SafeLibraries®

PEN America Fakes School Book Bans in The Hill; Pico-Violative Material May Be Removed Legally

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Mon, 25 May 2026 02:57:20 +0000

PEN America fakes school book bans and almost everything else in The Hill.

Below I republish the entire opinion piece, then intercalate what's really going on.

"False Stories of 'P[*]rn in Schools' are Decoys for Book Bans," opinion editorial by Kasey Meehan (director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program), The Hill, 2 May 2026, hyperlinks omitted.

In 2021, alarming accusations of "p[*]rn in schools" — sounded by the conservative Florida Citizens Alliance in its 2021 P[*]rn in Schools Report and later championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — spread like lice in a classroom.

[FALSE - "Lice in a classroom" already sounds disgusting, sounds like a real horror show. It's a manipulative statement to make, and here it is in sentence one. It puts the agitation in agitprop. "Alarming accusations" is more agitprop. REALITY - Inappropriate books are numerous in school libraries as a direct result of over 60 years of effort by American Library Association to eliminate parental rights and eliminate the application of various laws and US Supreme Court cases like Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), that allows schools to immediately remove pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable school books, often referenced in short as "p[*]rn in schools." The "alarming accusations" are simply parents who have become aware of Pico-violative material in school libraries and who seek redress of their government under constitutional state and federal law to have such material removed per the law.]

The so-called p[*]rn targeted by the report was not AI deepfakes or internet sites, but books for children and teenagers. Shockingly, its false message took hold far and wide.

[FALSE - "The so-called p[*]rn" is a manipulative tactic to use language to sway how people think. More agitprop. The "p[*]rn" is actually Pico-violative material and may be constitutionally removed immediately from shelves. So it's not "so-called." It's an actual problem reworded as "so-called p[*]rn" to give the impression that there's no p[*]rn in school libraries, and there isn't, but there definitely is Pico-violative material and it can be and has been removed from schools. PEN America wants to put an end to that by manipulating how people think about the issue to the point where no one thinks Pico applies anymore. So it's a cleverly worded phrase that sounds good but leaves out the truth. Again, agitprop. The truth is Pico-violative material is legally removable under the law. So it's not "so-called p[*]rn," it's material that violates the Pico case, and it may be removed immediately from public schools. If PEN America's agitprop is accepted as truth, not a single book will ever be removed from any school library. We know that is false. So we are not going to fall for PEN America's agitprop.]

Now, Congress is seizing on that fear with the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act [HR 7661], which would withhold federal money to schools and libraries over books and materials with what its sponsors determine to be "s[*]xually oriented material".

[FALSE - "seizing on that fear." After PEN America set up the straw man, namely, p[*]rn in schools, it then attacks the straw man and calls opposition to it "fear." More agitprop. But at least PEN America didn't echo the American Library Association lie that the Act is called the "Book Banning Bill." The agitprop continues in the same sentence. "What its sponsors determine to be 's[*]xually oriented material'" is another way to say trust the school librarians who say anything goes, there are no limits, rather than an entire legislature that, stung by American Library Association rules applied by school libraries that have filled school libraries with Pico-violative material, have decided to explicitly oppose "s[*]xually oriented material." It's not a "fear" of inappropriate material in school libraries, it's a reality, and it's a reality that groups like PEN America want to lie to the public and to legislators (hence the opinion piece in The Hill) that no books may ever be removed from school libraries
—whatever ALA from Chicago says goes—in every school nationwide. Something ever more subtle is a lie about HR 7661 that might withhold federal money over "s[*]xually oriented material" and how it's bad to withhold money for learning First, there's a major case ALA lost on that very point, but in the context of internet filtering in libraries: United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003). The Court plurality found the government has the right to withhold funding if the libraries did not use internet filtering against inappropriate material. The Court found, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Yes, it's common sense, but PEN American wants people to get over any concern for any common sense so as to mislead people into allowing children access to inappropriate material—on the public dime, no less. Second, Illinois Public Act 103-0100, drafted by ALA and called the "Right to Read Act" or the "Freedom to Read Act," explicitly adopts ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," and explicitly takes away state grants if school don't adopt ALA's aspirational creed by name or by substance. So denying money to drive compliance with ALA diktat is okay when it ensures school kids continue to get "s[*]xually oriented material." Third, ALA redefined what's "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors" as "diverse materials ... about inclusion." So when PEN America speaks about it being wrong to deny funding for "s[*]xually oriented material," they essentially define it as "diverse materials ... about inclusion." All together, PEN America is misleading people to thing it's wrong to do what the US Supreme Court already allowed and what even ALA itself already allowed, only in the opposite sense where state funding was withheld if schools did not allow children access to inappropriate material. It's another ALA double standard.]

Source: youtu.be/XvD_gg1fQXI

In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book that contains p[*]rnography. Why? Because distributing p[*]rnography in schools is a felony that can carry a prison term. Of the thousands we've seen removed from classrooms and school libraries supposedly for p[*]rn, none meet the legal or even informal definition.

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place. It completely misses the mark, intentionally so, with the intention to mislead people into allowing school librarians to continue exposing school children to harm formulated over 60 years ago by Chicago's American Library Association. By the way, the last USA book ban was in 1963. So "In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book" is inadvertently truthful. But now I have a primary source to say in five years of checking, PEN America hasn't found a single book ban. Welcome to reality, PEN America! Further, another straw man argument: "none meet the legal or even informal definition" of p[*]rnography. That's irrelevant. Pico did not address p[*]rnography. The issue is pervasively vulgarity and educational unsuitability. P[*]rnography makes a great straw man argument though.]

We have found that, overwhelmingly, books wrongly identified as p[*]rn represent gay and transgender characters and themes, depict race, racism, s[*]xual experiences that do not constitute p[*]rn and themes that may be challenging, even uncomfortable, like gun violence and s[*]xual abuse.

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place. In reality, such books listed comprise Pico-violative material and as such may be removed immediately from public school libraries. The issue is whether the material violates Pico. PEN America intentionally confuses people by adding in factors that are entirely irrelevant to a Pico determination. The Pico Court did not rule that inappropriate material may be removed unless it deals with s[*]xuality, racism, gun violence, and s[*]x abuse, then it stays in the library no matter what. That was not the Court's decision. But it's what PEN America wants people to think. More agitprop.]

Book banners promise that removing these books will keep kids safe from supposedly scary, criminal and harmful stories.

[FALSE - "Book banners." They just said they didn't see any book bans after checking for five years. Now the parents who complain are smeared as "book banners." Not a single parent anywhere ever banned any school book. They have the legal right to ask a school board for redress of a concern, and it's the school board that may apply the Pico case, never any parent. So to call all parents "book banners" it just more agitprop from PEN America.]

We disagree. Books and storytelling are an essential part of public education.

[TRUE in principle, FALSE in application - but Pico-violative material has been legally excluded by the US Supreme Court from being "an essential part of public education." Indeed, the Pico case allows for various works to be removed and removed immediately. After all, it's common sense. Calling all parents "book banners" is an effort at language contamination intended to mislead people into simple ignoring the Pico case and substituting instead the judgment of Chicago's American Library Association. Now who do you trust more, the US Supreme Court or the Chicago American Library Association?]

We oppose book bans and advocate for access to diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences or introduce new worlds, identities, histories and perspectives.

[FALSE - This is the most massive lie so far because, while it sounds legitimate, it is based on unseen material PEN America doesn't disclose, and intentionally so. Access to "diverse reading materials" sounds legitimate, and even compelling. But what PEN America doesn't disclose is that the definition of "diverse reading materials" means something completely different than what anyone thinks. It's a huge deception. Pure agitprop. PEN America did not disclose that American Library Association changed the definition of "diverse reading material" to explicitly include "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors." The then top lawyer for American Library Association provided training to librarians that changed the meaning of "diverse reading materials" to "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors." In full, here is what was said by the ALA lawyer during the training,

But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody's right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library.

So when PEN America says they "advocate for access to diverse reading materials," which sounds legitimate, what is meant is, "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, ... promote[d] ... as diverse materials." That's what PEN America is deceptively hiding. All in an effort to convince people to expose more school children to more "diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences" that has been reframed to that from "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors." It's truly disgusting, and here it is in The Hill to attempt to fool the Washington, DC, legislators—so more kids will be harmed by ALA.]

Laney Hawes, co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project, once said: "Fear is effective." Nothing is truer in the book banning crisis. A fear of p[*]rnography morphed into a fear of diversity, equity and inclusion, of educators and librarians supposedly indoctrinating kids and ultimately, of transgender and genderqueer kids themselves. Fear has led to laws, policies and executive orders about material in schools being "harmful to minors" or "s[*]xually explicit."

[FALSE - Laney Hawes is not the co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project. That group was created by American Library Association as a local ALA affiliate, built in such as way as to give the appearance of being a local advocacy group. Here's PEN America repeating the lie. The reality is ALA has set up hundreds of local ALA groups nationwide, all of them called "grassroots," while none are grassroots and all were ALA created. It's bragged about by ALA leadership. It's stated in 990 tax forms submitted to the federal government. Sometimes the groups themselves inadvertently acknowledge ALA's involvement publicly. Yet here's PEN America talking about it like it's some grassroots group. It isn't. It's a ALA-created local ALA office. And look, she spread the ALA message: "fear is effective." Well lying is effective too, Laney, and you're lying. In reality, school libraries are suffused with inappropriate material that could be removed under Pico. You and PEN America want to keep it all on the shelves. Then PEN America goes on with the "book banning crisis." There's no book banning, and the "crisis" is that parents have finally woken up to the Pico-violative material filling school libraries, and American Library Association is trying to stifle that, and PEN America partnered with ALA to mislead people about Pico in Unite Against Book Bans. There's your crisis. It's that the people harming the kids are finally getting noticed by the parents and thereby the legislators. That's the crisis. So it's not a crisis, it's a healthy reaction by parents after they finally became aware of the harm being done intentionally to school children by ALA-trained school librarians. The rest of the paragraph talks about the "fear of p[*]rnography." So right there two lies are mashed together into one giant lie. The remainder of that paragraph expands on that giant lie.]

My organization has documented how vague language leads to overcompliance and sweeping restrictions on all types of books. If this new bill in Congress passes, will schools be afraid to buy Maurice Sendak's children's classic, "In the Night Kitchen" because of young Mikey's nudity? Or Michael Hall's "Red: A Crayon's Story," with its messages about acceptance often applying to gender and s[*]xuality?

