SafeLibraries

ALA OIF's Barbara Jones Misleads Entire Nation to Think Library Porn is Not a Problem While Library Filters Are

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:10:00 +0000

Barbara Jones, the Director of the American Library Association's [ALA] Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF], has just used a major media platform to try to convince the entire nation that library porn is not a problem while library filters are. I quote her then respond with reliable sources to prove my assertions. You have to read these sources for yourselves to understand just how misleading and insidious is the ALA leader's attempt to turn the truth on its head.

First, here is the propaganda piece itself:

"Libraries, Sexual Content and the Internet: Striking a Balance Between Rights, Access, and Comfort," by Barbara Jones, Director, ALA Office For Intellectual Freedom, Huffington Post, 25 January 2012.

Now here is my response to this misinformation. Read the sources, then decide for yourselves:

"Recent sensational media reports about 'porn in libraries' do not reflect the reality of library services today or promote meaningful dialogue in our communities." This from the ALA's OIF that refuses to assist librarians and library workers under assault, literally, from the porn-promoting policies of local libraries following ALA diktat, like in Birmingham, AL: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/08/birmingham-needs-another-mlk-moment-no.html

"U.S. libraries are law-abiding public institutions that have earned the public trust year after year." No. False. A very few libraries follow ALA OIF advice to skirt the law and end up defrauding the federal government of millions of dollars. For example, every single library in Michigan getting federal government funding under "CIPA" for Internet Access is likely defrauding taxpayers, you and me: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/04/michigan-libraries-at-risk-of-massive-e.html

"Child pornography, obscenity, and materials deemed 'harmful to minors' are illegal and not knowingly available in libraries." Now that is false. Consider Maria Pagan, Holyoke Public Library Director, who covered up for a guy viewing child pornography: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/getting-away-with-murder-in-holyoke-ma.html

And then there's Barbara Jones's immediate predecessor, Judith Krug, the creator and four decade leader of the OIF, who said, "A librarian is not a legal process. There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography." http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libraries-vs-police-in-a-suit-sparked-by-porn-1093410.php

So one leader says child pornography is "not knowingly available" and the previous leader says librarians cannot judge what is child pornography. Are you starting to get the picture of just how misleading is this misinformation by the ALA OIF's new leader?

"An ideal example is the word, 'breast,' which many filters block. The problem is that in addition to blocking what might be offensive content, the filter also blocks 'breast cancer.'" Now this lady has gone from misleading people to flat out lying. She is lying. She is in the very position to know better, and she chooses instead to lie, so she is purposefully lying. Even the ACLU admits filters are 95% effective and no longer filter out health-related information: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf

"Filtering Internet content, though it is not an ideal solution. .... Librarians are trained to spot problems with public Internet use and work with others to uphold the library's written Internet use policies." Did I not just quote Judith Krug as saying librarians are in no position to judge child pornography? Here is another Krug quote, this one showing librarians do the exact opposite of what the new OIF leader just said, "I have a real problem when people say, 'Well I walked by and you should have seen what was on the computer screen.' Well, don't look, sweetie. It's none of your business. Avert your eyes." http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/011897library-florida.html

Further, the case that found filtering to be legal, US v. ALA—http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html—and notice Barbara Jones tellingly does not mention this case—says the opposite of what Jones says. The case says filters are the best means for achieving the desired end, and other means are less effective or counter effective. Jones says they are "not ideal," they "won't do it for them," then offers librarians as the ideal solution, even though the OIF's creator and four decade leader said people are to avert their eyes and librarians are not in a position to make judgments even if they did look. So one OIF director says librarians are the solution while another says, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children. I am adult. I want available what I need to see." Nice, huh? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-23/news/0506230234_1_library-board-president-library-officials-magazine

"Working closely with law enforcement, Trustees, and other community stakeholders." The misinformation continues from this ALA OIF leader. No, they do not work closely with law enforcement since they are directed not to assist: "As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws. Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts...." http://www.ala.org/template.cfm?section=otherpolicies&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&contentid=13098

What a disgrace. Here is the ALA OIF leader saying the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court said in the case the ALA lost big that I linked above. Here is the ALA misleader, Barbara Jones: "If you are a librarian or trustee, you know that there are all sorts of ways to design library space with such devices as recessed screens and pie-shaped carrels to meet the Internet access and privacy needs of the entire community and still offer First Amendment protection for the right to access needed information." That is flat out false. It is disgraceful that the OIF leader herself should make such a flat out false statement. Why can she not simply address the issue in a truthful manner? How can anyone believe a word the ALA OIF says? Here is what the US Supreme Court said, and notice that it directly contradicts the very ideas put forth by the ALA leader: "In any case, the suggested alternatives have their own drawbacks. Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid. Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography. To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so."

"Make it easier for patrons to" "view online pornography." So Barbara Jones, ALA's OIF leader, is using the loud megaphone of the Huffington Post to push false information that makes it easier for library patrons to view pornography, and it is right there in the US Supreme Court's own words. I'm just the messenger. At the same time she is lying that filters do not work.

"The American Library Association can provide materials to assist in such civic engagement initiatives." Right. Like the ALA just informed the entire nation the exact opposite of what US v. ALA says. Where is Alan M. Dershowitz when you need him—this ALA has got real chutzpah.

So, to sum up, the first sentence is, "Recent sensational media reports about 'porn in libraries' do not reflect the reality of library services today or promote meaningful dialogue in our communities." The rest of her words were spent on trying to convince people that is not the case and that Internet filters are ineffective. Given the reliable sources I have provided, are you convinced porn is not a problem in libraries, or filters do not work? Are you suspicious why the ALA is trying to convince people that filters do not work, the exact opposite of what US v. ALA says? Is the ALA OIF influencing your own local community public library?

And don't forget, Know the ALA.

As an aside, a librarian from a prominent NJ library asked me for my opinion on this Barbara Jones piece. She said, "I honestly want to understand both sides. I think ala does a lot of good, but is not always right." I agree. But she stopped talking after realizing she was using the library's Twitter account instead of her personal one. I hope she doesn't get fired for having an open mind and speaking with me. Isn't it sad librarians are afraid to speak with me? Some aren't, however, and I hear from quite a few. Talk to me! I don't bite!

Follow @SafeLibraries

High School Student on Censorship

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:28:00 +0000

I received a hand-signed letter from a high school student that is so outstanding I decided to publish it, as is, eliding only her name, and without comment from me. I only added a graphic that goes with her theme and any hyperlinks I could find. Enjoy:

Dear Mr. Kleinman,

My name is H P and I feel very strongly about the issue of censorship; generally I am against it. I feel that, although some discretion is necessary for certain age groups, people should be free to enjoy the literature of their choice, regardless of the fact that some find it inappropriate. I feel that censorship should not be practiced in a society that preaches the right to information and individuality.

In my brief sixteen years, I have met many parents, all with different view points on raising their kids. Yet one common ideal they all express, albeit to different degrees, was the protection of their child's innocence. I realize that there are some extremely sick people out there who are the authors/originators of a lot of disgusting things. My objections are not against pornographical items, simply literature that is unfairly judged and refused to people who are willing to read it. I also realize that discovering all that is out there is a process that progresses with maturity and I respect parent's efforts to ease into that process. However, a lot of the parents I have encountered take it to the extreme, demanding that because a certain book contains details they believe to be too mature for their child, the chance of reading it should be denied to hundreds of other kids whose parents might feel differently. And it could not be simpler to do so. It is as simple as someone saying, "Don't let anyone read this book . . . because I object to it!' (American Library Association). Most libraries are lacking in some incredible stories, such as The Call of the Wild, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Gone with the Wind, and Of Mice and Men, despite the fact that they are literature classics and amazing reads. The book, Slaughterhouse Five by Sarah Vonnegut, relating the story of a Nazi POW barrack, was recently banned to the restricted section of school libraries in Republic, MO where it will only be available for check out by parents/guardians (National Coalition Against Censorship). This may solve any concerns parents may have about their children reading it behind their backs, but what about the other students whose parents allow, and even encourage, them to read such book? Because of this, "ridiculous notion of a 'compromise', a 17 year-old will have to bring Mom or Dad to check out books of inarguable artistic and educational merit" (National Coalition Against Censorship). Most American teenagers have a very busy life, what with school, homework, and extracurricular activities. Parents as well have a day full of work and little time off. If someone wanted to read that book, where would they find the time to ask their parents down to the school to check it out? Where would their parents find time to oblige? Because of one parent's over concern this student has now lost the opportunity to read what might have been a very good, eye opening book.

Even fun books like the Harry Potter series are being challenged. Parents do not like the idea of their kids being exposed to witchcraft and some violence displayed in the books. Some people even went far enough to burn and/or cut up some of the books. Most kids are not happy about this. A young lady named Amanda posted on a website regarding the Jesus Party's Anti-Harry Potter Conference and Book Cutting, "They're saying that this book is violent what do they think they are showing by cutting up the books!!!!!" (kidspeakonline.org). Statistics show that classic books are more likely to be challenged (angelfire.com). Books such as Ivanhoe and Uncle Tom's Cabin, amazing stories with themes and plots that are challenged because of some material that may be unpleasant. While the material may be inappropriate for younger ages, it is generally not directed towards such an age group. Such books can usually be found in junior high and high school libraries depending on content. Themes exposed in junior high might be of some small issue, but in high school, the idea of banning books is ludicrous. In high school we truly discover who we are and grow into mature adults. If we are seen as too young to be exposed to certain themes, when will we ever be ready? Most people do not realize that, "Censorship is always a dangerous thing. It can, mentally, hinder someone's right to knowledge" (angelfirecom). Protecting the innocence of a child is one thing, but where do we cross the line from protection to denial of rights? As an American, I have the right to express myself in my own way, whether through what I say, wear, or do. Most express themselves through what they say, acting on their right to free speech. In any given case, you are going to find someone who disagrees with an opinion. And yet when someone goes so far as to silence that opinion, they are doing more harm than good. What they do not realize is "Yes, supporting freedom of speech means you may have to hear and see expression that you don't like. But if you cave in to censorship, you will still hear expression[sic] you don't like- from the Powers That Be- and be left without a voice to counter it. Don't be fooled" (Feminists Against Censorship). Personally, I express myself through what I read. When I am denied the chance of reading a book I think to be interesting because someone whom l have never met before has a problem with a bad word here and there, it really ticks me off. If someone has a problem with a book, why not just put it down. Why would they ruin the chance to read it for someone who might be able to see past the questionable language and some mild adult content and truly enjoy the story. Just because they did not enjoy it, does not mean anybody else will.

