E rate discounts serve the similar purpose of extending Internet access to schools and

libraries in low income communities.  CIPA requires that libraries, in order to receive

LSTA funds or E rate discounts, certify that they are using a  technology protection

measure  that prevents patrons from accessing  visual depictions  that are  obscene, 

 child pornography,  or in the case of minors,  harmful to minors.   20 U.S.C.  

9134(f)(1)(A) (LSTA); 47 U.S.C.   254(h)(6)(B) & (C) (E rate).  

The plaintiffs, a group of libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web

site publishers, brought this suit against the United States and others alleging that CIPA is

facially unconstitutional because: (1) it induces public libraries to violate their patrons'

First Amendment rights contrary to the requirements of 

South Dakota v. Dole

, 483 U.S.

203 (1987); and (2) it requires libraries to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a

condition on the receipt of federal funds and is therefore impermissible under the doctrine

of unconstitutional conditions.  In arguing that CIPA will induce public libraries to

violate the First Amendment, the plaintiffs contend that given the limits of the filtering

technology, CIPA's conditions effectively require libraries to impose content based

restrictions on their patrons' access to constitutionally protected speech.  According to the

plaintiffs, these content based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny under public forum

doctrine, 

see Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va.

, 515 U.S. 819, 837 (1995),

and are therefore permissible only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling

state interest and no less restrictive alternatives would further that interest, 

see Reno v.

7