[FALSE - here PEN America adopts the research of American Library Association that proves if you talk about innocuous books instead of the ones really at issue, then you can fool a lot more people. The Sendak case, for example, is innocuous and involves librarians, not parents, who drew underpants on a child character. It's blown up by ALA and PEN America into a giant cause célèbre. Hence Kasey Meehan used it in her op ed for the politicians to see and blindly believe. It's a little nothing case committed by a few librarians. But the books about teaching kids how to use Grindr to meet a man for a night, that's not the book PEN America used as an example. It's pure manipulation, and it's based on focus group testing by ALA to maximize the indoctrination and s[*]xualization of children. It's agitprop.]

And although the bill includes exemptions for a list of "classics" identified by Compass Classroom — developed as homeschooling teaching tool for a Bible-based perspective — modern classics like Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner" and Toni Morrison's 'The Bluest Eye" are not exempted. These books would likely land on a no-purchase list due to depictions of s[*]xual violence. Most explicitly, the bill would block the purchase of books about transgender people, censoring titles like Ami Polonsky's tale about a transgender 12-year-old, "Gracefully Grayson."

[FALSE - "modern classics." First, ALA focus group tested talking about "classics" as more effective to move people than being honest about reality. Second, there is no "modern classics" exemption to Pico-violative material. If it violates Pico, it's out, even if it's a "modern classic." And "transgender people"? That's a ridiculous lie. There's no such thing as a transgender person. No person has ever been nor will ever be transgender. It's a harmful lie, harmful to children most particularly, and recent medical studies have quantified the harm, and it's quite significant. Why does PEN America promote harmful material to children? Why is it trying to mislead Washington DC legislators into allowing this harm. It's Pico-violative material. It could definitely be removed, and immediately. There's no such thing as "a transgender 12-year-old." Everyone knows that, even PEN America. But it's useful as an excuse to promote more harm to more children. That's what PEN America is doing writing this opinion piece in The Hill in the first place.]

This bill would mean school districts across the country that reject book censorship would be thrust into this maelstrom. Just this week, over 100 organizations urged people who care about education, books, young readers and libraries to call their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote against this bill.

[FALSE - it's just more manipulative language based on the lies and merged lies from above. This time the word "censorship" is thrown into the mix. Again, the meaning of the word has been intentionally changed by American Library Association so that it no longer means censorship. And the "over 100 organizations"? All are ALA, created by ALA, or partners with ALA.]

Misleading tales of p[*]rnography and dangerous books, librarians and teachers are false narratives that have been woven in community after community, affecting the quality of education kids receive. But the more you read, the more you are able to spot an unreliable narrator claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there. That narrator presents contradictory and inconsistent messages, where logic is absent and truth is hidden.

[FALSE - same lies as above, but look at "woven in community after community." ALA creates hundreds of local ALA offices nationwide and calls them "grassroots," while in an act of pure projection, "false narratives" have been "woven in community after community." So now agitprop works? "Logic is absent and truth is hidden"? Seriously? PEN America (and ALA) never discloses the logic and always hides the truth. For example, despite my repeated attempts, PEN America's leader refused to debate me on these issues. The invitation is still open, Kasey Meehan. Indeed, you will never see anyone at PEN America ever engage in debate with a parent like me, precisely because the truth is hidden, and PEN America (and ALA) intend to keep it that way. So while parents get the blame from PEN America as "unreliable narrator[s] claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there," the reality is it's PEN America that's unreliable and continues to hide the truth by refusing to debate the issue publicly. By the way, as to hiding the truth, librarians are trained to hide the truth. It happens frequently, but just days ago Kelly Jensen published this about using subversion or direct activism to promote potentially harmful material to children—and librarians should no longer be considered "trusted experts":

Among the suggestions below, you’ll have easy-to-implement and manage ideas, alongside some that will likely need to be done more subversively. Maybe subversively isn’t the word, honestly. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is that some of these suggestions may bring direct activism into the picture in a way that has not always been common in public libraries.

Speaking of Kelly Jensen, let's get back to "unreliable narrators."]

Unreliable narrators like DeSantis conceal a larger agenda to weaken public schools in favor of vouchers and private school options as outlined in Project 2025. Others, such as outraged parents who see book excerpts taken out of context on Facebook, campaign to remove them, even though there is no evidence at all that reading books causes harm.

[FALSE - the "unreliable narrator" lie is now so big that PEN America applies it to the Governor of Florida. Essentially, anyone who disagrees with indoctrinating and s[*]xualizing school children right in their schools using taxpayer money is labeled an "unreliable narrator" by one of the very groups seeking to maintain its grip on people so they continue to harm children as PEN America wants but can't force them to do, unless they first lie to the people so they think what PEN America wants them to think. Again, agitprop. Again, to harm kids.]

Meanwhile, students, parents, teachers, librarians and authors resist the efforts to remove books from schools. These more reliable narrators spread the message that books aren't harmful, and the opposite is true. Studies have demonstrated that reading, particularly reading for fun, helps advance critical thinking skills, academic achievement and empathy, and reduces stress.

[FALSE - all those people were all activated by American Library Association into doing what ALA wants and has been working to achieve for over 60 years. PEN America wants people to think the "book banners" are in the minority. The reality is the people seeking to keep children from Pico-violative material are the vast majority, and the minority is the Chicago ALA and all the people it has already convinced into harming school children. We heard about "unreliable narrators" before. Now we hear about "reliable narrators" who somehow agree Pico-violative material is just fine for kids, we don't need Pico, we don't need obscenity laws, we don't need common sense and community standards, we just need kids to read anything approved by ALA—so anything, anything at all, even the books about sneaking behind your parents back to score a man for a night. And "empathy." Don't get me started. As if PEN America trying to harm more children cares a whit about empathy, another word that has been given a new definition that has nothing to do with empathy.

And "reliable narrators"? American Library Association published last year a movie call "The Librarians." It has huge even laughable lies in it. It quotes Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example, talking about don't join the book burners. It leaves off what he says after a comma where he essentially said matters of decency should be the only form of censorship. No kidding! The laughable deception is when a librarian shown only in the shadows for dramatic effect is finally revealed—in the last 30 seconds of the movie before the credits roll. You immediately feel you've been had. Even the promo poster features the hidden character gimmick. So "reliable narrators" is what they want you to think, not the actual reality that is quite the opposite. In full disclosure, I appear uncredited in the film.]

A colleague and I previously wrote how learning about s[*]x in a romantasy novel or through s[*]x education doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous. It instead offers information about consent and healthy relationships, keeping young people safer.

[FALSE - PEN America just lied to us over and over again, then merged the lies and made them bigger. Can we definitely trust PEN America that kids reading Pico-violative material "doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous"? No. If PEN America is saying that, the exact opposite is true. There's no "consent and healthy relationships" exception to Pico. "Keeping young people safer" is another lie that sounds good, but not when the true meaning of the phrase to PEN America is revealed. But don't worry, PEN America doesn't do interviews with anyone who potentially might disagree.]

Students want the right to read freely, and most parents want that for their kids too. It's also okay to be offended, shocked or scared by a book. But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives.

[FALSE - that last sentence just completely eliminates Pico. Eliminates obscenity laws. Eliminates community standards. Eliminates common sense. Everyone everywhere protects children from harm—except school librarians. Now why is that? "But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives." Hey, Kasey Meehan, ever heard of Pico? Did you know it has resulted in the removal from schools of many books? Better yet, will you debate me publicly?

And "most parents want that for their kids too" is an ALA-polled lie. When Harris or Rasmussen runs a poll, then most parents oppose explicit books in public schools. But ALA asked the question in a why that gave them the desired answer, and here's PEN America reeling it off like it's the truth.]

Reading for fun among children declined by 40 percent over the last two decades. Now more than ever, we need more readers, especially those who can spot an unreliable narrator.

[FALSE - And this lie is a wow. She is now implying that children should be able to determine when their own parents are "unreliable narrators" so they should be ignored. Eliminating parental rights is the 60 plus year goal of ALA. Now it is also the goal of PEN America, and there it is in black and white. I'm certain the school board in Escambia County, FL, that PEN America is suing will be interested in learning this.]

Kasey Meehan is director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program.

By the way, the readers of The Hill aren't buying it:

Also, see my own opinion in The Hill:

"Shame on PBS: 'The Librarians' is One Big Lie to Parents and Kids," opinion editorial by Dan Kleinman, The Hill, 2 February 2026.

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/pen-america-lies-about-school-books.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Seeing through the Smoke and Mirrors from the ALA

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Thu, 14 May 2026 05:35:20 +0000

Adult books are available to children of all ages in public libraries

Abortion, alcohol/abuse, alternate gender/sexual ideologies, animal cruelty/neglect (severe), anxiety, assassinations, bestiality, BDSM, body horror, blackmail, cannibalism (themes/threats), controversial commentary, cults and ideological zealots, dark content, deception, derogatory terms, demonic content, depression, divination, drugs/drugging, erotica, explicit sexual activities/nudity, fetishism, gore, inflammatory commentary, incest (themes), mental illness, molestation, murder, necrophilia (themes), patently offensive content, paraphilias, pedophilia, Pervasively Vulgar content, profanity (multiple languages), prurient content, prostitution, rape, Satan worship (themes), self-harm, sex trafficking, smoking, stalking, suicide ideation, theft, torture, violence and Voyeurism. (This is a topic summary in Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon).

That's quite a list.

And yet, thousands of public libraries can't find one single reason to keep a book with all of these adult topics out of the hands of children. There are tens of thousands of sexually explicit books and materials with no limits, restrictions, guidelines, or protections of any sort, available to children all across the United States. The public library and school policy of open access to all materials to all ages has repeatedly exposed children to content that would be considered obscene and illegal in any other setting.

Who came up with that policy?

The American Library Association has manufactured reasons to override parents and give kids of all ages access to adult books in any format, digital and hard copy. All children, all ages, all access, all the time…that’s the policy whether you like it or not.

To do anything else would be Censorship! Book Banning!

Okay, that's not true...

The Supreme Court weighed in with Ginsberg v. New York (1968) and decided that children are NOT entitled to view sexually explicit materials under the Constitution and that "obscenity is variable", which means the content doesn't have to be obscene for adults in order to be obscene for children. Kansas Law (21-6401 and 21-6402) states that adults are prohibited from exposing children to obscene materials, and that obscenity is to be determined at least in part by community standards (not library policies) because minors lack the maturity to process explicit sexual content responsibly (Miller v. California 1973).

Restricting a sexually explicit book based on age in the library or school is not censorship. Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) decided that books can be removed from school library shelves without risk of censorship claims if the removal is due to vulgarity or unsuitability, and gives school boards broad discretion to do so with Constitutional protection.