Censorship is becoming a big issue in our society and I am glad that I have had the chance to attempt to open your eyes to the repercussions. I hope you will encourage parents to continue doing what they think is best for their child, while keeping in mind that it is not the same for everyone. Although parents have a right to be concerned about the materials their children are being exposed to, not all parents have the same view on how much is too much. Censorship restricts our exposure to new ideas and restricts our access to information. But most of all, censorship restricts our growth as human beings. Thank you for listening.

Respectfully,

/s/

H P

Follow @SafeLibraries

Guidance for Plaistow Public Library Director, Trustees, Patrons, and Local Government on the Legality of Filtering Porn Out of Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:27:00 +0000

Dear Plaistow Public Library Director,

I have just read an article about a library porn incident in your Plaistow Public Library, Plaistow, NH:

"Porn in Library Startles Patrons," by Jason Schreiber, Union Leader, 7 January 2012.

It says a Board of Trustees meeting will occur Monday night to discuss the incident. This email is intended to provide you, the Board, the patrons, and the Plaistow government, with information some may find enlightening. I will publish this for others to see as well. My knowledge of the specific facts pertaining to the immediate incident draw mainly from the Union Leader article, so I'll quote from that, then comment.

"Workers at the Plaistow Public Library got a surprise last week when a printer began spitting out pages of pornography." Please note that librarians and library employees may consider this to be sexual harassment and may file EEOC complaints or civil suits:

"Police were notified of the incident, but Deputy Police Chief Kathleen Jones said no crime was committed because the images involved adult pornography, which isn't illegal." Yes, that is true, but that does not mean a public library has to allow such activity even if legal. More on that soon.

"Librarians say they’re not in the business of monitoring what people do on library computers, and most don’t have filters to censor Web sites." Yes, librarians need not necessarily monitor what people do. "Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid." Rather, there are perfectly legal and effective means to block certain material from library computers, as the quote intimates, and it not "censorship."

When the media write about "filters to censor Web sites," they have stopped reporting on facts and entered the world of opinion. In other words, the story provides a spin that has more to do with the viewpoint of the writer than the law and the reality of the situation. In reality, with properly configured Internet filters, no "censorship" occurs. Besides, even if a web site is inappropriately blocked, the law (discussed below) specifies a patron can simply ask for the site to be unblocked. By the way, besides the text, the title of the Union Leader article presents an inaccurate picture. An accurate and more interesting title would have been, "Porn in Library Startles Librarians."

Further, a site blocked here or there does not compare with the sites the library itself blocks and no one even notices. There is something called the "Deep Web." It consists of seven eighths of the entire Internet. Google does not reach into the Deep Web. However, there are specialized means of reaching into the Deep Web. Libraries often make absolutely no effort to employ those specialized means. So libraries themselves may be blocking eight times as much information as could ever be blocked by filters. I am not impressed that a filter blocks one or two sites while libraries block millions by not helping patrons navigate the Deep Web. Besides, a patron can ask for an unblock anyway.

"Like most libraries, the Plaistow library has a policy spelling out the rules for Internet use." Be honest. No perpetrator ever follows those policies/rules. I know of case after case of "surprised" library directors who proclaim the "acceptable use policy" should have stopped the inappropriate activity. Examples:

Internet filters work to filter out inappropriate material—acceptable use policies do not. Such policies are effective, however, in making people feel good that something is being done. (The same goes for "privacy screens.") I think having an effective means to manage a public library is better than having policies that make it appear an effective means is in place. Indeed, many libraries claim they do not use filters because they do not want parents to be lulled into a sense of security—exactly what they are doing themselves with acceptable use policies. It is a double standard. As long as the Plaistow Public Library continues to place its trust in a piece of paper, incidents like the one that occurred will continue to occur, and eventually some child, patron, or library worker will be seriously harmed. If your town is worried about liability, think about the consequences if something like that should happen, especially now with the library and town government being put on notice of the uselessness of paper policies and the double standard used to defend them.

"The policy states that use of library computers to access obscene material, child pornography or material that is harmful to minors is prohibited." Obviously the policy had no effect on the guy printing out the obscene material. Obviously the paper policy is useless.

"'We felt that by printing and then leaving them in the library without picking them up, it was almost a challenge for the staff. Someone had to take those copies out of the printer. We were definitely surprised at how many pages were printed,' she said." "Almost"? Continue to downplay such incidents and eventually legal action may be taken, as illustrated above.

And they guy didn't pay for those copies. Isn't that theft? After all, libraries will send the police after five year olds for overdue books:

"Cops in MA Sent to Retrieve Overdue Library Books from 5-Year-Old," by Ken MacLeod, CBS Boston WBZ-TV, 2 January 2012.

"Gavrish said she’s been director for about a year and in that time has had to speak to only a few people who were accessing what were believed to be inappropriate sites." So that establishes that there are numerous incidents. At this point it should be obvious that the "acceptable use policy" is not only a failure, but is already known by the library to be a failure. So to the extent the library continues to promote its policy as effective, it is knowingly misleading the public, and possibly intentionally.

"In most libraries I've been in the feeling is it's a public library and we're not here to monitor what people do. We're here to provide access to free information. We just don't feel it's up to us to decide what people can look at." Since when is pornography considered "information"? Since when did libraries adopt an "anything goes" policy despite community standards? "We just don't feel it's up to us to decide what people can look at." That's nice you feel that way, but you are in a position of public trust. You need to act in light of that public trust, else you are violating that public trust. You may most certainly and legally block pornography from public libraries, you simply refuse to do so.

Dean Marney

You see, public libraries are not open public fora where anything goes. They are "quasi" public fora where, among other things, pornography may be legally blocked using Internet filters. It has been nine years since this was decided by the US Supreme Court in US v. American Library Association (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html). Nine years. No library director can possibly be unaware of this. It makes me think your actions as library director to mislead the public are not only knowing, but also intentional. To be clear, US v. ALA said, "[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."

Even major media is catching on to the misinformation and calling for the placement of filters in public libraries:

"LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries"

Here is library director Dean Marney, for example, who speaks out about the "dogma" the American Library Association [ALA] and its acolytes use to mislead people, so library directors are definitely aware of US v. ALA:

"Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma"

Your own patrons are finding out about this now too, thanks to me:

"While no crime was committed, Plaistow police said they would still like to know who printed the images so they can run the name through the sex offender registry because some offenders aren’t allowed to be viewing pornography." Valid point (except perhaps for theft of services for the unpaid copies). However, many libraries intentionally destroy such information or fail to collect it in the first place, or make its retrieval difficult, having been guided to do so by the ALA:

"Libraries Aid and Abet Pedophiles, Destroy Evidence, Retaliate Against Whistle Blowers, Claim Dubious Privacy and Free Speech Rights; ALA At Fault"

"The New Hampshire State Library also has an Internet acceptable use policy that says it doesn't censor legal activities." Again, such policies do not work. Again, it is not censorship to comply with US v. ALA and filter out pornography from public libraries. The NHSL saying it is only goes to show New Hampshire has a bigger problem than just Plaistow.

"It also has an Internet disclaimer stating: 'The State Library has no control over the materials found on the Internet. The library cannot censor your access to material nor protect you from information you find offensive, controversial or inappropriate.'" That is true but misleading. Of course the State Library has no control over the materials found on the Internet, but it leaves out that Internet filters can filter out inappropriate material legally and effectively. Of course the State Library may not censor access to material, but it is not "censorship" to block pornography from public libraries. When it says, "information you find offensive, controversial or inappropriate," it is really saying the material is none of those, rather, "you" are the problem. It is a confrontational tone that does not belong in a State Library policy, especially in light of the other misleading statements. I am CC'ing State Librarian Michael York on this so he can correct this situation, though I doubt he will. And I'll use Governor John Lynch's online form to send him this message as well.

I hope these comments of mine and the associated references help you and others be aware of the basis for legally filtering out pornography from your public library. I hope you and others become aware that acceptable use policies are not effective.

If there's one big take away from what I have written, it is to read US v. ALA all the way through. Only then can people make an informed decision, instead of one to which they have been led. The case decides filters are constitutional first, then it applies that decision to libraries accepting certain federal funding. So even if the library does not accept that funding, the case remains applicable, as if that is not obvious.

Anyone wishing further information, feel free to contact me.

Please distribute this message to all members of the Board of Trustees in sufficient time so it can be read and considered before Monday night's meeting.

The town government should also have a copy as well so it can consider if the library's current policies are exposing the town to potential liability. The following may be relevant:

"Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same"
Speaking of local control … even after six years, it still rankles that our librarians refused and continue to refuse to adopt a policy prohibiting access to pornography by minors on library Internet terminals. When every day new incidents reveal the ease with which sexual predators solicit children online, any claims that the library is a safe place for kids ring hollow. The values espoused by the American Library Association are so divorced from the values of our community that we would seriously consider ... going back to the days of a city library under local control, rather than giving one thin dime to an institution controlled by an organization that believes in 'all materials for all patrons regardless of age.'
"Vote No on Prop. 81," by Editorial Board, Gilroy Dispatch, 19 May 2006.
"The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries"
"Will Manley Outs Library Profession as the Only One in the World That Wants Children to Have Access to Pornography; Annoyed Librarian Says Some Librarians Sound Like Smut Peddlars"

Thank you very much.

-Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries

NOTE ADDED 12 JANUARY 2012:

The library/media snow job continues unabated:

"Plaistow Library Assessing Internet Controls," by Jason Schreiber, Union Leader, 12 January 2012.

Follow @SafeLibraries

LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:57:00 +0000

It appears a Los Angeles Times editorial supports filtering pornography out of public library computers! Based in part on the recent masturbation incident in Laguna Beach about which I wrote, it is clear the LA Times is becoming frustrated with the usual American Library Association [ALA] misinformation. It even senses the censorship claim is false where librarians use selection everyday, but for them it is called selection, not censorship. And, to be clear, porn in public libraries may be easily and legally blocked. See if you get the same read I did:

"Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency," by Editor Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, 29 December 2011. (Reprinting here under Copyright Fair Use provisions.)

Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency

Editorial by Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, December 29, 2011

The Times' editorial board has been pondering the availability of pornography in the library, an issue that catches the public's eye every few months when one of the porn viewers misbehaves, or parents find it's hard for their children to browse the stacks without catching on eyeful. Most recently, it was the November arrest of a homeless man in the Laguna Beach library for allegedly fonding [sic] himself while viewing porn, with a crowd of seven other men around him. It's the advent of the Internet, of course, that creates this new scene in the library. Some parents in the town are now calling for the porn sites to be blocked.

