Cite as: 539 U. S. 194 (2003)
Souter, J., dissenting
children's section. Or a library in an elementary school might choose to put filters on every single one of its 10 computers. But under this statute, if a library attempts to provide Internet service for even one computer through an E-rate discount, that library must put filtering software on all of its computers with Internet access, not just the one computer with E-rate discount.
This Court should not permit federal funds to be used to enforce this kind of broad restriction of First Amendment rights, particularly when such a restriction is unnecessary to accomplish Congress' stated goal. See supra, at 223 (discussing less restrictive alternatives). The abridgment of speech is equally obnoxious whether a rule like this one is enforced by a threat of penalties or by a threat to withhold a benefit.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting.
I agree in the main with Justice Stevens, ante, at 225- 230 and this page (dissenting opinion), that the blocking requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act, 20 U. S. C. §§ 9134(f)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i); 47 U. S. C. §§ 254(h) (6)(B)(i) and (C)(i), impose an unconstitutional condition on the Government's subsidies to local libraries for providing access to the Internet. I also agree with the library appel-lees on a further reason to hold the blocking rule invalid in the exercise of the spending power under Article I, § 8: the rule mandates action by recipient libraries that would violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech if the libraries took that action entirely on their own. I respectfully dissent on this further ground.
I
Like the other Members of the Court, I have no doubt about the legitimacy of governmental efforts to put a barrier between child patrons of public libraries and the raw offer-
231
Page: Index Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007