One more time for the people in the back...

The Supreme Court ruled that a book does not have to be obscene to an adult in order for it to be considered obscene for children. Schools and libraries cannot be forced to expose children to adult materials in the name of combating "censorship." The standards for children are, and should be different than the standards for adults. That's literally true in every other situation. Children are not adults, and should not be treated like they are.

It is the duty of all adults in any setting to protect all children from exposure to anything that may harm them.

Even if the child is too young to read the words, they can look at the pictures of erect penises and teenaged boys in sexual positions. Kids who are little older, maybe by 3rd or 4th grade, can pick up on concepts like anal or oral sex.

Graphic illustrations placed where kids can see. Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe

Accidental and unsupervised exposure to mature content is much more dangerous than a controlled discussion with a parent. Many other librarians and schools refuse to protect children from that exposure.

Thousands of libraries adhere to the American Library Association's policies that fight censorship where censorship does not exist at the expense of childhood innocence.

Decades of research from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children (APSAC), the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), shows that early sexualization of children is very damaging and can lead to depression, anxiety, anger, confusion, aggressive sexual behaviors, desensitization, low self-esteem, increased mental health crisis and increased risk of exploitation by adults due to normalization of sexual concepts by children too young to understand the consequences.

That's also quite a list.

Ignore all of that, though, the American Library Association says that your child can see or read whatever they want, whenever they want as long as it's at the library or on school property. That's not a law, it's a library policy suggestion from a NGO with no accountability to anyone involved, but that's the lead most schools and libraries are following.

The Library Bill of Rights says that "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." Adults, who are not the parents, use this policy to defend and justify giving materials to children in the library or at school that would be illegal if given to them at a gas station. The "Rights" in this Library Bill are granted by no one, and are legally unenforceable.

And yet, librarians defend it as if it's the law of the land

Parents have the right and responsibility to oversee their child's upbringing, education and moral development.

Children do not have the right to read and see whatever they want.

Librarians do not have the right to expose children to potentially harmful materials under any circumstances. This practice is justified by policy, not law.

If the Community Standards question the appropriateness of allowing a child to access any material, the librarian should err on the side of caution to protect the child. Librarians who expose children to potentially obscene materials are not constitutional champions even though the American Library Association directs them to "fight censorship."

There are NO banned books in this country.

Banning a book means that you can't legally get the book anywhere. If a book is banned, you can't buy it, borrow it, steal it, see it, possess it or read it.

Book banning is not a thing in the United States.

Adults can get any book from a variety of sources any time. An adult can go into any library and get any book they want. Libraries cannot possibly be required to carry every title--if a book is not available in the library it does not mean it has been banned by any legal true definition.

PEN America shows on its website that more than 23,000 "book bans" have been documented since 2021 in public schools across the country. The stats are misleading, however--"If the same book is banned in 10 school districts, that would count as 10 bans, but one unique title. A book ban is the removal or restriction of those materials, either permanently or under review (PEN.org).

It is counted as a "book ban" if a sexually explicit book is moved out of the children's section to the adult section, even though adults are not restricted from access in any way. The American Library Association and PEN America offers tools to librarians and library boards to fight "when the censors come." (PEN is referring to parents who object to adult materials being offered to their children.)

What do you call the repeated and excessive use of words like "book banning" and labeling parents as "the censors" who are coming to violate the Constitution?

Gaslighting. Fear mongering. Manipulation.

What's your problem? Are you a Nazi or something?

Book banning is a phrase associated with Nazi Germany, and the fervent use of the phrase is intentional to evoke a connection between anyone who objects to childhood exposure to sexually explicit materials and that horrible time in world history. The claim of book banning insidiously weaponizes the fear of those events being repeated in order to get parents to give up their rights over their own children to avoid the comparison.

Parents aren't Nazis just because they want to decide what their children see and read. Parents have the right to determine when their child is mature enough for the content, and the responsibility to protect their children as they see fit without interference from libraries and schools.

The fact that the taxpayers buy the books, build the libraries, build the schools, pay the librarians, elect the boards, and fund the NGOs only to have those institutions and organizations band together to strip them of their rights and authority over their own children makes all of this truly insulting.

Restricting children’s access to adult book titles doesn’t take anything away from parents who want their children to read sexually explicit books. A parent can go check out that book anytime they want to and let their children see it.

On the flipside of that, a parent who wants OTHER people’s children to be exposed to sexually explicit books has NO legal right or authority to do that. NONE. Libraries who fight to keep these policies that override parent rights ARE taking something away from parents—their rights to have knowledge of and to choose what their children are exposed to.

Why do seemingly normal adults fight so hard to defend putting sexually graphic books in front of children?

Protests, parades, lawsuits, angry board meetings, hateful social media attacks, threats of violence, cancel culture, lectures and virtue signaling from board members and lawyers...WHY?

Why do libraries CHOOSE to allow children to have access to adult materials when they don’t have to? What is the motivation behind overruling community objections to facilitate giving sexually explicit material to children that would be illegal in any other setting? It's regulatory displacement...materials that would violate regulatory guidelines and definitions outside of the building are protected inside the building based on location.

It's still the same children inside and outside of the building.

NGOs like the American Library Association decide what hoops parents have to jump through to protect their own children while shielding the library from any responsibility to do so. Kansas law regarding definitions of obscenity are ignored because of location in the library.

Library boards of directors choose (but are not required) to adhere to policies from the ALA, purporting that no materials are obscene and that children cannot be prevented (protected) from seeing any materials because it would violate their "Freedom to Read." The American Library Association developed a Freedom to Read policy which has no support from the law. It's a policy, suggested guidance, and means nothing in court. It's not enforceable.

There is no Constitutional Freedom to Read for Children

The ALA Library Bill of Rights is not law.

There are no banned books in the USA.

Curation is not censorship.

Adults have the right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Protecting children from sexually explicit materials does not infringe on any adult's First Amendment Rights in any way.

Children's first amendment rights are limited and do not overrule the rights of their parents to exercise authority over their child's upbringing, moral development, and education.

Adults who are not the parents have no right to give a child sexually explicit materials using subjective decision making.

Policy guidance from private non-governmental organizations cannot override state law.

It requires the cooperation of complicit public institutions to undermine parents rights and sacrifice childhood innocence in the name of "fighting the good fight" against censorship.

Ask your local librarian to defend sexually explicit materials in the children's section without using borrowed ALA policy language.

I'll wait.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/seeing-through-smoke-and-mirrors-from.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Texas Freedom to Lie Project

noreply@blogger.com (Protect Salado Kids) — Mon, 11 May 2026 17:53:00 +0000

Texas Freedom to Read Project (TXFTRP) has been caught in a Texas-sized lie.

But first, a bit of background.

If you’ve never heard of TXFTRP, it’s the main ALA astroturf group operating out of Texas. EveryLibrary, a de facto subgroup of ALA, is heavily involved in TXFTRP and has been from the beginning. Both organizations openly acknowledge their close ties.

From TXFTRP:

"The support of EveryLibrary has been instrumental in the launch and the ongoing work of the Texas Freedom to Read Project. As attempts at censorship and book banning have skyrocketed across the state of Texas, the need to protect our First Amendment rights is more important than ever. We are incredibly grateful for and look forward to a continued partnership with EveryLibrary. We are optimistic about the future of Texas as we FightForTheFirst [sic]." - Laney Hawes, Texas Freedom to Read Project. (emphasis added)

Statement from TXFTRP founder thanking EveryLibrary

From EveryLibrary:

EveryLibrary works to support communities who are fighting against book bans and censorship by providing a wide range of pro-bono tools, data, funding and training. We previously provided the Florida Freedom To Read Project with a sophisticated website built on the NationBuilder platform. Now, we are excited to provide the same tools to a group of advocates in Texas who are fighting against censorship in school and public libraries across the state. This group is called the Texas Freedom to Read Project and you can visit their website at txftrp.org and sign their petition to get involved. We are also providing them with many of the tools and resources that they need to win! See their press release below for more information. (emphasis added)

Statement from EveryLibrary on TXFTRP launch

Note the mention of “Fight for the First” in TXFTRP’s blurb. Fight For The First is—in the words of EveryLibrary founder and Executive Director John Chrastka—“basically change.org for libraries.” It’s a plug-and-play platform developed by EveryLibrary to get ALA astroturf groups up and running in minutes (source).

Fight for the First “About” page citing EveryLibrary’s role

As an EveryLibrary clone with a Texas twang, TXFTRP is scarcely different from the many other ALA-inspired, ALA-funded, ALA-trained organizations around the country. (For a refresher, here are the ALA/EveryLibrary agenda and playbook.)

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with an advocacy group seeking outside help with its operations or funding. But just know that TXFTRP is no more organic or independent than any other ALA astroturf group.

Which brings us to the present day.

On March 11, TXFTRP published an article saying that, as of February 2026, New Braunfels Independent School District (NBISD) had “banned” 600+ books and aged up 800+ books (i.e., moved them from middle school to high school libraries).

TXFTRP article with scary headline and even scarier subhead

TXFTRP allegation that NBISD has removed or aged up nearly 1500 books

NBISD’s supposed actions were in response to SB 13, a bill passed in the 89th Texas Legislature that was signed into law June 2025 and took effect September 2025.

That bill strengthened protections for public school children by prohibiting library materials that are harmful, obscene, pervasively vulgar, educationally unsuitable, or contain indecent or profane content. Naturally, TXFTRP fought it tooth and nail.

NBISD, along with other school districts around the state, undertook a review of its library collection to ensure it was in compliance with SB 13. TXFTRP, sensing a scoop, requested records from the district pertaining to this review.

After analyzing the data provided to it by NBISD, TXFTRP thought it had a bombshell on its hands. Instead, it had a nothingburger.

Here’s why: At the time the article was published, TXFTRP didn’t know the real number of books NBISD had supposedly removed, since they were going off spreadsheets instead of querying the catalog directly. And in fact it had no way of knowing, since NBISD’s review wouldn’t be completed for another 3 months.

TXFTRP admitted as much, albeit in the final paragraph:

A note on our data and information provided.