Editorial writers and editors were as bothered as anyone else by the thought that an institution we revere as much as the public library—remember that most journalists grew up with their noses in books—was being used to view lurid photos. It was pointed out that, although librarians hotly defend against censorship of any kind, nonetheless they make value judgments all the time about what sort of materials should be available in libraries, by purchasing news and home magazines rather than nudie publications. On the Internet, though, porn is, like most things, free. Keeping it away from patrons involves an active step, just as it takes an active—and costly—step of purchasing pornography in print to make it available.

"Lady Chatterley's Lover" was once considered pornography, not just unsuitable for a library but illegal to sell in some countries a little more than half a century ago. Banning materials from the library because the majority of people find them distasteful is a dicey step. What might the majority find unsuitable next? Something that you want to read, perhaps? Yet all patrons to the library should be able to search for books and videos without patently offensive material shining across the room at them.

Whose rights matter more?

"[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...." US v. ALA

This is the first major paper of which I am aware expressing frustration over unfiltered porn in public libraries. Hopefully there will be many more. The fear of the ALA is obviously beginning to melt away.

Bravo, Los Angeles Times! Hey, it's not "banning" to block from the library what US v. ALA says is legal to block. So no worries about being "dicey."

NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

It appears the @LATimesOpinion approves of what I have had to say:

@LATimesOpinion retweets my tweet to 3,188 followers!

And now, @_ViceReport:

@_ViceReport retweets another of my tweets to 1,144 followers!

NOTE ADDED 30 DECEMBER 2011:

Another retweet, this time by @ImDanielleEGray, who later thanked me for my work for children:

@ImDanielleEGray retweets yet another of my tweets to 1,169 followers!

NOTE ADDED 3 JANUARY 2012:

The LA Times has now devoted a second editorial to the issue, and has come out four square in favor of filtering out porn from public libraries!

"Libraries Walk a Tightrope on Porn; Without Engaging in Censorship, Many Can and Should Be Doing More to Protect Patrons From Seeing Pornographic Images on the Internet," by Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times, 3 January 2012.

Here is the comment I left there:

SafeLibraries at 8:44 AM January 3, 2012

It appears my comments on the LA Times Editorial of only days ago have struck home, and the LA Times has openly come out four square in favor of filtering the Internet in public libraries! While it doesn't get things 100% correct, it comes really close. It is fantastic to see such a major media source exposing the library propaganda to fresh air.

See LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/12/la-times-supports-filtering-porn-from.html

Improvements could be that the US v. ALA case applies whether or not the library gets funding since the relevant issue was decided first, only then was it applied to libraries getting funding. Also, privacy screens are a complete failure and everyone knows it. Anyone remember the Dan Noyes KABC report catching library director Jean Light in a lie, showing the screens do not work right on TV? And porn may be simply excluded--no need for a special area for adult viewing. http://tinyurl.com/ALADogma

But the LA Times on the whole is outstanding! Really, I am very happy to read it, and to see that the editorial board really gave it a lot of thought and saw through the false information that has become an ALA standard.

Bravo, LA Times! May other media sources loss their fear of the ALA and also call for filtering porn out of public libraries.

NOTE ADDED 4 JANUARY 2012:

I just remembered I wrote this:

"Molested Children in Los Angeles Libraries May Be Direct Result of Governmental Malfeasance; Los Angeles Times Interview of SafeLibraries Reveals Government Was Warned Against Employing Privacy Screens"

I am now in the media due to my comments on the LA Times's first editorial:

"Should People Be Allowed to Watch Porn In the Library?," by Amy Alkon, MND MensNewsDaily.com, 3 January 2012.

NOTE ADDED 10 JANUARY 2012:

New Jersey ACLU attorney Grayson Barber has written a substantially false and misleading piece on LibraryLaw Blog apparently intended to convince the Los Angeles Times Editorial staff to reverse its position favoring Internet filters. I will be writing soon exactly how and why she is so wrong and intentionally so (hint: US v. ALA). Here is the materially false information for your own review before I publish mine (assuming it has not yet been changed):

"Pornography and Internet Filters, by Grayson Barber; Hat tip: Martin Gomez, LA Public Library," by Mary Minow, LibraryLaw Blog, 10 January 2012.

By the way, I made a courtesy call to Grayson Barber, Esq., to advise her that her article was substantially misleading and to give her the opportunity to consider changing it on her own before I responded substantively. I got a call back from the ACLU-NJ communications manager. I provided an example of the false information (US v. ALA says the exact opposite of what Ms. Grayson recommended) and, when asked, said my goal was that people should be given accurate information. I suggested Ms. Barber could change the article before I wrote about it. She said she would let Ms. Barber know. Good. I tipped my hand because I believe in fairness. I hope she does change the article.

Follow @SafeLibraries

School Superintendents May Remove Explicit Books Immediately; Waterland by Graham Swift Removed from Salem High School, Canton, MI

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 04:58:00 +0000

Cover of Waterland

What a pleasure to see a school superintendent using common sense by immediately removing inappropriate material from children. See, for example, "School District Bans Swift Novel," by Brad Kadrich, Observer, 25 December 2011, if you can wade through the media spin, right down to the word "ban" in the title. It's not book "banning" to keep inappropriate material from school children. Besides, most people support keeping explicit material from children in public schools. Bravo to Superintendent Dr. Jeremy Hughes:

Hughes said he asked the book's use to be discontinued after reading a passage that contains a particularly explicit depiction of a sexual act.

He made the decision without following the district's usual process, and admittedly without knowing there was such a process. He has since learned the process includes the complaining parent filling out a form documenting their objections, which is then reviewed by a committee before a decision is made.

Hughes said he "jumped over that process for a couple of reasons. He thought the material was too graphic for high school students, and he felt whatever process was in place would take too long and a decision 'needed to be made' on the material.

"I read passages from the book and I was personally shocked and offended," Hughes said. "I decided the presentation of the material was so graphically sexual that I just felt it was not something high school students should be reading."

Even better, he does so despite the American Library Association [ALA] making up the rule that you can only remove such books after a long "materials reconsideration" process. "A hearing on challenged material is serious and often lengthy." "Be clear that materials under reconsideration will not be removed from use, or have access restricted, pending completion of the reconsideration process."

Other school superintendents have reacted similarly. The squirting sperm book was immediately removed from a school in Arizona, for example, despite the false cries of censorship from the ALA acolytes.

School superintendents should know they can immediately pull inappropriate books and not have to comply with some rule made up by some organization from out of town.

Whom should the community trust with their children? Their own superintendent who has a long history of dedication to education of community children, or the American Library Association who allowed an ACLU state leader to change the way librarians would approach children by enforcing the ACLU's anything-goes policy on the ALA and thereby local communities.

Dr. Hughes, don't give up, and you didn't "ban" the book:

But with social media and other websites blowing up with criticism, mostly of his unilateral decision to ban the book, Hughes admits that idea backfired.

"Most of the criticism has been over the lack of the process as opposed to the content of the book itself," Hughes said. "There are many people who believe had the process been used, the book would have been exonerated. I'm not sure that it would have.

"I don't know if this could have been avoided if I had used the process, but there are many who think so," Hughes added. "Certainly in the future, I intend to make sure the process is used."

NOTE ADDED 1 JANUARY 2012:

The school superintendent has decided to do exactly what I recommended or would have recommended, namely, keep the book from the children while the review process takes place. He has not caved in and he has not followed ALA guidance to do the exact opposite:

"Statement Regarding the Book, Waterland, by Graham Swift," by Jeremy M. Hughes, Ph.D., Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, 29 December 2011:

Over the past several weeks there has been a flurry of comment regarding my earlier decision to withdraw the Graham Swift book, Waterland, from the Advanced Placement Literature curriculum at the Park.

I had originally explained that passages from the book that had been submitted to me in a parent complaint were shocking in their graphic explicitness and, in my judgment, not suitable for a high school English class. As a former high school English and Latin teacher, I am certainly aware that much of modern literature contains sexual material. It was my judgment, however, that the passages I read from Waterland had crossed the line in terms of graphic portrayal of sexual activity.

Although it has been argued that I took action solely on the complaint of one parent, it was my judgment at the time that the majority of parents in Plymouth-Canton would have a similar objection if they read what I read.

As it turns out, from the comments I have received from parents, community members, students, and media commentators, what HAS become overwhelmingly objectionable to the community is my decision to remove the book without instituting the complaint and review processes provided for in our district’s Administrative Guidelines.

Respecting what I now perceive to be the wishes of the community at large, I am modifying the earlier decision I made regarding the book and will be putting the book through the review processes outlined in the Administrative Guidelines. Until that process is finished, I will ask that the book still not be used in class.

The process requires the creation of a committee of teachers, parents, administrators, literary experts, and community members who will be invited to read the book, consider arguments for and against its use, and in the end, develop a recommendation to the administration. It will be my intention to accept the recommendation of the review committee.

Jeremy M. Hughes, Ph.D.
Superintendent
Plymouth-Canton Community Schools
December 29, 2011

NOTE ADDED 4 JANUARY 2012:

Res ipsa loquitur:

This poll from the CantonPatch shows, like the Harris Poll, most
want the explicit books removed from the public school.
Res ipsa loquitur.

NOTE ADDED 11 JANUARY 2012:

Please visit a new parent group opposing explicit books in local public schools that started as a direct result of the few falsely shouting "censorship":

P-CAP - Parents & Community Advocates for Plymouth-Canton Community Schools (www.p-cap.org)

And see the story about them:

"Plymouth-Canton Parent Group: 'We're Not Going Anywhere'; The Group Supports Removing Controversial Textbooks From the Schools' Curricula and Enforcing Rules Against 'Dirty Dancing'," by John McKay, PlymouthPatch, 10 January 2011.

NOTE ADDED 12 JANUARY 2012:

Yesterday I noticed that the poll I pictured above showing most people wanted the books removed was substantially similar in percentages to yesterday's percentages. Both those numbers from my first publication and from yesterday are remarkably close to the majority determined in the Harris Poll who also oppose explicit books in public schools.

