to enforce the policy by means of a  tap on the shoulder.  Prior to adopting its current

Internet Use Policy, the Board adopted an  Addendum to Current Internet Use Policy.  

Under the policy, the Board temporarily instituted a two hour time limit per day for

Internet use; reduced substantially the number of computers with Internet access in the

library; reconfigured the location of the computers so that librarians had visual contact

with all Internet accessible terminals; and removed the privacy screens from terminals

with Internet access. 

Even after the Board implemented the privacy screens and later the  tap on the 

shoulder  policy combined with placing terminals in view of librarians, the library

experienced a high turnover rate among reference librarians who worked in view of

Internet terminals.  Finding that the policies that it had tried did not prevent the viewing

of sexually explicit materials in the library, the Board at one point considered

discontinuing Internet access in the library.  The Board finally concluded that the

methods that it had used to regulate Internet use were not sufficient to stem the behavioral

problems that it thought were linked to the availability of pornographic materials in the

library.  As a result, it implemented a mandatory filtering policy.  

We note, however, that none of the libraries proffered by the defendants presented

any systematic records or quantitative comparison of the amount of criminal or otherwise

inappropriate behavior that occurred in their libraries before they began using Internet

filtering software compared to the amount that happened after they installed the software. 

The plaintiffs' witnesses also testified that because public libraries are public places,

43