03/02/2020 UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. Americans … . [It is] intended, for example, to provide the ability to browse library collections, review the collections of museums, or find new information on the treatment of an illness, to Americans everywhere via … libraries”). 6. These holdings, which Justice Stevens ignores, also make clear that his reliance on Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62 (1990), Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), is misplaced. See post, at 8. The invalidated state action in those cases involved true penalties, such as denial of a promotion or outright discharge from employment, not nonsubsidies. 7. Relying on Velazquez, Justice Stevens argues mistakenly that Rust is inapposite because that case “only involved and only applies to … situations in which the government seeks to communicate a specific message,” post, at 9, and unlike the Title X program in Rust, the E-rate and LSTA programs “are not designed to foster or transmit any particular governmental message.” Post, at 10. But he misreads our cases discussing Rust, and again misapprehends the purpose of providing Internet terminals in public libraries. Velazquez held only that viewpoint-based restrictions are improper “ ‘when the [government] does not itself speak or subsidize transmittal of a message it favors but instead expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.’ ” 531 U.S., at 542 (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 834 (1995) (emphasis added)). See also 531 U.S., at 542 (“[T]he salient point is that, like the program in Rosenberger, the LSC [Legal Services Corporation] program was designed to facilitate private speech …” (emphasis added)); Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 229 (2000) (“ The University of Wisconsin exacts the fee at issue for the sole purpose of facilitating the free and open exchange of ideas”); Rosenberger, supra, at 830, 834 (“ The [Student Activities Fund] is a forum”; “[T]he University … expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers”). Indeed, this very distinction led us to state in Southworth that that case did not implicate our unconstitutional conditions jurisprudence. 529 U.S., at 229 (“The case we decide here … does not raise the issue of the government’s right … to use its own funds to advance a particular message”). As we have stated above, supra, at 9—10, public libraries do not install Internet terminals to provide a forum for Web publishers to express themselves, but rather to provide patrons with online material of requisite and appropriate quality. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZO.html 11/13