Today is different. A massive shift has occurred. The poll has been inverted. In a single day. Statistically, that is impossible, particularly many days after the initial publication of the article in which the poll appears when less visits could be expected on the page. Therefore, I conclude that someone has launched an effort to intentionally skew the poll. Let's sit back and see who uses that poll to promote the way it has now been skewed. That would indicate the likely deceptive party.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Safety for Librarians from the Black Belt Librarian Warren Graham

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:12:00 +0000

CHICAGO —"The Black Belt Librarian: Real-World Safety & Security," published by ALA Editions, arms librarians with the confidence and know-how they need to maintain a comfortable, productive and safe environment for everyone in the library. Sharing expertise gleaned from more than two decades as a library security manager, author Warren Graham demonstrates that libraries can maintain their best traditions of openness and public access by creating an unobtrusive yet effective security plan. In straightforward language, Graham:

Shows how to easily set clear expectations for visitors' behavior;
Presents guidelines for when and how to intervene when someone violates the code of conduct, including tips for approaching an unruly person;
Offers instruction on keeping persistent troublemakers under control or permanently barred from the library;
Gives library staff tools for communicating effectively with its security professionals, including examples of basic documentation.

A security professional for more than 25 years, including 17 years as the security manager of the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, N. C., Graham left the library in 2006 to establish Warren Davis Graham Training and Consulting. He has made numerous presentations and is a leading speaker internationally on practical day-to-day library security procedures.

....

### 30 ###

Source: Press release entitled, "Effective Security Plans and the Black Belt Librarian," by Jill Davis, American Libraries, 9 December 2011. Click for a sample of the book.

See also:

"Active Shooter in the Library: How to Plan for, Prevent, and Survive the Worst (and Selected Bibliography)," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 1 March 2011, which links to:
"Active Shooter in the Library: How to Plan for, Prevent, and Survive the Worst (and Selected Bibliography)," by Amy Kautzman and Jennifer Little, Library Leadership & Management, 25:1, p1-4 (2011).

Follow @SafeLibraries

Fire NYPL President Marx for Drunk Driving; Library Allows Unlimited Pornography So Needs a New Leader Anyway

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 06:22:00 +0000

NYPL's drunk driver Anthony
Marx who should be fired.

Only in America can you have the president of the largest lending library, the New York Public Library with the famous lions, drive his public library-owned 2009 Audi A4 while drunk, get in an accident, plead guilty to a DUI/DWI misdemeanor, then have the library keep him as president. FIRE HIM!

Is there a single person in the world who gets to drive the company car while more than twice the legal alcohol limit (0.19 BAC), smash it, plead guilty to DUI, then have your employer defend you? Talk about the 1%! This guy is in the 0.19%! Just look at how the library reacted to the privileged Dr. Anthony W. Marx who obviously could afford an attorney who helped him turn a crime into a misdemeanor:

In a written statement, the library said it was "satisfied that the incident has been resolved and looks forward to the important work ahead for Dr. Marx and the library."

And this is a library that allows nearly unlimited access to pornography, falsely claiming that under "long-standing library policy" the First Amendment requires the library must allow it:

Brooklyn Public Library porn.

"A lot of the times, I see people watching pornography and stuff like that. The man right next to me today was watching naked women," Julio Sosa, 14, said at the Jerome Branch in the Bronx.

Library officials defend their policy of allowing easy access to porn as a free speech issue, claiming that only five percent of web traffic on public library computers is to porn sites.

"Our staff carefully monitors use of computers in adult areas. It is long-standing library policy - here and across the nation - to abide by the First Amendment," said New York Public Library spokeswoman Angela Montefinise.

Well gee, the library allows unfettered porn despite the means that allow any library to keep it out, and now the library allows a drunk driving president to keep his job. No wonder the library allows porn—it's anything goes—as this recent drunk driving debacle shows.

In reality, even the first sentence of US v. ALA says, "1. [P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...." Does not violate the First Amendment. Someone needs to change that "long-standing library policy." Further, other library directors, who are not drunk drivers by the way, talk about the "dogma" the American Library Association [ALA] and its acolytes use to claim libraries must allow porn. Now the New York Public Library has drunken dogma.

Sign at parking space for
NYPL President Marx?

What a disgrace. This guy makes over half a million dollars a year with terrific perks, his library is filled with porn, he gets drunk and smashes the library's car, and that's okay with the library. Tell me, are there any limits at all in this library? Talk about privileged! This guy should be tossed out of this public institution immediately. It's a public institution after all. Members of the public do not get to keep their jobs after smashing the company car, and neither should privileged Marx. I demand that someone look into this matter, toss out the drunken president, and get someone who will follow the law and insist on blocking porn in the library. Is there no respect for public institutions anymore? Is there no respect for the porn actors victimized by big porn who get victimized again with each viewing, including in public libraries?

Are any politicians still pursuing legislation to reign in the libraries in New York City? Contact me again. I will help you more. Your previous ideas were too timid anyway and were aimed at getting around the dogma. Enough is enough, is it not?

"But will the children forgive Mr. Marx?" Why are we even asking—get rid of him already. It's time to move on.

A library director covers up child pornography in Holyoke, MA, and she still has her job.
A library director allows unfettered porn in Birmingham, AL, and two employees consecutively file EEOC complaints for sexual harassment and still the flow of porn is not stemmed.
A school librarian in Mount Laurel, NJ, publishes that she refuses to make book selections for which she was hired and instead allows her students to read and rate racy books and she still has her job, even getting an ALA award.
Even the Brooklyn Public Library directors allow multi-million dollar fraud to enable access to unfettered porn and that continues unabated. I could go on.
Now drunk driver Marx smashes the public-owned car and allows porn but his employers are "satisfied."

Exactly what is it about a librarian that causes people to fall for dogma and gives librarians a free pass no one else would get?

Library-owned 2009 Audi A4 that NYPL President
Anthony Marx smashed while driving with 0.19 BAC.
Then he got to keep his job in that public library.
Unbelievable.

NOTE ADDED 12 DECEMBER 2011:

This "Tony Marx" is the embodiment of the double standard. Get a load of this and you'll see exactly what I mean:

Anthony Marx, former president of Amherst College and current president of the New York Public Library, offers a different perspective. He insists that elite higher education has a "responsibility…to hold up public service, and examples of public service, as life paths that we value and need as a society." Universities and colleges should be concerned with the career paths of their graduates, particularly those in the public realm. According to Marx, "To the degree that the graduates of top universities are not going into public service, into teaching, and into all kind of arenas that require talent for us to have the kind of society that we want that is something we should worry about."

Source: "Public Service of the Future," by ImeIme Umana and Beatrice Walton, Harvard Political Review, 10 December 2011.

Drinking and driving and getting in an accident on the public's dime in the public's car, and the public library approves by not firing him. Some public responsibility, some talent, some public service of the future! With unlimited porn, no less. And the Harvard story is in defense of the "Occupy" movement, yet Dr. Marx is part of the 0.19%! You can't make this stuff up.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Laguna Beach Pubic Library

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:36:00 +0000

KTLA 5 news story entitled,
"Library Porn."

Laguna Beach Public Library. Eight homeless guys watch pornography on one of the public library's Internet computers, one is masturbating, and children are nearby. The library's reaction? It is their First Amendment right! It might as well be called the Laguna Beach Pubic Library. See for yourself:

"Homeless Men Caught Watching Porn at Laguna Beach Library, Patrons Say; Video: Watch Mary Beth McDade's Report," by Mary Beth McDade, KTLA News, 1 December 2011, emphasis in original:
Library officials tell us they can't block the [pornography] sites because they have to uphold people's rights to freely access information....

Since when is pornography "information"?

Did you see how the library said pornography (excuse me, "information") in public libraries was legal and cannot be controlled? That is false. Yes, it is legal, but no, libraries are not obligated under the First Amendment to provide porn and it can be controlled with Internet filters (privacy screens and acceptable use policies do almost nothing). See, for example, Library Porn Removal Roadmap. As it stands now, porn is freely available at the Laguna Beach Public Library. Why not just advertise that if it is a First Amendment right?

KTLA 5 poll showing
most people want
Internet filters.

But what the library said is more than false. Over eight years after US v. ALA approved blocking porn in public libraries, in part for the very common sense reason the attorney said in the KTLA News report, it is simply a lie. The library knows or should have known it is lying to the community. It can block porn, legally, it just simply refuses to do so.

The question is, will the community/government allow the library to continue to get away with this lying? At right is a graphic of a KTLA News poll showing most people want filters on public library computers. It is what the people want. Should the community have an anything-goes library policy enforced by lying librarians or should citizens insist on compliance with the law and the installation of filters on all computers, not just anything less that 100%? Will the government act to legally protect the people or will the librarians lobbying quiesce the politicians?

And let me remind the government that where your library acts outside the law, and it is doing just that by defying US v. ALA and perhaps by defying local law, you have the right to require the library to comply with the law without worrying about piercing the library's veil of autonomy. The library may not act autonomously to violate the law. The government must act in such a case.

Will the library continue to endanger more children, patrons, and library employees? We shall see. Let me know if anyone would like my assistance in ridding that community of this particular danger. And it is a danger, let alone a cause for potential legal liability.

By the way, it was purely concern over legal liability that led a library to finally kick out an "Occupy" trespassers encampment. See Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment. Maybe the issue of potential legal liability will lead the government to require the library comport with the law—especially where I will be sending this post to the local and county governments so they are put on notice of potential harm. Prior notice may affect any damages awarded. If the government does nothing and the library is allowed to continue to serve pornography and a resultant crime leads to legal redress, the government's damages will likely be established and/or increased, and I will provide expert testimony.

NOTE ADDED 29 DECEMBER 2011:

Based in part on this incident in Laguna Beach, it now appears an LA TIMES EDITORIAL SUPPORTS REASONABLE MEANS TO FILTER OUT PORNOGRAPHY!

"Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency," by Editor Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, 29 December 2011.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 02:39:00 +0000

Bangor Public Library logo.

While the American Library Association [ALA] is supporting the so-called Occupy Wall Street Library, the Bangor Public Library (@BangorLibrary) has had the good sense to finally kick out the Occupy Bangor trespassers from library property:

"Occupy Bangor Asked to Remove Tents from Library Property," by Nok-Noi Ricker, Bangor Daily News, 2 December 2011.
"Bangor Library Asks Occupy Group to Leave by Monday," by Associated Press, The Portland Press Herald, 2 December 2011.
"Occupy Bangor Asked to End Encampment on Library Grounds," by Mike DeSumma, WCSH 6 News TV Portland, 2 December 2011.

Poll results showing people support
kicking out the library trespassers
who are part of Occupy Bangor.