We acknowledge there are discrepancies between the "Books Pulled by Who and Why" spreadsheets and NBISD Library Catalogs which still show some of the "weeded: SB 13," aged up, and restricted titles listed as "available." New Braunfels ISD provided the "Books Pulled by Who and Why" spreadsheets in response to a request for records of books "removed" or "deleted" since June 1, 2025, so that is what our conclusions and statements are based on. Unless we are otherwise informed, we anticipate the books listed as "weeded: SB 13" in the spreadsheets provided by NBISD have already been, or will imminently, be removed. (emphasis added)

Disclaimer at bottom of TXFTRP article on NBISD “book bans”

While the disclaimer attempted to clarify what was and wasn’t known, the article itself showed no such restraint. Here’s a sampling:

[Headline] New Braunfels ISD bans 600+ books, ages up 800+ titles using AI & overly-restrictive selection criteria.

[Subhead] Lonesome Dove, The Tattooist of Auschwitz, Guinness World Records & The Three Musketeers among hundreds of books removed from school library collections. ...

The school libraries may be open- but according to public documents obtained by a volunteer for Texas Freedom to Read Project- books are being removed and restricted at an alarming rate. ...

As of February 2026, New Braunfels ISD has removed more than 600 books from its high schools in response to new laws. Additionally, over 800 books have been removed from district middle schools and aged up to the high schools and approximately 60 titles have been removed from New Braunfels ISD elementary school libraries.

While over 450 books are publicly listed as “under review” on the district website, others have been quietly removed behind the scenes. In total, 678 titles are listed on internal tracking logs, obtained through public information requests, as “weeded: SB13.” (emphasis added)

TXFTRP made hay of the titles in the NBISD spreadsheets, stoking alarm across its platforms that beloved classics like Charlotte’s Web and The Three Musketeers were being removed from school libraries in an unprecedented act of censorship.

The sensationalistic narrative was amplified by friendly media outlets like KSAT (ABC affiliate in San Antonio) and the San Antonio Current. Even ALA fellow traveler PEN America got in on the action. They all repeated TXFTRP’s claims uncritically.

When confronted with their methodological errors and NBISD-sourced data showing far lower numbers than those in the article, TXFTRP doubled down.

Finally, on May 1, NBISD published the results of its review: 72 books were preemptively removed before the review commenced; 161 books were deemed non-compliant; 28 were aged up; and 218 were deemed compliant.

Those numbers were rather different from those cited by TXFTRP, to put it mildly. Here are both sets of numbers for comparison:

	TXFTRP Number	NBISD Number	Difference
Preemptively Removed	?	72	?
Non-Compliant	660+	161	500+
Aged Up	800+	28	~800
Compliant	?	218	?

It turns out TXFTRP over-reported the number of books removed by more than five hundred and the number of books aged up by around eight hundred.

TXFTRP will argue that they based their conclusions on data provided by the district—which, technically, is true.

However, they failed to ask some (pretty important!) questions:

Does the presence of a book on a spreadsheet mean it has been or will be permanently removed from the library’s collection?
What exactly does the “Weeded: SB13” label mean?

The answer to the first question is “Probably not,” or if one wishes to be charitable, “Not necessarily.” In fact, the answer was no, but TXFTRP never checked. Instead, it presented its assumptions as faits accomplis.

The answer to the second question would have been readily provided by the district, had TXFTRP bothered to ask. That job fell to a reporter for the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, who dropped this nugget in a story published after the NBISD review was complete:

The district stated that books labeled “weeded: SB13” were not necessarily removed for noncompliance, but because SB 13 prompted librarians to conduct a deeper review of their collections. One major factor in removal was age appropriateness, which could include considerations such as reading level, interest level or catalog “adult” designations.The district also notes that publisher’s reviews evolve over time, so librarians make judgments based on the most up to date information and move books as appropriate. (emphasis added)

It’s now clear that TXFTRP (willfully?) misinterpreted the internal labels the district assigned to books during its review. They thought—or rather, assumed, because it fit the narrative—that “Weeded: SB13” meant the book had been or would be removed. This turned out to be false. Nevertheless, it formed the basis for the article’s most sensational claims.

But the article was not just inaccurate; it was pure fear-mongering. TXFTRP’s objective was to generate outrage over a law designed to protect children in order to secure its repeal. And they were willing to spread falsehoods to achieve it.

That ain’t right, y’all.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/texas-freedom-to-lie-project.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association: WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Bad Parenting

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Fri, 01 May 2026 04:32:00 +0000

Bad parenting is exactly what you get when an entire generation of young parents has been brainwashed into accepting a sick arrangement in which they are stripped of their fundamental rights while the government seizes authority to co-parent their children.

This isn’t some freak accident of modern life. It’s a deliberate, insidious power grab dressed up as compassionate virtue-signaling, even as we watch in horror as kids spiral into anxiety, depression, gender confusion, and outright moral chaos.

It started with the poisonous lie of “It takes a village.” What that really meant was “Here comes the government,” with all efforts designed to sell parents on the fiction that strangers in Washington or the local school district know better than Mom and Dad. Decades of expanding Child Protective Services, mandatory government schooling, and bottomless welfare policies engineered to shatter two-parent homes have done the dirty work of destroying the family quite well.

Today’s young parents were raised inside this bureaucratic beast. From kindergarten onward, they were drilled to trust “the experts” without question, to accept that “tolerance” is demonstrated only by bowing to social pressures regardless of family values, and to follow the Pied Piper that leads them away from their parents until the separation becomes normal and parents’ rights lose out to the state’s agenda. Millions of parents meekly surrendered their kids to the machine and call it “partnership.”

Public schools bombard children day in and day out with gender ideology and early sexualization—explicit library books, sexual orientation events, constant displays, and curricula that normalize confusion and premature sexual knowledge. This is no accident. It serves as a deliberate catalyst, driving a sharp wedge of doubt between children and their own parents while replacing Mom and Dad with “trusted adults” in institutional settings. Teachers, counselors, and activists become the child’s real confidants and moral guides by default.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, schools force-fed this poisonous ideology (never introduced in curricula before the past decade) to kindergartners like toxin in the milk bottle and kept it secret from parents. After the discovery, the institutions refused parents even the courtesy of an opt-out—until the Supreme Court drove a stake through that scheme last year in Mahmoud v. Taylor, affirming parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s religious and moral upbringing. California brazenly tried to let teachers secretly transition children behind their parents’ backs until the Supreme Court crushed that practice in Mirabelli v. Bonta. Ohio, Indiana, and other states are now racing to pass legislation protecting parents from having their children removed by child-welfare agencies simply for refusing to affirm a minor’s gender confusion.

The social contagion has infected schools, libraries, and clinics.

Teachers, guided by unions, are instructed to socially transition children behind parents’ backs. Counselors, guided by NGOs funded by taxpayer dollars, steer kids toward irreversible medical paths while warning them not to tell Mom and Dad until the plan is in full swing. Mental health interventions rely on heavy pharmaceuticals that numb any possibility of reason and growth toward healthy coping skills. Medical providers have succumbed to the social agenda of “gender-affirming care” that has irreversibly damaged thousands of young Americans, convincing parents that their children would kill themselves if they couldn’t switch genders.

The result? Young parents, themselves raised on the enforced premise that their feelings override science, the law, their families, and common sense, inevitably absorb the overarching lesson: give up your parental rights or give up your children. A generation of parents has been conditioned to outsource discipline to institutions, values to social media influencers, and moral formation to the state. When the kids inevitably crash and burn, struggling to make their way in the world, the social regime points the finger and loudly whispers “bad parenting”—demanding even more power over the next generation as the only solution to the societal spiral it itself curated.

Let the parent shaming begin.

This is evil masquerading as compassion. Every time a parent is coerced into silence, intimidated, or punished for daring to say “no,” another young family hears the message loud and clear: your authority is conditional. You are not sovereign over your own children—the government is. Public schools get to change your child’s name and gender identity at will and let boys watch girls in showers, but if you object at all, your child and all their friends are told you are a disgusting phobic bigot. Libraries get to stock graphic novels showing teenage boys giving each other blowjobs in front of children of all ages, and your only option is to keep your kid out of the library or cancel their card—even though libraries could easily restrict children to age-appropriate titles.

They won’t, and they don’t have to. We have to tolerate it because we allow it.

Doctors and insurance companies experiment with one drug regimen after another to manage out-of-control behaviors and depression raging through hundreds of thousands of teenagers, with no real resolution or accountability to children or parents. The brainwashing is complete when parents are grateful to the system for “co-parenting” with them through the wreckage of their own children’s lives.

Parents are supposed to just get over it and watch their child’s life fall into a mental health nightmare. How did we get here?

The answer has been hiding in plain sight: when you strip people of their true role in any setting and call it “partnership,” disastrous levels of dysfunction are the most likely result. It’s the predictable, engineered outcome of parents tricked into surrendering their once-unquestioned rights and responsibilities over their own children.

Parents, do you see yourselves and your families in this drowning pool?

This assault on the family must be exposed, confronted, and defeated. We need ironclad parental-rights laws with real teeth, massive school choice expansion to shatter the state’s monopoly on indoctrination, and a ferocious cultural uprising that refuses to accept the premise that a government department in another state is a better guardian than a fit mother or father. The Supreme Court has begun drawing lines in the sand. States are following. But the deepest work is cultural—re-teaching a generation that the family is the first and most legitimate authority, not a passenger in the back seat while the car drives off the cliff.

Parents must stop apologizing for wanting to raise their own kids and reclaim their God-given authority over the family. Stop asking permission to decide what is best for your child.

A wonderful, caring village is not raising your child. It’s a power-thirsty bureaucracy hiding in the schools, libraries, pharmacies, and clinics—and it is ruining your children on purpose to maintain control.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/bad-parenting.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

George Johnson vs. The Facts

noreply@blogger.com (Protect Salado Kids) — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 01:36:00 +0000

The following is a response to remarks made by author George Johnson (All Boys Aren’t Blue) in a televised discussion with children’s advocate Bonnie Wallace on FOX 26 Houston’s Isiah Factor Uncensored. The video was published on April 9, 2026, and can be viewed below.

The Economic Argument

3:49—Johnson argued that libraries should carry sexually explicit books because poor kids who want to read them can’t afford to buy them.

This argument is invalid because it rests on two flawed assumptions:

Taxpayers are obligated to purchase any book anyone requests and provide it free of charge, regardless of other considerations.
Minors benefit from reading sexually explicit books.

The “Anything Goes” Argument

5:05—Johnson said all books belong in libraries.

Some books are objectively, demonstrably harmful to minors, e.g., books that promote gender ideology (see here) and books that contain sexually explicit content (see here).

Additionally, libraries have a right and a responsibility to curate their collections, which even the ALA acknowledges (see here, here, and here).

Finally, libraries aren’t warehouses and were never conceived as such (see here).

