From: Bill Lucy 

I, for one, am happy with today's Supreme Court decision in US v. ALA. I've read
all 5(!) opinions and I honestly think that Justice Breyer said it best in
this paragraph from his concurring opinion:

"At the same time, in my view, the First Amendment does not here
demand application
of the most limiting constitutional approach–that of “strict scrutiny.” The
statutory restriction in question is, in essence, a kind of “selection”
restriction
(a kind of editing). It affects the kinds and amount of materials that the library
can present to its patrons. See ante, at 6—7, 10—11 (plurality opinion).
And libraries often properly engage in the selection of materials, either
as a matter
of necessity (I.e., due to the scarcity of resources) or by design (I.e.,
in accordance with collection development policies). See, e.g., 201 F.
Supp. 2d, at
408—409, 421, 462; ante, at 6—7, 11 (plurality opinion). To apply “strict scrutiny”
to the “selection” of a library’s collection (whether carried out by public
libraries themselves or by other community bodies with a traditional legal
right to
engage in that function) would unreasonably interfere with the discretion necessary
to create, maintain, or select a library’s “collection” (broadly defined to include
all the information the library makes available). Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co.
v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256—258 (1974) (protecting newspaper’s exercise
of editorial control and judgment). That is to say, “strict scrutiny”
implies too limiting and rigid a test for me to believe that the First
Amendment requires it in
this context."

He goes on to a limiting argument based on "editorial" grounds.
IMO, it's like restricting access to, say, a Supreme Court decision.
Libraries and librarians do
that properly all the time. The same is true of access limits on the Internet.

Realistically, it will not change what libraries do in providing
information. Anyone may ask that filters be "turned off".

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4