The Bangor Public Library gets it. The ALA does not. As an illustration of why the ALA should not support the so-called "Occupy" movement, consider the following:

"*UPDATED* #OccupyWallStreet: The Rap Sheet, So Far," by John Nolte (@NolteNC), Big Government, 28 October 2011, updated constantly.

Bangor Public Library Director Barbara McDade said, "We certainly will allow them to use the property to protest, but we don't want them staying on the property 24 hours a day." For that, the United Nations might put a target on her head:

"U.N. Envoy: U.S. Isn't Protecting Occupy Protesters' Rights," by Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 2 December 2011.

Congratulations to the Bangor Public Library for making the right decision, no matter how reluctantly. And to emphasize it made the right decision, poll results on the Bangor Daily News site, displayed above right, show the vast majority support the library in expelling the trespassers. Yes, free speech will not be suppressed, but, as is clearly seen in Bangor, trespassing is not free speech.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Occupied ALA Ignored Cuban Librarians; OWSLibrary is Not a Real Library and People Knew It Would Be Removed

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 04:14:00 +0000

@OWSLibrary is not
"a REAL library"

The American Library Association [ALA] now officially supports the "occupy" movements (including #OWS) intended by its instigators to wreak economic terrorism on the United States of America and bring an end to the United States Constitution. The ALA proclaimed, "The People's Library, a library constructed by the New York Occupy Wall Street movement, was seized in the early morning hours of Nov. 15, by the New York Police Department during a planned raid to evict Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park." Source: "ALA Alarmed at Seizure of Occupy Wall Street Library, Loss of Irreplaceable Material," by Macey Morales, American Library Association, 17 November 2011. The ALA, in making that statement, is promoting the propaganda of the "occupiers," and, as shown in the above graphic tweet by "@bitchylibrarian," not everyone is falling for the lies.

The #OWS "Library" was Abandoned, Not "Seized"

The "library" is not "a REAL library," as the above tweet notes. Using the word "library" for convenience, I point out the "library" was not "seized." Rather, it was abandoned. When time came to clear out, proper notice was given: "the New York City Police Department and the owners of Zuccotti Park notified protestors in the park that they had to immediately remove tents, sleeping bags and other belongings...." Many people did take their belongings and clear out. No one took the "library" or its contents. It was abandoned instead. That the New York City Police Department did not dispose of the "library" completely goes to the credit of the NYPD. The ALA has maligned the NYPD by falsely asserting it "seized" the "library."

@OWSLibrary on Twitter

And it was not a "planned raid." Instead, "Protestors were asked to temporarily leave the park while this occurred, and have been told that they will be free to return to the park once Brookfield finishes cleaning it later morning." The ALA has adopted the language of #OWS. It has joined the movement.

What a coincidence that I had previously written about the ALA and the "occupy" movement: "Will the ALA Oppose Economic Terrorism? Stephen Lerner of the SEIU Spells Out Battle Plans Against America, a Perfect Non-Library Issue for the ALA to Sink Its Teeth Into," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 22 March 2011. Now we have our answer. No, it will not oppose it. Rather, it will join it.

The ALA Joins Terrorists and Anarchists

And what exactly has the ALA joined? Let's look at some articles from the same day as the ALA statement. How about unrepentant terrorist William Ayers right in the ALA's home town: "Controversial Professor Bill Ayers Speaks With Occupy Chicago Protesters; Former Weather Underground Group Member Teaches Non-Violence to Protesters," by Jessica Guido, NBC Chicago, 17 November 2011. Ayers is a guy who Canada wouldn't even let into the country. Repeatedly. How about people who purposefully frighten little children: "OWS Protesters Chant 'Follow Those Kids!' As Small Children Try to Go to School on Wall Street; Tiny Tots, Some as Young as 4, Overwhelmed by Hostility, Crush of Humanity," by Emily Smith, CBS New York, 17 November 2011. Watch the video; see for yourself. Oh yes, the ALA supports #OWS, that includes its terrorists and anarchists.

Speaking of children, don't forget this: "Library Propagandizes Children for Occupy Oakland," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 November 2011.

The #OWSLibrary "Librarians" Knew It Would Eventually Be Cleared!

Here is further evidence of the ALA's propagandizing on behalf of #OWS: "The Occupy Wall Street Library Regrows in Manhattan," by Christian Zabriskie, American Libraries, 16 November 2011, updated 17 November 2011. "He was also quick to point out that, while he had helped to build and maintain the collection knowing full well that the park would probably be cleared eventually, the manner in which it was done hit him hard."

Well look at that. He knew the "library" would be cleared. So not only is the "library" not "a REAL library," but the people "kn[e]w[] full well that the park would probably be cleared eventually."

That's an admission against interest. That statement means no harm was done as they knew the "library" would be cleared. And when they were given notice to clear the "library," they did not. Yet the ALA is seeking blood from the NYPD and the City of New York for the "seizure" of the "library" via a"planned raid."

When the SLAPP suit eventually hits the NYPD, etc., I know the above statement will be used to evidence the frivolous nature of such a suit, and I hope punitive damages will be awarded to the City of New York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a result.

The Contradiction of the ALA Not Supporting Cuban Librarians But Supporting #OWS

You know what is also really bad? Here is the ALA standing up for a "library" with false claims that it was "seized" in a "planned raid," yet when that actually happened, in Cuba, the ALA did very little to help. Oh yes, the ALA would help anywhere around the world. As ALA Councilor Karen Downing said on 17 November 2011 in an email to the ALA Council, "[W]e are only addressing the destruction of library/archival materials. This is something ALA has always been very committed to fighting whenever and wherever it occurs." Except Cuba. Cuban librarians jailed and books literally burned? No problem, to the ALA, depending on the political position of the victims.

Friends of Cuban Librarians Describes the ALA

When it comes to Cuban libraries and librarians, the ALA is:

guilty of complicity in repressing intellectual freedom in Cuba. The ALA has systematically denied, ignored and covered up book burning, censorship, mob attacks, raids on libraries, physical assaults against librarians, 20-year prison terms for library workers, and the court-ordered burning of thousands of confiscated library books on the island.

The ALA leadership's silent complicity prolonged the detention of library workers sentenced to 20 year in prison following unfair one-day trials. And the ALA contributed to the torment endured by the prisoners due to its refusal to respond to appeals for humane treatment of the jailed library workers.

Source: Robert Kent, Friends of Cuban Libraries, personal communication, 31 March 2011, reprinted with permission.

Silence from the ALA on Cuban
librarians finally being freed.

The Jailed Cuban Librarians Were Finally Freed to Silence From the ALA

The jailed Cuban librarians were finally freed. See: "Cuba Releases Another 'Group of 75' Dissident," by Efe, FoxNews Latino, 18 March 2011. No thanks, of course, to the ALA that did very little to speak up for them and next to nothing to protest book burning.

Just look at how the ALA cared about the librarians finally being free. Any news on the ALA site? Zero. Anything published in American Libraries, the ALA's monthly magazine? Nothing. The ALA's Intellectual Freedom Round Table [IFRT]? Silence. Anything from the Social Responsibilities Round Table [SRRT], supposedly so concerned about "human and economic rights"? Crickets. How about the International Federation of Library Associations [IFLA]. Anything? No. Could the silence be indicative of anything?

Was ALA Past President Camila Alire being truthful when she said, "the whole concept of intellectual freedom should not just be a white concept"? Instead the news was the ALA and the IFLA met north of Cuba at the Newport Beachside Hotel and Resort in North Miami Beach, FL, on the August 10-12, 2011, for "Intellectual Freedom in a Changing World," a conference on "international issues related to free access to information in libraries." Does anything think the freeing of the Cuban librarians was discussed? More crickets.

I have been writing about the jailed Cuban librarians for quite some time. Consider these posts:

"ALA Screws Gay Librarians; Gay Civil Rights Community Should Demand ALA Action; Rank and File Rebellion Against the ALA Leadership Needed," 15 January 2011.
"In the End We Will Remember Not the Words of Our Enemies But the Silence of Our Friends," 6 January 2011.
"Cuban Librarians May Be Freed; ALA Refusal to Assist May Have Helped Keep Them Invisible," 8 July 2010.
"ALA, Elena Kagan, Book Banners All," 2 July 2010.
"Imprisoned Cuban Librarians OK by ALA: URGENT HEALTH APPEAL for Seven of Cuba's Library Prisoners, One Near Death," 9 April 2010.
"Vote Sara Kelly Johns for ALA President to Support Intellectual Freedom," 17 March 2010.
"ALA Defends Book Confiscation Worldwide by Communist/Terrorist Regimes? SafeLibraries Asks ALA Councilor James Casey to Clarify Anti-American Stand," 28 June 2008.
"American Troops Defamed by ALA Councilor Peter McDonald," 26 June 2008.
"Jailed Cuban Librarians Need Your Support to Uphold Intellectual Freedom," 24 June 2008.

ALA's Pro-Castro Actions Prolonged the Suffering of the Librarians

Now that the ordeal is finally over, I had to ask myself if the ALA's actions in any way prolonged the suffering of the librarians. Yes, as the above email from Bob Kent of The Friends of Cuban Libraries shows. As one ALA member put it, "Some of us who have written against Kent’s campaign are lifelong socialists and friendly toward the Cuban revolution." Similarly, Nat Hentoff said, "The governing council of the American Library Association ... disgraced itself in January when it overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to a final report at its mid-winter meeting telling Castro to let the librarians out. Apparently there are members of the council who romanticize Fidel, as do some Hollywood celebrities." I think that about sums up the ALA leadership.

One would think the ALA, being the largest library association in the world, would stand up for the rights of jailed librarians. Indeed, as Bob Kent put it, "the ALA explicitly serves as a defender of freedom of expression everywhere in the world...." But the ALA did not take a leadership position on this issue. As a result, almost all library associations worldwide just yawned.

But the ALA is now taking up the cause of the #OWS "library" and promoting the anti-government propaganda of the economic terrorists.

The Problem is the ALA Leadership, Not Rank and File Librarians

And let me be clear the problem is the ALA leadership, not rank and file librarians. As Bob Kent wrote me, "in contrast to the ALA Council, 76% of respondents to the only membership poll on Cuba in ALA Direct called on the ALA to condemn the Cuban government for its repression of the independent library movement." Go reread what Bob Kent said. You will see he clearly addresses ALA leadership.