Johnson Calls Wallace a Liar, Part 1

5:54—Wallace said the ALA defines YA as ages 12 and up. Johnson said that’s not true.

The Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), a division of the American Library Association, says this on their FAQ page: “Q: What is a young adult services (YA) librarian? A: A librarian who caters to the needs of the young adult population, ages 12 to 18” (see here).
The YALSA Teen Space Guidelines page says this: “YALSA’s Teen Space Guidelines are a tool for evaluating a public library’s overall level of success in providing physical and virtual space dedicated to teens, aged 12-18” (see here).
The YALSA Young Adult Library Services page says this: “Young Adult Library Services is the official journal of the Young Adult Library Services Association, a division of the American Library Association. YALS primarily serves as a vehicle for continuing education for librarians serving young adults ages twelve through eighteen” (see here).
The minutes for the 2011 YALSA Board of Directors Meeting says this: “Young adults are defined by YALSA as young people between the ages of 12 and 18” (see here).

Rules for Thee, but Not for Me

7:55—When discussing his Florida lawsuit, Johnson mentioned the “Trump-appointed judge” and “conservative judge.”

When conservatives do the same (in reverse) by mentioning an “activist judge” or an “Obama-appointed judge,” they’re accused of attacking the judiciary and undermining the integrity of our court system by questioning a judge’s impartiality.

The Therapeutic Argument

8:44—Johnson said removing books that depict the sexual assault of minors will not stop it from happening, and that these books help victims “navigate” their experience.

In actuality, they re-traumatize victims by causing them to relive their assault (see, for example, here and here).

The Prevention Argument

8:57—Johnson argued that sexual assault on college campuses occurs because “you are not allowing books that teach sex or consent to young adults before we place them in dormitories together.”

This causal link is unsubstantiated. More generally, though, the idea that exposing minors to sexually themed books would reduce sexual assault is contradicted by the evidence. There is abundant research showing that exposure to sexually explicit content, whether consensual or not, correlates with sexual violence (see here).

The Sex Ed Argument, Part 1

9:14—Johnson said parents who believe sex education should occur at home are unlikely to provide it themselves, arguing that their support for removing sexually explicit books for minors in libraries is evidence of their reluctance to discuss sex with their children.

His first claim—that parents who believe sex education should occur at home are unlikely to provide it themselves—is simply not true.

These parents are not unwilling to teach their children about sex. They just want it taught by the right people (the parents), in the right setting (the home), and with content they deem age-appropriate.

Moreover, the abundance of sex education resources for parents undermines Johnson’s claim. If parents were truly unwilling to have these conversations, there would be little demand for such materials.

As for his second claim—that parents’ support for removing sexually explicit books for minors from libraries shows a reluctance to discuss sex with their children—this, too, is false.

There are several reasons parents might support such removals that are unrelated to their personal attitudes toward sex or their willingness to discuss it with their children:

adherence to age-appropriate standards grounded in decades of child and adolescent development research
a desire to ensure taxpayer funds provide clear community benefit
concern about exposing minors to harmful material
a view of the library’s purpose that excludes prurient content

These reasons are consistently articulated by child protection advocates, making Johnson’s apparent unfamiliarity with them surprising.

The Sex Ed Argument, Part 2

9:33—Johnson said, “There has to be some type of way that we’re teaching young adults about puberty, about the changes that are happening to their body, and about the realities that are happening around them.”

Needless to say, parents—who are most invested in a child’s flourishing and are legally responsible for their well-being—should be the decision-makers in this regard, not society at large, and certainly not individuals unrelated to, or unknown to, the child.

It should be noted that Johnson is indirectly arguing that his book and similarly explicit books are educational, and therefore beneficial to minors. Decide for yourself by reading this report.

Johnson Calls Wallace a Liar, Part 2

10:27—Wallace said she’s found All Boys Aren’t Blue in elementary school libraries in Texas. Johnson vigorously shook his head and said, “She hasn’t.”

Johnson’s objection is hard to understand. If his book is indeed educational, he should welcome its presence in school libraries.

He devoted almost all of his remarks to arguing that libraries need more books about sex, yet his instinctive response to Wallace’s claim inadvertently concedes that his own book crosses the line, at least for elementary-aged readers. This contradicts his assertion that “all books belong in libraries.”

Wallace did, in fact, find Johnson’s book in several Texas elementary school libraries—one in McAllen ISD, one in Edinburg ISD, and three in Houston ISD (Oak Forest, Bell, and Stevens Elementary). And this was based on only a cursory search; most Texas elementary school libraries were not examined.

McAllen and Edinburg removed Johnson’s book after Wallace notified their administrations that it is prohibited in Texas prisons due to its explicit content; Houston removed the book for unknown reasons.

Incidentally, All Boys Aren’t Blue is also found in elementary schools outside Texas, including Garrison Elementary (audiobook) and Mann Elementary (audiobook) in Washington, D.C.:

Catalog entry for All Boys Aren’t Blue audiobook at Garrison Elementary (Washington, D.C.)

Catalog entry for All Boys Aren’t Blue audiobook at Mann Elementary (Washington, D.C.)

Given the number of public elementary schools in the United States and the book’s notoriety, it is likely present in many other schools across the country as well.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/04/george-johnson-vs-the-facts.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association: WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Has Public Education Become a PSYOP??

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:24:00 +0000

Has Public Education Become a PSYOP??

In the 1938 play Gas Light, a husband dims the lamps while insisting nothing has changed, driving his wife to question her sanity. Over the past several years, a scaled-up version of this tactic, called “gaslighting” has unfolded systemically in America's public schools and libraries.

Systemic gaslighting is widely recognized as a form of psychological warfare (also known as psychological operations or PSYOPS). Definitions and examples appear consistently in psychology, sociology, military doctrine, and historical analysis. The aim to of a PSYOP is to distort perceptions of reality, induce self-doubt, demoralize targets, and achieve nearly unbreakable control or dominance without using physical force.

Systemic and organized gaslighting is demonstrated by activity scaled beyond individuals to institutions including schools and libraries, media in any form, governments on all levels, and corporations. It involves coordinated repetitive manipulation, characterizing valid concerns as abnormal or denying observable patterns, and the rewriting of shared history, events and reality —to make groups question their collective sanity, memories, perceptions and/or even lived experiences. This creates a "surreal" environment where the intended powerful narrative becomes the only one allowed.

So what's the allowed narrative?

Thousands of books available to children give subtle hints or come right out and say that children may not be the sex they think they are.

"But having a penis isn't what makes you a boy. Having a vulva isn't what makes you a girl." (p. 71 Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg)

"Maybe you're called a boy but you know you're a girl. You know how girls are treated and what they do. That's how you want to be treated and what you want to do."(p. 84 Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg)

"Maybe you're called a girl but you know you're a boy. You know how boys are treated and what they do. That's how you want to be treated and what you want to do" (p. 84 Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg)

That's 662 pages of gender confusion in one children's book in thousands of public libraries.

Why would any children's

book have 662 pages?

(Editor's Note) Not sure why the downloaded version shows this page count, but the hardback version page count is 160 pages, pointed out by a reader.

Same question applies...why would any children's book have 160 pages? Does anyone believe a first grader will read 160 pages to themselves?

Social Transitioning of Children Did Not Occur in a Vacuum

Public schools became primary vectors for the systemic gaslighting. Over 1,000 U.S. districts—educating millions of children—have adopted policies allowing or requiring staff to socially transition students (new names, pronouns, bathrooms, clothing, access to therapists) without parental notification. In California and New York, frameworks explicitly state students control their "transition" at school, even against family wishes. Teachers act as de facto therapists offering affirmation, often hiding "gender support plans" in separate files kept secret from parents. The public school curriculum and library materials flooded the children with content regarding sexual orientation, gender ideology, promotion of early sexualization, sexually explicit descriptions and illustrations, and separation form parents and families. WorldCat (the world's largest library catalog, covering thousands of U.S. libraries) shows thousands of titles with subject headings like "Transgender people," "Gender identity," "Transgenderism," or related terms. Thousands of those books are available in public libraries available to children, and in school libraries where parents cannot see what the child is reading or able to view.

Schools justified secrecy by claiming parents might be unsupportive, equating normal caution with abuse. This inverts reality: concerned parents exercising basic oversight become the villains, while institutions insert themselves as the child's true guardians.

Add in Critical Race Theory, Anti-Capitalist Ideology, and Social Activism and stir with Gender Ideology.

This mirrors classic psychological warfare.

The children suffered, but the PSYOP raged on

Has the PSYOP had any impact? Decide for yourself...

The numbers reveal an unprecedented social contagion. Across the United States, diagnoses of gender dysphoria among children ages 6–17 nearly tripled from 2017 to 2021, totaling more than 121,000 cases in that period alone. Referrals to gender clinics exploded—sometimes 500% or more in a few years—with a sharp shift toward adolescent females, many with comorbidities like autism, trauma, or mental health issues. Earlier years had far lower rates.

The most comprehensive and widely cited source is the 2022 Reuters/Komodo Health analysis of claims covering ~40 million pediatric patients annually (from a broader pool of ~330 million patients):

2017: 15,172 new Gender Dysphoria diagnoses
2018: ~18,321 (approximate, part of steady rise)
2019: ~21,375
2020: 24,847
2021: 42,167 (70% increase from 2020)

Cumulative 2017–2021: At least 121,882 unique minors newly diagnosed. These are undercounts, as they exclude out-of-pocket care, uninsured cases, or undiagnosed individuals

Oddly enough, the DSM-V reclassified “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” in 2013. Why change a diagnostic category for a disorder that affected less than 0.014% of boys (roughly 5-14 per 100,000) and less than 0.003% (roughly 2-3 per 100,000) of girls at that time? (Bright Path, April 27, 2025 ed.) The incidence was a clinical rarity, and yet the DSM IV required revision for this particular diagnosis.

Did this all start in 2013?

What kind of coordinated effort would it take to see a 70% increase in one year?

These statistics are not representative of a organic cultural evolution.

It's not just the diagnosis, it's the SURGERIES...

2019–2023 (5 years) — Do No Harm Database (most recent detailed claims-based analysis): 5,747 unique minors underwent gender-affirming surgeries. This includes ~4,160 breast removals (mastectomies) and hundreds of genital procedures (e.g., ~660 phalloplasties reported in some summaries). Total gender-related interventions (surgeries + hormones/blockers): 13,994 minors.

2016–2020 (4–5 years) — JAMA Network Open study (national hospital data): 3,678 gender-affirming surgeries for ages 12–18.

~3,215 chest/breast procedures (vast majority).

