is “as diverse as human thought,” id. at 870, software filters single out for exclusion particular speech on the basis of its disfavored content.  We hold that these content-based restrictions on patrons’ access to speech are subject to strict scrutiny. 4.  Application of Strict Scrutiny Having concluded that strict scrutiny applies to public libraries’ content-based restrictions on patrons’ access to speech on the Internet, we must next determine whether a public library’s use of Internet software filters can survive strict scrutiny.  To survive strict scrutiny, a restriction on speech “must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.  If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government’s purpose, the legislature must use that alternative.”  United States v.  Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000) (citation omitted); see also Fabulous Assocs., Inc. v.  Pa.  Pub.  Util.  Comm’n, 896 F.2d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding that a content-based burden on speech is permissible “only if [the government] shows that the restriction serves a compelling interest and that there are no less restrictive alternatives").  The application of strict scrutiny to a public library’s use of filtering products thus requires three distinct inquiries.  First, we must identify those compelling government interests that the use of filtering software promotes.  It is then necessary to analyze whether the use of software filters is narrowly tailored to further those interests.  Finally, we must determine whether less restrictive alternatives exist that would promote the state interest. 1.  State Interests We begin by identifying those legitimate state interests that a public library’s use of software filters promotes.

1.  Preventing the Dissemination of Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Material Harmful to Minors

On its face, CIPA is clearly intended to prevent public libraries’ Internet terminals from being used to disseminate to library patrons visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or in the case of minors, harmful to minors.  See CIPA Sec. 1712 (codified at 20 U.S.C.  Sec. 9134(f)(1)(A) & (B)), Sec. 1721(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C.  Sec. 254(h)(6)(B) & (C)) (requiring any library that receives E-rate discounts to certify that it is enforcing “a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions” that are “obscene” or “child pornography,” and, when the computers are in use by minors, also protects against access to visual depictions that are “harmful to minors").