And here are some juicy statements from ALA Councilors made 17 November 2011 in emails to the ALA Council distribution list:

Aaron Dobbs: "And, yes, this is something ALA should be speaking out about.... A spontaneous community resorce [sic] should not be forcibly destroyed/removed by law enforcement officials at the order of a government."
Patrick Sweeney: "Also, I’m going to be sending some of the money I've raised at the libraryadvocacy store to support this library. I emailed them as asked what they would like. I was thinking of supporting their web activity as they don't have a domain name yet and that kind of thing."
Diedre Conkling: "This is a great start and I am very happy that people are working on this resolution. I know I am not providing anything substantive here but I just wanted to let you know that I think this is a good thing. Watching the rise of the libraries as a vital part of the Occupy movement has been really interesting. (Though maybe not surprising to those of us in the library world.)"
Karen Downing: "Definately [sic] count me in on the resolution Patrick! Thanks for taking the first stab at it."

To be fair, here are some statements that were actually or mostly measured, also made 17 November 2011:

Sean Reinhart: "The Occupy movement is a complex and fast-evolving issue with deep implications both nationally and at the local level where most of us operate. Any statement or resolution from ALA relating to Occupy should be well-considered and all of the implications of that message thought through. Our association has members on every side of this issue so we should be careful not to rush to any statement that might run counter to our association's mission and especially the needs of our membership. In that spirit, I agree 99% that it is appropriate for ALA to make a statement in this matter at this time, however I respectfully submit that we utilize the process and resources we have in place already to craft that message. I'm new to this Council, so you all haven't yet heard my voice yet."
Patrick Sweeney: "I agree, that was why I also think it should be aligned with the message already sent from the ALA President. I don’t really care one way or another about the movement really (as far as the resolution is concerned). It's about the destruction of a library that had valuable archival material from a significant moment in American History. It would/should be written to show the support for guerilla libraries in general and used to support in the same way any Tea Party libraries, Green Party libraries, Democratic, Communist or Nazi libraries for example. It's about the preservation of archival materials generated by the group and against the actions by any government entity to censor or destroy those materials whether or not we agree or disagree with those materials. It is not about the movement that it is attached to."

This Latest ALA Double Standard Deserves an #OccupyALA Tag

This latest double standard from the ALA (pro-#OWS while Cuban librarians are shrugged off and worse) is yet another reason local communities should ignore ALA diktat. The sooner the ALA loses influence, the better it will be for communities and those librarians and library workers who live in fear of the ALA.

I suggest we all start using the #OccupyALA tag on Twitter when reporting on the ALA's latest pro-"Occupy Wall Street" propaganda.

Hat tip: Follow @BitchyLibrarian

NOTE ADDED LATER ON 18 NOVEMBER 2011:

Having sent a courtesy copy of this email to as many of the named individuals as possible, one ALA Council recipient has seen fit to attack the messenger, namely me. He overlooks the factual issues raised. He overlooks the total political message of the ALA ignoring Cuban librarians lack of intellectual and physical freedom while supporting fake "librarians" with #OWS propaganda. It's a sure sign I hit the nail on the head and no substantive counter arguments exist, at least from him:

Patrick Sweeney: "Not everyone received the email I did. But already some are trying to define their lives through the misinterpretation of this resolution. Through false statements about it, outright lies, and purposefully antagonistic one-liners designed to just get media play and further their grandious [sic] desire for selfish validation and 15 Minutes of fame. I'm happy we can provide meaning to their lives. I'm glad we provide that service for people. That is, after all, one of the great things about libraries! We serve everyone, even those who disagree with our services. I'm happy that even ALA provides these same services to people. It proves we are doing the right thing."

Mr. Sweeney, I'm calling you out. Please point out the "false statements," "outright lies," "purposefully antagonistic one-liners designed to just get media play," and the "grandio[se] desire for selfish validation and 15 Minutes of fame." Then explain why you feel my statements are false or are lies. I backed them up with hyperlinks to the source documents or statements. I'll admit the observation that admitting the "library" would eventually be removed, sinking the "seizure" claim and potentially opening any future legal matter to punitive damages, comes from my own legal sense. Then show me where the ALA cared one iota that the Cuban librarians the ALA hardly helped were eventually released from jail. If you can show me that, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

OWS Librarian Mandy Henk

NOTE ADDED 19 NOVEMBER 2011:

Look who's censoring now! Why it's the OWS Library itself! Telling, no?

Look what it did not publish as a comment (it never got past "awaiting moderation") to "Common Cause Calls on Bloomberg to 'Open Your Wallet' to Replace Books," by Mandy Henk, Occupy Wall Street Library, 17 November 2011, and what a coincidence that Mandy Henk is "one of the volunteers at the Occupy Wall Street People's Library":

Comment the OWS Library selectively censored out of its blog.

The comment that was published instead of mine said, "Awesome. Totally with you. Love it. Was there yesterday for the morning shutdown then rally & walk. So inspired. We are winning!" Right, winning by censoring out voices they do not want others to hear while claiming they have been censored out. You can't make this stuff up.

NOTE ADDED LATER ON 19 NOVEMBER 2011:

And now a legitimate librarian acting in a legitimate venue has joined the censorship fray and removed my comment from her blog as well, only this time the comment was removed after it was published and after people had read it, judging by the click throughs to my own blog. I'm telling you, all this comment removal starts to look suspicious, particularly from the free speech people, particularly where they are decrying a supposed lack of free speech.

Unfortunately, I do not recall what I wrote that was removed, neither did I get a screen shot. My comment was rather detailed and aimed at an audience of legitimate librarians. I was likely censored out for being truthful, else it would not have drawn the attention of the censor.

So, the People's Library Intellectual Freedom Award for hiding legitimate opposition to the false claims of "seizure" and "planned raids" by pointing out that the "library" was abandoned as originally intended is hereby granted to:

"So Mayor Bloomberg: Where Is the People’s Library?," by Jessamyn West, Librarian.net, 16 November 2011 (lacking previously published comments censored out).

NOTE ADDED 22 NOVEMBER 2011:

The Library Journal now features a blog post by the Annoyed Librarian that specifically names me and agrees with me on what I said here and even goes further. She disagrees with my comments about the ALA having an interest in Cuba, but the ALA has interests in many libraries outside the USA, and Cuba should be no different. Be sure to see all the comments as well:

"What is an American Library?," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 21 November 2011.
Whatever its purpose or usefulness, the OWS library wasn't a public library and it wasn't a cornerstone of democracy and it wasn't necessary to ensure that everyone has access to free information.
....
Everyone knew it would eventually be cleared. It wasn't a library in any public sense of the word. It was a collection of books in a park to entertain or inform a group of transient protesters. There was never a plan for preservation or permanence. Even the circulation policy encouraged the dissolution of the library.

Also, Mandy Henk did eventually publish my blog comment. And Patrick Sweeney and I had a lengthy conversation and he's a decent guy, from what I can tell. Meantime, the ALA Council is still pursuing its blind support of the OWS Library, even trying to expedite it.

NOTE ADDED 29 NOVEMBER 2011:

This just in:

Romans, Larry
6:31 PM (30 minutes ago)

to ACRLEADS, alacoun, ALA
To which groups we send our messages has not been consistent. Please forgive any duplication.

Some ALA members and councilors see the Occupy Wall Street folks as "good guys" and the Cuban "librarians" as "bad guys." However, I don't see how ALA can support a resolution decrying what happened to the Occupy "library" if we want to continue to oppose recognizing the Cuban "libraries."

When is a library a library? If our definition of a library includes the Occupy "library," how does it not include the Cuban "libraries"? Unless we want to change our views on the Cuban "libraries," I don't think we can support the Occupy "library" resolution.

Larry

Larry Romans,
Vanderbilt University Libraries,
Nashville, TN 37203-2427

NOTE ADDED 30 NOVEMBER 2011:

This just in:

Romans, Larry
12:27 AM (9 minutes ago)

to srrtac-l, ACRL, ALA, ALA

From Rory Litwin:

Larry should really address the important distinction that has been drawn by more than one person, that the OWS Library is grass-roots but the Cuban "independent libraries" are not. Michael Dowling in ALA's International Relations Office has confirmed that the Cuban "independent libraries" are not grass roots but are a product of State Department strategy. This is a fact and it should be a part of the discussion.

My response:

I remembered Michael Dowling's report but was glad to reread it. Here is the link Rory gave us:

http://libraryjuicepress.com/docs/Cuba_Update_06.08.doc

I am not advocating that ALA sponsor the Cuban independent libraries. I'm saying that it's not consistent to support one and not support the other. I've never heard that ALA has defined libraries by whether they are "grass roots." I think using Michael Dowling's report as an argument is still a variation on the "good guys" vs. "bad guys" argument.

Larry

Now back to me, SafeLibraries, let me also add that OWSLibrary is now supporting the end of capitalism, and the ALA is supposed to be supporting the OWSLibrary? Thank goodness for people with brains like Larry Romans. The latest OWSLibrary posting says, hyperlinks in original and containing key evidence OWSLibrary seeks the end of capitalism, "But they are people who are caught up in a system that has run its course, a system that has generated tremendous wealth for the few through the wonton destruction of the natural environment and human society."

The ALA supports that?

NOTE ADDED 3 DECEMBER 2011:

See also:

"Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 3 December 2011.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Propagandizes Children for Occupy Oakland

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 03:51:00 +0000

Oakland Public Library, Oakland, CA, appears to have enabled a "children's brigade" of "Occupy Oakland" protestors:

In front of the Oakland Public Library, about three dozen parents brought toddlers and school-age children for a stroller march in a "children's brigade." Demonstrators handed out signs written as if in a children's crayon that read "Generation 99% Occupying Our Future." People attached the signs to their baby backpacks and their strollers.

"Protesters Target Downtown Oakland Bank Branches," by Lisa Leff, Terence Chea, Terry Collins, Associated Press, 2 November 2011.

And before the "children's brigade," the library was directly involved in organizing (on its Oakland Public Library Facebook wall on 2 November) an event that attracted the members of the "children's brigade":

We will be holding a teach-in for youth and students wanting to learn more about the 99%/Occupy movement at the Main Library auditorium from 3 to 4:30. If you are a community member or teacher looking for a safe space to to [sic] send youth today to engage and discuss the general strike, send them to us.

OPL "teach-in for youth" announcement for "engaging" the "general strike."

SooperMexican calls that protest "the degenerate cop-car-crapping rapist anti-semite anti-American #OWS protest." And BigGovernment keeps an updated list of the "Occupy" protests crimes, and they are many and serious:

"*UPDATED* #OccupyWallStreet: The Rap Sheet, So Far," by John Nolte, Breitbart's Big Government, 28 October 2011.

