that public libraries' restrictions on patrons' Internet access are subject only to rational

basis review. 

Plaintiffs respond that the government's ability to restrict speech on its own

property, as in the case of restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, is not

unlimited, and that the more widely the state facilitates the dissemination of private

speech in a given forum, the more vulnerable the state's decision is to restrict access to

speech in that forum.  We agree with the plaintiffs that public libraries' content based

restrictions on their patrons' Internet access are subject to strict scrutiny.  In providing

even filtered Internet access, public libraries create a public forum open to any speaker

around the world to communicate with library patrons via the Internet on a virtually

unlimited number of topics.  Where the state provides access to a  vast democratic

forum[],  

Reno v. ACLU

, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), open to any member of the public to

speak on subjects  as diverse as human thought,  

id.

 at 870 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted), the state's decision selectively to exclude from the forum speech whose

content the state disfavors is subject to strict scrutiny, as such exclusions risk distorting

the marketplace of ideas that the state has facilitated.  Application of strict scrutiny finds

further support in the extent to which public libraries' provision of Internet access

uniquely promotes First Amendment values in a manner analogous to traditional public

fora such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, in which content based restrictions are always

subject to strict scrutiny.

Under strict scrutiny, a public library's use of filtering software is permissible only

12