To apply public forum doctrine to this case, we must first determine whether the appropriate forum for analysis is the library’s collection as a whole, which includes both print and electronic resources, or the library’s provision of Internet access.  Where a plaintiff seeks limited access, for expressive purposes, to governmentally controlled property, the Supreme Court has held that the relevant forum is defined not by the physical limits of the government property at issue, but rather by the specific access that the plaintiff seeks:  Although . . . as an initial matter a speaker must seek access to public property or to private property dedicated to public use to evoke First Amendment concerns, forum analysis is not completed merely by identifying the government property at issue.  Rather, in defining the forum we have focused on the access sought by the speaker.  When speakers seek general access to public property, the forum encompasses that property.  In cases in which limited access is sought, our cases have taken a more tailored approach to ascertaining the perimeters of a forum within the confines of the government property.  Cornelius v.  NAACP Legal Def. & Educ.  Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 801 (1985).

Thus, in Cornelius, where the plaintiffs were legal defense and political advocacy groups seeking to participate in the Combined Federal Campaign charity drive, the Court held that the relevant forum, for First Amendment purposes, was not the entire federal workplace, but rather the charity drive itself.  Id. at 801.  Similarly, in Perry Education Association v.  Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), which addressed a union’s right to access a public school’s internal mail system and teachers’ mailboxes, the Court identified the relevant forum as the school’s mail system, not the public school as a whole.  In Widmar v.  Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), in which a student group challenged a state university’s restrictions on use of its meeting facilities, the Court identified the relevant forum as the meeting facilities to which the plaintiffs sought access, not the state university generally.  And in Christ’s Bride Ministries, Inc. v.  Septa, 148 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 1998), involving a First Amendment challenge to the removal of advertisements from subway and commuter rail stations, the Third Circuit noted that the forum at issue was not the rail and subway stations as a whole, but rather the advertising space within the stations.  Id. at 248.  Although these cases dealt with the problem of identifying the relevant forum where speakers are claiming a right of access, we believe that the same approach applies to identifying the relevant forum where the parties seeking access are listeners or readers.