Further, it appears some librarians support the "Occupy" effort to overthrow the American government through violent means. Example, in text and comments:

"Why the Occupy Wall Street Movement Has Libraries; There are Lessons For All Of Us In Those Cardboard Boxes," by Barbara Fister, Library Journal, 27 October 2011: "But these spontaneous libraries say otherwise. People want to share. It's a democratic impulse. It's one we need to preserve and encourage."

"Occupy Oakland Death to Capitalism Banner" http://bit.ly/uMKRQ9

The business "Men's Wearhouse" is losing business for supporting "Occupy Oakland." See:

"Men’s Wearhouse Supporting Occupy Oakland?," by Sooper Mexican, SooperMexican, 2 November 2011.

Is this anything any public library should support in any way, let alone by using children, as the Oakland Public Library appears to have done? Has the library not propagandized the children to become useful idiots for "Occupy Oakland"? Isn't it a matter of time before people stop supporting public libraries for, like Men's Wearhouse, supporting "Occupy" activity?

Feel free to comment below.

NOTE ADDED 3 NOVEMBER 2011:

The last thing 32-year-old Mandy Henk expected from volunteering at the Occupy Wall Street library was an invitation to speak at the American Library Association's 2012 Midwinter Conference in Dallas, Texas. That speaking engagement will help raise her profile among the 10,000 other librarians there to network and share new ideas, she said.

Henk, a certified librarian who handles circulation, reserves and interlibrary loans at DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., joined the movement in late September and rediscovered the role she cares most about -- connecting people with information. Since then, she has commuted back and forth between Greencastle and Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan with a focus on developing new models for libraries at a time when many are facing budget shortfalls.

"I'm a faculty librarian, so being professionally active is something that my peers at my home institution judge me on," she said. "Having the opportunity to refine my skills working with such a diverse population is really valuable in that regard."

"The Career Road of Occupy Wall Street," by Damian Ghigliotty, The Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2011.

What's really galling is that while the ALA invites the "occupy" librarian, it blocks people it opposes, like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. The ALA censors Robert Spencer, but the "occupy" librarian is invited to speak. And this is the American Library Association that gets 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and is viewed as authoritative?

NOTE ADDED 4 NOVEMBER 2011:

The library participated in propagandizing children to join a "children's brigade" as part of "Occupy Oakland." What is the result? THE LIBRARY WILL LOSE FUNDING AND LOSE OPEN HOURS! Has the library committed suicide? H/T Verum Serum:

"Video: Cafe Near OWS Says Business Down 40% Since Occupation Began," by John, Verum Serum, 4 November 2011: "[T]hat takes any services from the community...." "[L]ess hours of libraries...."

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Board Thanked for Blocking Porn With Internet Filters

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:14:00 +0000

Al Maghnieh

The Windsor Public Library board of directors, Windsor, ON, gets thanked repeatedly for finally installing Internet filters to block Internet pornography from the public library:

"Porn Banned at Windsor Libraries; Online Gambling Access Also Banned," by CBC News, CBC News, 28 October 2011:

It's now official. The Windsor Public Library board of directors has passed the necessary policy to block online porn and gambling on library computers.

Councillor Al Maghnieh chairs the library board of directors and said the policy makes sense.

"This is a place family, seniors and kids use. We're encouraging teen zones and after school activities. It's just not the type of stuff we want in this place," Maghnieh said. "This is a place for social literacy, advancing yourself and being part of the community."

Maghnieh says he has heard from library users thanking him for taking action against porn websites.

Common sense, no?

This is another example of community standards, namely, that communities want public libraries to block porn. That's why the people recognize how lucky they are to have a library board that sets aside the usual "intellectual freedom" dogma, as evidenced by their taking time to thank the library board for blocking porn.

And it shows the library's "Acceptable Use Policy," which is typical, does not work, or else there would be no need for filters to block porn. I bet that policy will be amended soon.

Will your library board install filters to block porn? Contact me if you wish help making it happen. And don't fall for the "privacy screen" excuse. Remember, the community loves when the public libraries blocks porn, as this example shows:

"Public Breaks Into Applause for Library Board that Unanimously Voted for Internet Filters to Stop Porn Viewing in Public Library," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2009.

Media Fans Book Banning Flames in Brookfield, CT, While the Board of Education Advises People Not to Vote for the Alleged Book Banners

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:23:00 +0000

Apparently, some media in Brookfield, CT, fans the book "banning" flames where no such banning exists or is even being requested, let alone that the last book banning in the USA occurred almost half a century ago.

See for yourself as the Brookfield Board of Education discusses the issue of the pervasively vulgar book by Toni Morrison entitled The Bluest Eye:

http://youtu.be/37ief7LuPQg

You see, when people like Chris Delia stand up for a "parent's right" to protect their children from harm, that often ruffles feathers, even within boards of education, as illustrated below. I love where Mr. Delia says some BOE members are telling others not to vote for him, then he is told to wrap up his comments:

http://youtu.be/Mb_8hdr4Nxc

http://youtu.be/rSE9TEhDKJY

Let me remind people of the following:

Given the above, one wonders why certain media remains completely oblivious to that. I informed the relevant paper of this information on October 7, but I do not think it paid any heed, judging by the above videos.

Lastly, see the list of school-related issues in:

"School Removes Squirting Sperm Book After 8-Year-Old Complains To Her Mother"

NOTE ADDED LATER IN DAY OF PUBLICATION:

I have received the following response from the Chairman of the Brookfield BOE, presumably given the title, since my text says, "I love where Mr. Delia says some BOE members are telling others not to vote for him....":

Thank you for the information Mr. Kleinman.

I should point out that the "Board of Education" has taken no action in advising people to vote for or against anyone. To say so is erroroneous [sic] and misleading. Individual members of the Board of Education have ALL acted on their personal time to support various candidates in the upcoming election and they are fully entitled to do so.

Thank you,

Ray DiStephan
Chairman
Brookfield BOE

NOTE ADDED LATER IN EVENING OF PUBLICATION:

Ray DiStephan, Deputy Director
Brookfield's Best Candidates

I hereby predict the Brookfield public school children will be allowed by the Brookfield BOE to continue to read that book that is so pervasively vulgar that is has been removed from other schools. I base this prediction on learning that Brookfield BOE Chairman Ray DiStephan is simultaneously the Deputy Chairman of "Brookfield's Best Candidates" that publicly supports candidates other than those listed above who seek the reevaluation of the book and the book selection policy generally. There is no way Ray DiStephen would ever hand Chris Delia and Pam Kurtz a win, or even a fair hearing, when he is opposing them and supporting their political opponents.

I predict there is no way Ray DiStephan will put the interests of the Brookfield children above his own interests. Not only is he opposing the "book banners," but he is a clinical school social worker for fourteen years. [Seventeen years, per email to me from Mr. DiStephan.] As such, he is unlikely to take any action that he might perceive may jeopardize such a position and its associated benefits and pension.

Can't say as I blame him for putting his personal political and financial goals over the needs of the community's children, at least that's what he's doing or will do in my opinion, but I know I would not do such a thing.

When people in Brookfield make a decision for who might be best in the Board of Education, heed should be given to the self-serving selections of the current BOE Chairman, Ray DiStephan.

Of course, this is all my opinion, but I believe it to be well founded.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Pornography in the Library

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:05:00 +0000

Follow @SafeLibraries
and the author of that YouTube video Daniel Sulzbach @MrRepzion,
but see Library Porn Removal Roadmap,
the only point where Daniel gets it wrong.

On Getting Lumped In With Others; And SafeLibraries Makes Three

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:51:00 +0000

Marta L. Magnuson
UWM Adjunct Professor

I get lumped in with others. It happens to me a lot. It just happened again, to which I say, And SafeLibraries Makes Three:

"Perceptions of Self and the 'Other': An Analysis of Challenges to And Tango Makes Three," by Marta L. Magnuson, American Library Association, 12 May 2011, updated 10 October 2011.

But this time the author, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, School of Information Studies Adjunct Professor Marta L. Magnuson, pictured at right, had the integrity to review my response and the underlying Swanson 2007 reference, then edit her work accordingly.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the original 12 May 2011 version that incorrectly lumped me in with others for "us[ing] parental rights as reasoning for censoring And Tango Makes Three." In reality, I never support censorship, and especially not a children's book like And Tango Makes Three. What will be removed or changed is highlighted. As you will see, And SafeLibraries Makes Three:

Parents and library board members were not the only people who voiced their opinion about the rights of parents. Along with Medved’s comments for USA Today, Dan Kleinman, who runs the website SafeLibraries.org, and Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families, also used parental rights as reasoning for censoring And Tango Makes Three. In fact, Thomasson went so far as to attack libraries, telling parents that they "can no longer trust libraries to protect their children's innocence or uphold appropriate standards. Voters should demand that books with harmful content be removed from school and city libraries" (Swanson 2007, A20).

Here is the paragraph as corrected on 10 October 2011:

Parents and library board members were not the only people who voiced their opinion about the rights of parents. Along with Medved’s comments for USA Today, Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families, also used parental rights as reasoning for challenging And Tango Makes Three. In fact, Thomasson went so far as to attack libraries, telling parents that they "can no longer trust libraries to protect their children's innocence or uphold appropriate standards. Voters should demand that books with harmful content be removed from school and city libraries" (Swanson 2007, A20).

So Marta L. Magnuson had the integrity to consider my concerns respectfully, then immediately make changes. In contrast, the American Library Association [ALA] heard my complaint about the Office for Intellectual Freedom's "censorship map" plagiarism almost a year ago that it only correctly attributed recently, but I digress and will expand on that in a future post (– so subscribe). At least with intellectual theft left uncorrected for so long like that in violation of the ALA's Code of Ethics, it makes me appreciate honest people like Professor Magnuson all the more.

And look what else was she changed. Censoring was changed to challenging. I'm tellin' ya', Marta L. Magnuson really impresses me as being intellectually honest. What a breath of fresh air given "the nonsense of Banned Books Week" with "the ALA and its minions ... going on about nonexistent censorship in America." The ALA now has one less minion.

Brava, Marta L. Magnuson.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Banned Books Week is Gay Promotion? Author Admits ALA Faked 2010 Top 10 Challenged Book List

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:01:00 +0000

A recording I made of an author essentially admitting that the American Library Association's [ALA] Top 10 challenged list is faked and used to promote a political agenda has become the subject of an exclusive, top billed report on WorldNetDaily:

"Is Library Association's 'Banned Book Week' Really 'Gay' Promotion?; Critic Calls Event a 'Hoax Perpetrated on the American Public Since 1982,'" by Dave Tombers, WorldNetDaily, 25 September 2011.

