records that would enable it to know which patrons made unblocking requests, but does

not use that information to connect users with their requests.  Biek also testified that he

periodically scans the library's Internet use logs to search for: (1) URLs that were

erroneously blocked, so that he may unblock them; or (2) URLs that should have been

blocked, but were not, in order to add them to a blocked category list.  In the course of

scanning the use logs,  Biek has also found what looked like attempts to access child

pornography.  In two cases, he communicated his findings to law enforcement and turned

over the logs in response to a subpoena.  

At all events, it takes time for librarians to make decisions about whether to honor

patrons' requests to unblock Web pages.  In the libraries proffered by the defendants,

unblocking decisions sometimes take between 24 hours and a week.  Moreover, none of

these libraries allows unrestricted access to the Internet pending a determination of the

validity of a Web site blocked by the blocking programs.  A few of the defendants'

proffered libraries represented that individual librarians would have the discretion to

allow a patron to have full Internet access on a staff computer upon request, but none

claimed that allowing such access was mandatory, and patron access is supervised in

every instance.  None of these libraries makes differential unblocking decisions based on

the patrons' age.  Unblocking decisions are usually made identically for adults and

minors.  Unblocking decisions even for adults are usually based on suitability of the Web

site for minors. 

It is apparent that many patrons are reluctant or unwilling to ask librarians to

49