## Facts

- A county public library system provided patrons Internet access through library computers under the control of its Board of Trustees.
- The Board adopted a policy requiring all library Internet computers to use blocking software (X-Stop) to prevent access to sites displaying child pornography, obscenity, and material deemed harmful to juveniles.
- The policy also barred patrons from accessing “pornography,” required computer placement in view of staff, and authorized staff to contact police if a patron refused to stop viewing prohibited material.
- Patrons and a nonprofit association alleged the software blocked access to constitutionally protected, non-obscene content, including advocacy, religious, and public-interest websites.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the mandatory filtering policy violated the First Amendment by restricting access to lawful speech through a public library.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged standing and a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on blocked access to Internet content at the library.
2. Whether mandatory Internet filtering in a public library implicates the First Amendment, or instead falls within the library’s broad discretion to select and provide materials.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an unconstitutional content-based restriction in a public forum or limited public forum such that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper.

## Decision

- The court denied the Board’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court held the plaintiffs adequately alleged injury and state action sufficient to proceed under § 1983.
- The court rejected the argument that Internet-access restrictions in a public library are categorically outside First Amendment scrutiny.
- Accepting the pleadings as true, the court concluded plaintiffs stated a claim that the policy operated as a content-based restriction on access to protected speech and could not be rejected as constitutional as a matter of law at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff states a § 1983 claim by plausibly alleging that a defendant acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.
- Public library policies governing patron access to Internet content can implicate the First Amendment when they function as restrictions on access to speech rather than as selective acquisition decisions.
- Content-based restrictions on speech access in a forum opened for expressive activity are subject to heightened scrutiny; on a motion to dismiss, a court generally will not resolve contested forum classification or justification where the complaint plausibly alleges unconstitutional overbreadth.
- Allegations that filtering blocks substantial protected speech for adults, based on subject matter or viewpoint-sensitive criteria, plausibly state a First Amendment claim and defeat dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a First Amendment and § 1983 challenge to proceed where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that mandatory filtering on all public library Internet computers blocked adults’ access to protected speech and operated as a content-based restriction that could not be upheld at the pleading stage.


Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. of Trs. of Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Libr., 2 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Va. 1998)