same terminal.  These problems, however, are not insurmountable.  While there is no doubt that privacy screens and recessed terminals impose additional costs on libraries, the government has failed to show that the cost of privacy screens or recessed terminals is substantially greater than the cost of filtering software and the resources needed to maintain such software.  Nor has the government shown that the cost of these alternatives is so high as to make their use prohibitive.  With respect to the problem of patrons removing privacy screens, we find, based on the successful use of privacy screens by the Fort Vancouver Regional Library and the Multnomah County Public Library, that it is possible for public libraries to prevent patrons from removing the screens.  Although privacy screens may make it difficult for patrons to work at the same terminal side by side with other patrons or with library staff, a library could provide filtered access at terminals that lack privacy screens, when patrons wish to use a terminal with others.  Alternatively, a library can reserve terminals outside of patrons’ sight lines for groups of patrons who wish unfiltered access.

We therefore conclude that the government has failed to show that the less restrictive alternatives discussed above are ineffective at furthering the government’s interest either in preventing patrons from using library computers to access visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or in the case of minors, harmful to minors, or in preventing library patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit speech. 4.  Do CIPA’s Disabling Provisions Cure the Defect?  The Government argues that even if the use of software filters mandated by CIPA blocks a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate state interest, and therefore fails strict scrutiny’s narrow tailoring requirement, CIPA’s disabling provisions cure any lack of narrow tailoring inherent in filtering technology.  The disabling provision applicable to libraries receiving LSTA grants states that “[a]n administrator, supervisor, or other authority may disable a technology protection measure . . . to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.”  CIPA Sec. 1712(a)(2) (codified at 20 U.S.C.  Sec. 9134(f)(3)).  CIPA’s disabling provision with respect to libraries receiving E-rate discounts similarly states that “[a]n administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the certifying authority . . . may disable the technology protection measure concerned, during use by an adult, to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose.”  CIPA Sec. 1721(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C.  Sec. 254(h)(6)(D)).