In this case, the patron plaintiffs are not asserting a First Amendment right to compel public libraries to acquire certain books or magazines for their print collections.  Nor are the Web site plaintiffs claiming a First Amendment right to compel public libraries to carry print materials that they publish.  Rather, the right at issue in this case is the specific right of library patrons to access information on the Internet, and the specific right of Web publishers to provide library patrons with information via the Internet.  Thus, the relevant forum for analysis is not the library’s entire collection, which includes both print and electronic media, such as the Internet, but rather the specific forum created when the library provides its patrons with Internet access.  Although a public library’s provision of Internet access does not resemble the conventional notion of a forum as a well-defined physical space, the same First Amendment standards apply.  See Rosenberger v.  Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995) (holding that a state university’s student activities fund “is a forum more in a metaphysical than a spatial or geographic sense, but the same principles are applicable"); see also Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 801 (identifying the Combined Federal Campaign charity drive as the relevant unit of analysis for application of public forum doctrine). 3.  Content-based Restrictions in Designated Public Fora

Unlike nonpublic fora such as airport terminals, see Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v.  Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992), military bases, see Greer v.  Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976), jail grounds, see Adderley v.  Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966), the federal workplace, see Cornelius v.  NAACP Legal Def. & Educ.  Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 805 (1985), and public transit vehicles, see Lehman v.  City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974), the purpose of a public library in general, and the provision of Internet access within a public library in particular, is “for use by the public . . . for expressive activity,” Perry Educ.  Ass’n v.  Perry Local Educs.  Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983), namely, the dissemination and receipt by the public of a wide range of information.  We are satisfied that when the government provides Internet access in a public library, it has created a designated public forum.  See Mainstream Loudoun v.  Bd. of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552, 563 (E.D.  Va. 1998); cf.  Kreimer v.  Bureau of Police, 958 F.2d 1242, 1259 (3d Cir. 1992) (holding that a public library is a limited public forum).  Relying on those cases that have recognized that government has leeway, under the First Amendment, to limit use of a designated public forum to narrowly specified purposes, and that content-based restrictions on speech that are consistent with those purposes are subject only to rational basis review, the government argues for application of rational basis review to public libraries’ decisions