~405 genital surgeries. Overall US gender-affirming surgeries (all ages) rose sharply in this period.

2019–2021 (3 years) — Reuters/Komodo Health insurance claims: At least 776 mastectomies on ages 13–17 with prior gender dysphoria diagnosis. 56 genital surgeries in the same group.

This coordinated psychological operation (PSYOP) is aimed at reshaping young minds on gender and sexuality while undermining parental authority and biological reality with a consequential breakdown of society as a whole.

"Only boys and girls? What about the rest of us?"

(Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg)

This book, and thousands of others like it that promote gender confusion are In the Children's Section of thousands of public libraries and schools.

WHAT EXACTLY DID IT TAKE TO TALK THOUSANDS OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN INTO GENDER DESTRUCTION SURGERY WITH

NO RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP?

Doctors who deliver babies

might not know what they are
looking at and can't tell the
difference between boys and girls.
(Sex is a Funny Word
by Cory Silverberg) If even the doctor can be
confused, then it's surely ok for children to wonder.

Mechanisms of the PSYOP

First, narrative engineering and term redefinition.

"Gender-affirming care" sounds compassionate but often means puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries with weak or no evidence/research to support the outcomes. According to a U.S. Health and Human Services Report in 2025, comprehensive peer-reviewed analysis found significant long-term risks for impact on bone density, fertility, sexual function, and cognitive development and "very weak evidence of benefit" for puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries in minors. Despite the lack of research into the long term effects of this unprecedented care model for minors, considerable resources in health care and education were devoted to promoting the ideology and interventions, using children as the pawns on the chessboard.

Destruction of gender is redefined as affirmation.

The second mechanism of a PSYOP is pathologizing resistance.

Pathologizing is the "practice of viewing or characterizing normal human behaviors, emotions, or variations as medically or psychologically abnormal, disordered, or diseased."

Parents who dare to object face smears, job threats, legal action, accusations of harming their children with their "oppressive" views, and are publicly blamed as group for youth suicide rates—despite evidence that social transition and medicalization do not clearly reduce long-term mental health risks and may exacerbate them via medical complications or regret. This is a prime example of systemic organized gaslighting pushed by media and organizations that promote the PSYOP in our public schools and libraries.

Observable explicit material in children's sections becomes "diversity."

According to PEN America (organization that tracks book challenges) any challenge to a book is a "book ban." "PEN America has documented nearly 23,000 book bans in public schools nationwide since 2021, a number without precedent. Learn more about the dangerous mix of activist groups and vague legislation has led to this wave of censorship in our latest report. "

The PEN report states "This right – the right to discover – is being taken from students under the guise of their “protection.” Over the past four years, a misleading campaign to “protect children” alongside advocacy for “parental rights” has been weaponized to diminish students’ First Amendment rights in schools, sow distrust in librarians and educators, and diminish the ability of authors and illustrators to connect with their intended audiences. In this upside down world, any rights of young people as students are somehow subservient to the absolute rights of their parents."

This is good time to revisit the definitions of gaslighting.

The American Library Association(ALA) also tracks "book challenges," labeling parental requests to review or relocate explicit titles as "bans" or "censorship". In 2025, ALA reported thousands of challenges, with a large share involving gender/sexuality books. According to the ALA, along with the schools and libraries that subscribe to the organization’s policies, parents expressing concern about sexually explicit materials, including trans ideology, being given to their minor children without parents knowledge or permission, are not exercising oversight; they are “banning books” or “promoting censorship" while violating children’s “Freedom to Read” whatever the library wants to give them, at any age the school or library chooses, regardless of parental objection.

Questioning rapid-onset gender dysphoria of ROGD (linked to social media and peer influence) or the reversal of decades of sex-based child development knowledge makes one a "Transphobe."

GenSpect.org

The third mechanism of a PSYOP is exploiting authority and repetition.

Schools, backed by federal guidance in prior administrations, unions, and activist medical groups (The American Medical Association, The American School Counselor Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics) normalize the idea that children as young as preschool can "know" their gender identity contradicts biology, and that parents do not have to be informed by the school. Curricula was developed to teach sex as a spectrum, "chest binders" as harmless, the virtue signal of inclusion, and resolution of gender dysphoria as rare—contrary to historical data where most childhood dysphoria resolved on it's own by age 18. Repetition via activities, books, clothes, make-up, video games, clubs, events, parades, entertainment, media, movies, cable TV, streaming apps, music, and social media apps creates the "pseudo-reality."

Thousands of public school classrooms have symbols of LGBTQIA+ ideology visible to students of all ages

ALL DAY EVERY DAY.

If everyone affirms, your child's confusion must surely be innate identity, not social influence or underlying mental issues, and certainly not "confusion."

This is warfare, not merely manipulation

Intent and scale cannot be ignored.

Individual gaslighting seeks personal control. Systemic versions are organized campaigns (e.g., coordinated messaging, institutional policies, or elite-driven narratives) designed for much broader impact: silencing dissent, maintaining false hierarchies, or shaping public behavior over a generation. This matches PSYOPS doctrine exactly.

Classic PSYOP objectives

Psychological warfare mechanisms rely on repetition to normalize falsehoods until they feel true, or until reality is questionable (boys can be girls by identifying as female, children get to choose any of 42 genders, day in-day out in classrooms, special events, parades, constant displays) promoted authority (institutions/media heralded as the "trusted" source and parents hearing “Trust the experts” 24 hours a day).

The goal is dependency on the gaslighter’s intentionally altered version of reality. As a predictable consequence of the plan, confused children turn to affirming adults at school. Parents, gas-lit into self-doubt are caused to hesitate ("Am I harming my child by questioning any of this?" and “Would you rather have a dead son than a living daughter?”).

The institution becomes the top of the false hierarchy installed by the PSYOP and parents become the outsiders having to fight straight up a sheer cliff to restore their children and their parental rights.

Now a PSYOP has Control In the Real World

We all face daily organized gaslighting in state-level disinformation, political propaganda, corporate cover-ups, cultural institutions redefining norms until there no longer are any. Terms including grammar standards are altered at will, including pronouns, and new words like “Cis” and “misgendered.” The ALA framing parents as “censors” and all library reviews as "book bans" is an dual example of redefining terms and pathologizing resistance with intention to gaslight parents on a systemic level.

The ALA claim that anyone is banning books or committing censorship with regards to children's access is an more deeply misleading layer of systemic gaslighting and contributes to the PSYOP. There's no truly banned books in the United States. Any book can be ordered at any time, no adult has restricted access to any materials. Moving a book about blow jobs and anal sex out of the children's section and into the adult section is not banning the book, nor is it censorship, according to Ginsberg v. New York (1968).

That's gaslighting on a whole new level

It all erodes collective trust in evidence, senses, or community standards--classic demoralization warfare.

In public education, this PSYOP manifests through deliberate, repeated efforts by schools, libraries, teachers' unions, medical organizations, and aligned media to promote gender confusion—particularly among impressionable children—while framing resistance as irrational, uncaring, or harmful. The ALA keeps a “hate map” on it’s website to redirect parents away from any resource that might support them in questioning the achieved new reality.

The Kansas State Library Handbook refers to anyone, including parents, as "censors" if they are challenging the placement of a obscene book where children can get to it, and proclaims alignment with the ALA, when the previous 2017 edition referred to Kansas statues as the guidance for policies and compliance.

The battlefield is the classroom, where perception itself is the prize and the kids are not coming home with trophies.

Public education and children’s libraries in America have functioned as primary medium for one of the most ambitious psychological operations in modern history, fitting every definition and historical comparison. Through coordinated curricula embedded through all levels of education, thousands of ideologically loaded books, calculated undermining of parent's rights, secret social transitions, political enforcement, and institutional gaslighting of both children and parents, an entire generation has been subjected to systematic confusion about biological reality, parental authority, and their own bodies. The inexplicable explosion in gender dysphoria diagnoses, irreversible medical interventions on minors with lifelong complications including sterility, and severed family bonds did not occur organically—it was engineered.

Legacy of a PSYOP

Key Long-Term Changes:
- Destruction of trust in schools, libraries, medical institutions, experts, and trusted adults who insisted “gender-affirming care” was settled science and that children were in danger if parents didn't affirm the PSYOP, with disastrously life altering consequences.
- Deepened Polarization and Division: PSYOPs thrive on “us vs. them” narratives. Once entrenched, these fractures persist through echo chambers, weakened social cohesion, and hardened ideological lines, making national reconciliation difficult. Families are fractured, communities are divided, and any questions are labeled “hate.”
- Normalized New Norms and Policies: Operations that begin as messaging can successfully become “common sense” — even when later evidence contradicts it — embedding altered attitudes in policy, culture, education, public behavior and law—boys in girls’ sports and bathrooms, irreversible surgeries on healthy adolescents, and the rewriting of basic biology as “inclusion."
- Psychological and Cultural Residue: Populations often experience lingering anxiety, moral injury, and a pervasive “psyop realism” — the belief that reality itself is manipulated. Generational effects are common with younger people, whether observers or victims, carrying transformed worldviews shaped by the operation. Already evident among the American young: elevated mental health crises, physical and emotional regret, escalating suicide rates, de-transition stories and court cases now emerging, and a entire generation taught to distrust their own eyes, their parents, and their bodies.
- Institutional blowback: Schools and libraries that weaponized “diversity” against biological reality now face plummeting public confidence, lawsuits, and parental exodus to homeschooling and private options. When a PSYOP ends, society rarely returns to its pre-operation state. These coordinated efforts to shape perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors through propaganda, media, disinformation, or targeted messaging leave deep, likely irreversible traces.

No matter how hard fought the end, a concluded PSYOP does not simply fade away. It reshapes the information environment, incentives, and collective psychology in lasting ways. Recovery requires transparency, counter-narratives, scientific data and time — but once public trust is broken and new norms are installed, reversing the damage is very slow and uncertain. The greatest enduring risk in open societies is the normalization of psychological manipulation itself and a legacy of public doubt.

Just as the husband in Gas Light could not restore his wife’s sanity by simply turning the lamps back up, society cannot undo the damage by quietly shelving a few books or tweaking policies. The surreal environment created by this PSYOP—where parents are villains, doctors “can’t tell” the sex of a newborn, and children are manipulated to reject their own biology—has already reshaped lives and a generation’s understanding of reality.

The only path forward is relentless truth-telling: biological sex is real and binary, most childhood gender distress resolves naturally, and parents—not schools, not libraries, and not political powers—hold primary authority over their children’s upbringing. Public education must be reclaimed from ideological capture before another generation is sacrificed on the altar of this experiment.

