeking to access sexually explicit images in the library.  The Greenville Library’s Board of Directors was particularly concerned that patrons were accessing obscene materials in the public library in violation of South Carolina’s obscenity statute.  Finally, some libraries have regulated patrons’ Internet use to attempt to control patrons’ inappropriate (or illegal) behavior that is thought to stem from viewing Web pages that contain sexually explicit materials or content that is otherwise deemed unacceptable.  We recognize the concerns that led several of the public libraries