I am just the messenger. I am just reporting what author Amy Sonnie said as to why her book placed #9 on the ALA's 2010 list of challenged books. Actually, Amy Sonnie is reporting, and I merely have a tape recording of what she said at a New Jersey Library Association meeting that I attended. The story is big because the ALA faked its top 10 list, one of the listed authors essentially admitted as much and the admission was recorded, and the list is promoted and taken as the truth nationwide.

Go read the WND report to see for yourself.

The ALA faked #9 and awarded school librarian Dee Venuto for LGBT-related reasons, a librarian who admitted in a New Jersey Education Association publication that she cannot bring herself to read racy material for children so she lets her students read it for her.

Might the ALA have faked #1, And Tango Makes Three, also about the same "big deal"? Well, it was challenged only four times yet it is supposedly #1. We are talking about an organization that used plagiarism to promote Banned Books Week, after all.

The story is an exclusive, and it headlines WorldNetDaily!

Think about it. If the top book challenged in the USA was challenged only four times in a year, obviously there is no crisis that the ALA keeps shouting about. If the ALA has to artificially push LGBT material higher on the list, obviously there is no crisis about the "big deal." Even progressive critics of the ALA decry the ALA's use of BBW as "propaganda."

Can anyone ever trust the ALA for anything ever again? Really, I mean it. Faked lists. Plagiarism. Political agenda. Propaganda. So much more I'm leaving out for brevity. Is there no limit to the ALA's dishonesty?

See more on National Hogwash Week here:

Banned Books Week Hoax Articles

NOTE ADDED 6 OCTOBER 2011:

Remarkable. The ALA posted a YouTube video of author Amy Sonnie speaking in support of Banned Books Week. I "favorited" the video and left a comment in favor of the author but critical of the ALA.

The ALA removed the comment! The self-arrogated freedom of speech advocates deleted my free speech! I'll take that as further evidence of guilt.

Here's what I said, followed by a graphic of what it looked like online with "All Comments (1)" before the ALA deleted it:

I really admire Amy Sonnie. I spoke with her for a half hour at a New Jersey Library Association meeting and saw her speak there.

That said, her book has not been banned and the ALA admitted to her that in truth her book was not the 9th most challenged of 2010. See "Is Library Association's 'Banned Book Week' Really 'Gay' Promotion?; Critic Calls Event a 'Hoax Perpetrated on the American Public Since 1982,'" by Dave Tombers, WorldNetDaily, 25 September 2011.

So the ALA top 10 list is faked.

Comment supporting Amy Sonnie but criticizing
ALA's faked top 10 list

And here is what it says now in bold, red typeface with "All Comments (0)" when I tried to repost the comment:

You have been blocked by the owner of this video.

So much for freedom of speech.

I'll be posting soon about how the ALA has tacitly admitted it plagiarized a low quality "censorship map," exactly as I said about a year ago. I'll point out that plagiarism violates its own code of ethics and I'll demand some action be taken, else the code is mere window dressing. Let's see if/how the ALA will block me on my own blog. We already know the ALA has gotten me blocked on Wikipedia. So the free speech people got me blocked from Wikipedia and now from YouTube.

So much for freedom of speech.

Remarkable.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week: An Interview with Judith Krug

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:46:00 +0000

"Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week:

An Interview with Judith Krug"

46 Curriculum Review 1, September 2006, p.12

Judith Krug

Judith Krug has served as director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom since it was founded in 1968, and helped to found Banned Books Week in 1982. This year, Banned Books Week will be held September 23-30. To learn more, visit ala.org/bbooks. To hear a podcast of this Q&A, go to CurriculumReview.com.

Please tell us the story of how Banned Books Week got started.

Back in 1982, I got a call in June from the Association of American Publishers. They said, "We've just discovered there have been a slew of books banned. We should do something to bring this to the attention of the American public. While you're guaranteed your freedom to read by the First Amendment, if you don't use that right, it's going to die." I really liked the idea. And he said, "One of the things we could do is to put all of the books that we know have been banned in the last 10 or 15 years in a cage, and put a chain around the cage so people can visualize that these books are locked up because somebody or some group doesn't want you to read them and you should make up your own mind about them." So I went to the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee, laid the idea out before them, and six weeks later we celebrated the first Banned Books Week. And it has grown unbelievably since then. It's celebrated in thousands of libraries and a substantial number of bookstores.

How many school book challenges in the United States does your office hear about every year?

I can't give you precise numbers, but approximately three-quarters of the challenges we hear about are school-related. It is a whopping number.

Your Web site indicates that last year your office heard about more than 400 challenges, but that probably just scratched the surface.

My rule of thumb is, for every challenge we know about, there are four to five out there that we don't know about. We only recorded 405 challenges last year, down from 547 in 2004. And trust me, attempts to remove materials are not decreasing, they are increasing. There are a lot of reasons why people are not reporting challenges to us. They just get terribly caught up in protecting themselves. But we're there to help teachers, administrators and librarians. I'm not going to dictate what they do, but I'm certainly going to provide assistance if they want it. You never have to fight a censorship battle alone. The Office for Intellectual Freedom has an incredible program. We provide everything from a dry shoulder to cry on—because we understand what you're going through—all the way up to legal assistance that will take you to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So whatever the comfort level is, at least try to report those challenges so you have better data moving forward.

Exactly. And then we really know what's going on. We work with several states, and we're trying to get more states, to do a survey every year. Oregon does one, and the state of Washington is going to start one this year. They send an inquiry to every public library and school library in the state. They ask what materials, if any, were challenged and why—and what was the outcome? And the information that comes to the Office for Intellectual Freedom is confidential. The only things we report are the titles, the authors, and the state the challenge occurred in.

Do many of those challenges that you hear about succeed in getting material removed from schools?

The challenges we hear about are the ones where the materials have stayed on the shelves. One of the reasons I think we don't learn about some of these attempts to remove materials is because they were successful. If some of my colleagues have folded, in effect, or if the process has resulted in the removal of materials, occasionally they're not willing to make this kind of information public. We have to rely on the media to report those incidents, and very often the media are not doing their job, either.

What are some of the most commonly challenged titles? Does it go in cycles?

Yes and no. Julie of the Wolves was on our list 20 years ago, and two years ago it was one of our Top 10 most challenged materials. The kinds of materials that we see recurring on the Top 10 list on a relatively frequent basis are materials like Of Mice and Men, Catcher in the Rye, Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. If they're not on the list every year, they're certainly not off the list for very long. Of Mice and Men is almost always on the list because of the language.

Some popular current books get caught up in the cycle, too. The Harry Potter books have seen a lot of challenges in recent years.

Oh, yes. I always find that amazing as well as amusing. Here are books that have brought an entire generation of young people back to reading. I can't tell you how many young people go into libraries and ask the librarian, "Do you have anything else like this?" And of course there's loads of materials like Harry Potter, wonderful stories. The other thing about challenges is that people don't challenge materials that don't say something to the reader. If you look over the materials that have been challenged and banned over the years, they are the materials that speak to the condition of the human being, that try to illuminate the issues and concerns that affect human beings. They're books that say something, and they're books that have meaning to the reader. Innocuous materials are never challenged. When I look over the Banned Books Week lists, I'm basically looking at the Who's Who of 20th- and now 21st-century American literature.

Why do you believe it's so important to fight against book bans in schools?

Because schools are where children learn. Schools are where children have an opportunity to expand their minds, to look at things that they might not have any interest in until they're sitting in a classroom. It's so important to let them explore what's out there in the safe environment of the schools. If they have an issue or concern, they can talk to the teacher. It's absolutely vital to just turn kids loose in the library. Let the children try it. If they don't understand it, they're going to put it down, and what harm has been done? My belief is that if they do understand it, they're ready for it, and they should be reading it. Now, I know all parents don't agree with me, and that's all okay. But that's what I believe.

Are there ever instances when you think it's appropriate for a school to ban a book?

On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there. But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available.

Can you share tips for those battling school book challenges?

The first thing is, they never have to fight alone. We're there to help them. And when we discuss what can be done, we really try to tailor our assistance to what the political situation is and what the pressures are in the local community. But if the community is concerned about good education, they have to be concerned if somebody tries to have materials removed from availability to the young people. In that case, mobilizing the community, writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper, making sure people are at the school board meetings to defend the book—these are standard kinds of procedures that we recommend. The book needs to have its day in court and have its good points pointed out. Very often the teachers will step up to the plate, along with students themselves. Any student who reads a piece of material is probably going to gain something from it. Recreational reading, fun, is something they gain, as well as more knowledge, satisfaction of curiosity—the whole range of reasons why people read.

Anything we haven't covered that is important to get out there?

Any time a piece of material is challenged in a school and a teacher says to me, "Well, we won that battle, now what should I do?" I say, "Why don't you tell your class, 'This book I'm holding in my hand, and these books on this list I'm holding in my other hand are all books that somebody decided you shouldn't have the opportunity to read. So I think you all should pick a book and read it and tell us why you think you should be allowed to read that book.'" Some of the responses we get back from exercises like that make me sing. They are just wonderful. They renew my faith in not only these young people, but in the future of this country.

# # # 30 # # #

This has been presented by SafeLibraries for educational purposes and more as allowed by US Copyright §107. Copyright belongs to the original owner, not SafeLibraries. No commentary has been added to this page to allow for unbiased review. As a portion of the content of this article has been in the news, I thought it best to make the entire article available. The graphic was added by me and is from the cover of American Libraries, May 2009.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Banned Books Week Propaganda Exposed by Progressive Librarian Rory Litwin; ALA Censors Out Criticism of Its Own Actions in a Manner Dishonest to the Core

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 04:58:00 +0000

Banned Books Week propaganda

Progressive librarian Rory Litwin of Library Juice fame has just exposed the propaganda used by the American Library Association [ALA] that is "Banned Books Week." Read him carefully to see how his statements remarkably align with the ALA's activities I have been reporting, and later I will show how the ALA is dishonest to the core, even apart from the propaganda:

"My Problem with Banned Books Week," by Rory Litwin, Library Juice, 28 August 2011.

Comparison of Rory Litwin Quotes with Past SafeLibraries Observations

Rory said:

My problem with Banned Books Week is one that is probably shared by some conservatives, and it has to do with the loose definition of what a 'banned book' is, and what a 'challenged book' is,