Not only must the lamps be turned back on immediately- the entire house must be rebuilt- on reality, evidence, and unequivocal parental rights.

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/04/has-public-education-become-psyop.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

A Proposal to the Kansas Legislature

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 19:56:00 +0000

A Proposal to the Kansas Legislature

AN ACT concerning public libraries and schools; relating to the protection of childhood innocence and parental responsibility; requiring identification of and parental opt-in consent for sexually explicit materials; amending K.S.A. 21-6401, K.S.A. 21-6402 and K.S.A. 12-1225; requiring the Kansas State Library Handbook to address this act; and repealing the library affirmative-defense loophole in certain circumstances.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act.

Section 2. Legislative Findings and Purpose. The legislature finds that: (a) Parents possess the fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing, education, and moral development of their children, as recognized by K.S.A. 38-141 and long-standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court; (b) Children do not possess a constitutional right to access sexually explicit materials; (c) Public libraries and schools act in a governmental capacity and must prevent accidental exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials that are in view or within reach of children in any physical or digital setting; (d) Pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6401 and K.S.A. 21-6402, adults in positions of authority in public institutions have a statutory duty to protect children from the promotion of obscenity and material harmful to minors by taking affirmative steps to shield minors from such content; and (e) The purpose of this act is to require transparent identification of and affirmative parental consent for any sexually explicit material while preserving access for consenting parents and upholding the First Amendment rights of adults.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in this act: (a) “Sexually explicit material” means any book, publication, digital resource, display, illustration, or other material that: (1) contains visual or written depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct as defined in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(2); or (2) meets the definition of material harmful to minors under K.S.A. 21-6402(b). (b) “Sexual conduct” has the meaning ascribed thereto in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(2). (c) “Harmful to minors” has the meaning ascribed thereto in K.S.A. 21-6402(b). (d) “School entity” means any public school, school district, charter school, or school library. (e) “Library entity” means any public library, regional library system, or library consortium operating under Kansas law. (f) “Digital material” means any material made available to a child through an online account, catalog, application, or digital platform tied to a public library entity, school entity, or government-issued library or school credential, including but not limited to consortium-shared resources such as Sunflower eLibrary.

Section 4. Policy Requirements for All Library and School Entities. (a) The governing body of every library entity and school entity shall develop and publicly post a written policy, after reasonable public notice and opportunity for comment at a public forum, that: (1) directly identifies all sexually explicit materials that are in view or within reach of children in any physical area of the facility or in any digital material accessible through an online account tied to a government entity; (2) requires written parental consent before any minor may access or view such materials; and (3) provides non-explicit alternative materials or assignments when consent is not given.

(b) The policy shall include a standard opt-in consent form that states: “By signing this document I am giving permission for my child to be provided books, handouts and instructional material that may include written or visual depictions of sexual conduct. Sexual conduct is defined in law as acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if the person is a female, breast.”

(c) The opt-in form shall include a list of the specific book titles and materials that meet the definition of sexually explicit content and are scheduled to be used as part of curriculum, class discussion, or available within the library, school, or through any online account.

(d) The policy shall permit the parent or legal guardian of a student to review any instructional materials or library books containing sexually explicit content upon request.

(e) If the parent or legal guardian does not give permission or has not submitted a completed opt-in form, the child shall be provided with alternative non-explicit instructional materials and related activities.

(f) Consistent with the duty of adults under K.S.A. 21-6401 and K.S.A. 21-6402 to protect children from obscenity and material harmful to minors, all adults working in or supervising areas accessible to children shall take affirmative steps to prevent accidental exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials. Parents shall be notified of the materials prior to a child’s potential exposure through the opt-in mechanism. This requirement applies to all digital materials made available through any online account tied to a government entity.

Section 5. State Library Handbook Requirement. The State Library of Kansas shall revise the Kansas Public Library Handbook to address and incorporate the requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act. No policy, guidance, or handbook issued by the State Library may rely upon or incorporate any private organization’s standards or recommendations that conflict with the provisions of this act.

Section 6. Amendment to K.S.A. 21-6401. K.S.A. 21-6401 is hereby amended to read as follows: … (g) The affirmative defense provided in subsection (g)(2) shall not apply to any library entity or school entity that fails to comply with the policy requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act or that relies upon conflicting guidance from any private organization in a manner that violates this act.

Section 7. Amendment to K.S.A. 21-6402. K.S.A. 21-6402 is hereby amended to read as follows: … (c) The affirmative defense provided in subsection (c)(2) shall not apply to any library entity or school entity that fails to comply with the policy requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act or that relies upon conflicting guidance from any private organization in a manner that violates this act.

Section 8. Amendment to K.S.A. 12-1225. K.S.A. 12-1225 is hereby amended to add a new subsection: (e) Each library board shall adopt policies consistent with the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act and shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by library staff and any consortium in which the library participates. No library board may adopt or maintain any policy that incorporates or defers to private organizational guidelines that conflict with this act.

Section 9. Effective Date. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book and shall apply to the 2026-2027 school year and library fiscal year.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/a-proposal-to-kansas-legislature.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Kansas Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act-A Proposal for Common Sense and Informed Consent

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 11:35:00 +0000

Parents are sick of finding out what their kids have seen after it's too late.

Legislators, the time for half-measures is over. Kansas must pass strong legislation for all public libraries and school materials containing sexually explicit content. No blanket bans. No viewpoint discrimination. Just parents deciding for their own children.

Public libraries and schools are stocking graphic sexual content — explicit illustrations and detailed descriptions of sexual acts — and handing it straight to minors with zero barriers. Both public institutions have policies that state "parents are responsible" while deliberately creating an environment that makes responsible parenting impossible.

Kansas Law Is Strong, But Leaves Gaps for Schools and Libraries

Kansas already prohibits the promotion of material “harmful to minors” under K.S.A. 21-6402 in commercial settings. K.S.A. 21-6401 uses the same definitions and prohibits promotion of obscenity to minors in schools and libraries, however both simply adopt American Library Association style open-access rules, then claim legal cover. The result? Unrestricted browsing, self-checkout of adult books at any age, and eye-level displays of graphic content — while parents are told “you are responsible.”

This is what you see on the cover...

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg)

A bright, cartoonish cover with smiling characters and playful fonts gives parents the false impression that the book is innocent and age-appropriate. There are no warnings, no age stickers, no content labels.

Placement in the library is perceived by most parents as guidance on what their child could safely read.

It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly)

Public Library Books Instructing Children How to Masturbate on the Shelf for Kindergartners

There's nothing on the cover to alert a parent that graphic sexual illustrations and explicit descriptions await their child, including masturbation, genital touching, anal sex, oral sex, and encouragement to experience sexual pleasure.

But this is what your child sees inside...

It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly)

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg)

It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly)

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg)

Look at the text on each page--

Does it look to you like it's written for a first-grade reader?

Both of these books are in the Children's section in many public libraries in Kansas.

Would you know what is inside the book from looking at the cover? Even if you are only a few feet away, would you be able to see what your child has just seen?

How exactly are parents supposed to exercise that responsibility when the author and publisher deliberately hides the content behind comforting, child-friendly and inviting packaging? Even if the word "sex" is on the cover, when the book is in a pile of kids books, it doesn't really click as to what's inside because parents don't expect this content to be in the Children's section at the public library or in the school library.

That's intentional and deceptive.

This is not parental empowerment. This is a deliberate setup that makes real parental oversight impossible. They cannot pre-read every title on every shelf or every digital download from Sunflower eLibrary.

Parents cannot be expected to read every book in the library before their child looks at it.

But you know who can, don't you?

Regional library systems, public libraries and public schools across Kansas already use sophisticated AI-powered curation software every single day. Tools built into OverDrive/Libby, Follett Destiny, Baker & Taylor’s Title Source, and other common library management systems routinely scan thousands of titles for age-appropriateness, violence, language, and sensitive content. These AI systems flag books for “mature themes,” “sexual content,” “drug use,” and dozens of other categories in seconds.

There's no need to repeat the process, because publishers and editors have already reviewed all materials before the pages are printed. There's no secret being kept from the libraries or schools as to the content of the books children are given.

Only parents are expected to figure out what their child is going to be exposed to while everyone else involved already has the information.

That's called gaslighting.

Libraries and public schools are not incapable of curating the books that your children see based on content. They choose to base collection policies on subjective literary awards and marketing from publishers. Community Standards are not part of the process.

How exactly does that work?

Somehow parents are supposed to be able to know what is inside every book that their child picks up to look at, but the library-- with powerful AI tools and documented text review for all available literature in all of history-- is suddenly technologically helpless and cannot be expected to even identify sexually explicit materials.. Library Boards and School Boards approve policies that give children open access graphic sexual content while making it nearly impossible for parents to exercise their rights over their own children.

Right now, there is no pre-collection review process, no age-appropriate shelving, and no content warnings. Titles are ordered according to direction from publishers and marketing companies who are not required to follow Kansas law. This deliberate refusal to enforce or even consider 21-6401 and 21-6402 leaves children unprotected and forces parents into reactive, book-by-book fights after the fact.

Kansas law already has an religious opt-out in K.S.A. 72-3120 (which is an attendance statute) but it is narrow, reactive, and practically useless for library books or broad curriculum content. Parents must first discover the explicit material after their child has already seen it, then beg the school to excuse participation in a single ‘activity.’

That is not exercising parental rights — that is a game of parental Whack-A-Mole.

The Child Internet Protection Act (K.S.A. 75-2589) allows children to be exposed to adult materials hiding under the shell that houses the online library access at school since the CHIP act applies only to external websites on public computers.

Parents just have to wait for the ultimate "gotcha" moment, when the child sees something they are not ready for and innocence cannot be recovered. then jump through bureaucratic hoops and roadblocks, attend meetings, protest in writing, or stop going to the library entirely in order to protect their children.

If Parents are supposed to know what is in every book, then why is it too much to ask of the libraries?

Publishers, editors, public libraries and public schools all have the option use AI tools to identify sexually explicit material that meets the clear definitions already written in K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402, and voluntarily share that information with parents prior to the children being exposed to the materials so parents can decide what's best for their children.

No Laws Support Opposition to Parental Rights

Publishers, booksellers, nor public schools/libraries have no authority to override parents fundamental rights to direct their children's education, upbringing and moral development.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents have a substantive due-process right (14th Amendment) to control their child's education and moral formation.
Ginsberg v. New York (1968): The Supreme Court explicitly upheld stricter "variable obscenity" standards for minors. States may prohibit sales/distribution of materials "harmful to minors" (e.g., nudity or sexual depictions appealing to prurient interest for kids) even if not obscene for adults. The Court rejected the argument that minors have the same "freedom to read" sexual content as adults, emphasizing parental authority and the state's interest in shielding children. This case is cited frequently because the interpretation is it is not censorship to restrict children's exposure to sexually explicit materials.
K.S.A. 21-6402 "Harmful to Minors" Kansas law defines “material harmful to minors” using the three-prong Miller test (adapted for minors from Miller v. California, 1973):

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors;

2. Whether the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3. Whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

K.S.A. 21-6401 "Promotion of Obscenity to Minors" uses the same definitions as 21-6402 and applies the Miller test to materials in libraries, and hold library boards responsible
Mahmoud v. Taylor (June 2025): The Court expanded this, holding that schools must accommodate parental opt-outs (under Free Exercise and due process) when curriculum implicates religious/moral objections to certain content (including LGBTQ+ themes). It rejected schools' attempts to override parental authority in the name of inclusivity or access.
K.S.A. 38-141 preserves parents fundamental rights to exercise primary control over the care and upbringing of their children in their charge.
Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (457 U.S. 853, 1982) recent 5th Circuit rulings (2025) have narrowed Pico further, emphasizing that removal for vulgarity or unsuitability is permissible. Limits only removals motivated purely by disagreement with ideas (viewpoint discrimination). Affirmatively permits restrictions based on pervasive vulgarity, explicit sexual content, or educational unsuitability—the exact criteria Kansas law uses to protect minors. Leaves intact the state’s compelling interest in shielding children from material harmful to minors.

Books cannot be removed from libraries or schools just because someone doesn't like the content.

When an “idea” is conveyed through sexually explicit content that meets the K.S.A. 21-6401 definition (or the harmful-to-minors standard), access may be restricted in a school or library on the basis of being sexually explicit or consistently vulgar. Materials containing LGBTQ ideology but no sexually explicit content would be protected from removal under the current laws. If the restriction is to comply with state child-protection law and parental rights, it is constitutional under Pico. Courts routinely distinguish legitimate educational/child-protection motives from the pretext of ideological censorship.

In short:

Preventing exposure to obscenity/harmful-to-minors material—is expressly allowed by Pico’s own language and the dissents.
Pico does not create a constitutional right for students, parents, publishers, or educators to demand school-provided access to materials that Kansas law deems harmful to minors.
Schools/libraries remain bound by K.S.A. 21-6401/6402 and cannot be forced by Pico to violate those statutes or override parental authority.

Other States are Already Working on the Issue

Arizona’s opt-in law (HB 2495) (2022) requires public schools to identify qualifying materials and requires parental consent on a per-material basis. If consent is not secured, an alternative assignment that does not contain sexually explicit material must be offered. "All textual, visual, and audio materials or materials accessed via any other medium are prohibited from depicting sexual conduct, including acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts. Parental consent is required before materials referring to sexual excitement, meaning the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal and any content describing "ultimate sexual acts" meaning sexual intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy. A sexual act is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual activity that gives the appearance of consummation of ultimate sexual acts."

There have been no successful legal challenges to this law.

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 230 (introduced February 3, 2025) offers a proven, common-sense solution that actually puts parents back in charge. SB 230 amends the Pennsylvania Public School Code to require every public school entity (districts, charters, etc.) to create a clear parental-control policy for sexually explicit content. The bill does not ban books. Instead, it demands transparency and affirmative consent:

Mandatory identification: Schools must publicly list every instructional material and library book that contains “sexually explicit content.”
Opt-in consent form: No student can be given or allowed access to such material unless a parent or guardian signs and returns a specific opt-in form. The form must include the exact legal warning and a list of titles.
Advance lists: The form must include the specific titles and materials scheduled for use or available in the library that meet the definition.
Automatic alternatives: If a parent does not opt in (or fails to return the form), the child receives non-explicit alternative materials and activities with no academic penalty.
Parental review right: Parents can request to examine any qualifying material at any time.
Public input: Schools must hold a public forum before adopting the policy.

SB 230 is built on one clear theory: parents are the rightful gatekeepers. Schools must create a transparent policy, list every qualifying title, and use a specific opt-in form that cites the legal definition of “sexual conduct.” Parents can review the materials if they wish. It covers curriculum, handouts, and libraries alike.

The pending legislation is not vague nor overbroad. It is a straightforward mechanism that respects both parental rights and the First Amendment. The definitions are precise and track Kansas’s own statutes. This bill will empower parents without removing books and without running afoul of Pico.

This is common-sense protection that respects the reality every parent already knows: children explore open environments without knowing the risks or dangers that await them.

It's Time for Kansas to Solve the Problem

A Kansas version of PA SB 230 and AZ HB 2495 would fix this enforcement gap immediately. By requiring schools and libraries to identify every qualifying book in advance and obtain opt-in informed consent, the law would create a clear, enforceable record. Material that meets the Miller test for “harmful to minors” could no longer be quietly made available to children without parental permission.

A similar bill in Kansas would finally enforce our existing harmful-to-minors laws and give families the tools they need to exercise their fundamental responsibilities. Violations would trigger both the new transparency law and the existing criminal statutes — finally giving district attorneys and the Attorney General the tools they need to act.

This proposed bill creates a real, workable parental control mechanism that actually enforces existing harmful-to-minors laws (21-6401/21-6402) instead of leaving parents to fight reactive battles with limited tools. Public institutions would be accountable for using available tools to ensure that unexpected sexually explicit content will not be accessed by children unless parents are aware and give permission.

This would be far stronger than any existing legislation intended to restore Parent's Rights because it is:

Proactive — requires schools/libraries to identify sexually explicit materials in advance and get opt-in informed consent before exposure.
Broad — applies to both instructional materials and library books (physical and digital).
Clear — uses a standardized form with a list of titles to review and the statutory definitions.
Enforceable — ties compliance to the loss of the affirmative defense in K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402.

In summary, the proposal says:

Apply 21-6401 and 21-6401 before giving access to children and change the policy to require parental opt-in consent for any qualified materials, or lose the legal shield and face the consequences of violating Kansas law if sexually explicit materials are made accessible to children without parental consent.

It's that simple.

This legislation would resolve all battles over Reconsideration Requests and bizarre library policies that limit reconsideration to once every 5 years per title. If a parent doesn't want their child to read a certain book, they don't give permission.

No one is asking librarians to read every page of every book. This law would require them to use the very AI tools they already own and operate to flag the narrow category of sexually explicit content — using tools and abilities they already have.

This bill would end the charade. It does not remove books. It simply requires libraries and schools to identify sexually explicit materials in advance, give parents a clear list of the materials their child may see, an opt-in consent form, and provide non-explicit alternatives when consent is not given. For the first time, parents would actually have the information they need before their child sees the book — truly enabling them to do exactly what librarians have insisted is the parent’s job all along.

Library and School Boards have always had the power to protect children from sexually explicit content. If this proposed legislation becomes law, they will both have the legal responsibility.

Public Schools and Public Libraries are Co-Mingled

Kansas public schools and public libraries operate as a coordinated governmental network when they share student enrollment data to issue library accounts and grant minors access to sexually explicit materials — frequently on school computers and networks.

This data-sharing and account linkage constitutes joint state action. When students access library content through school-issued devices or school networks, the school actively facilitates and hosts the library’s materials. Under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) and Pico, the school bears responsibility for content delivered in its environment, including the public library materials made accessible to minors.

Both entities are bound by the same statutes:

K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402 (protecting minors from obscenity and harmful material), and
K.S.A. 38-141 (recognizing parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing and moral development).

The current practice of issuing library accounts from school records and allowing unrestricted access on school computers denies parents any meaningful notice or consent, directly violating K.S.A. 38-141.

Because schools and libraries function as one pipeline delivering content to Kansas children, the proposed legislation correctly treats them as a unified governmental system. Any material made available through a school-linked library account or on school premises must be subject to identification, parental notification, and opt-in consent. This is not an expansion of the law — it is a necessary recognition of the existing coordinated reality and enforcement of established Kansas statutes and parental rights.

The legislature has both the authority and the duty to close the loophole schools and libraries claim, that 21-6402 does not apply to them when the definitions are clearly present and nearly identical in 21-6401, which does apply to libraries. The library cannot evade these standards by labeling itself “separate” when the delivery mechanism is inside the school environment.

The First Amendment Is Upheld

Critics call attempts to curate by age-appropriateness “censorship.” The opposite is true. Opt-in consent is the least restrictive way to protect minors while preserving full access for adults and consenting parents. The court determined that the state may shield children from material that is not obscene for adults. School and library collections are government speech. It follows Ginsberg v. New York (1968) in which Justice Brennan wrote that "obscenity was not within the area of protected speech or press."

Children cannot have a constitutional right to view sexually explicit or mature content materials when those materials are not within the area of protected speech in the first place.

All materials are readily available to adults, and no public institution is required to provide any particular title or material.

So if the authors rights to Free Speech are not suppressed, and Children do not have the constitutional right to access sexually explicit materials, then whose 1st Amendment Rights are allegedly being violated?

The Freedom to Read from the ALA Bill of Rights is not a right at all. It's a policy suggestion. It's not law, it's not enforceable, and ignoring it violates no one's rights. It cannot override parents rights, Kansas Law, and children's rights to be protected from materials harmful to them.

An Opt-in system guarantees informed consent. Opt-in consent is milder than removal — it leaves books on the shelf for consenting families. No viewpoint is suppressed.

A Proposal to the Kansas Legislature

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act.

(d) The policy shall permit the parent or legal guardian of a student to review any instructional materials or library books containing sexually explicit content upon request.

Section 9. Effective Date. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book and shall apply to the 2026-2027 school year and library fiscal year.

Common Sense in the Spotlight

Parents have the right — and the responsibility — to shield their children from sexually explicit material. Public libraries and schools must stop pretending they have no role in making that possible.

Public institutions that refuse to provide lists, warnings, or consent procedures are not respecting parental rights — they are obstructing them.

Public institutions have the resources to review millions of pages of text and images in a matter of minutes for any materials that have potential for curation. Parents do not have that ability.

Parents cannot exercise their responsibilities when they don’t know what the material contains until their child has already seen it.

Current Kansas law uphold parent's rights and responsibility over their children. Library policies state that Parents are responsible for what their children see at the library.

Kansas Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act will finally make that responsibility possible.

Share this blog post. Tag your legislators. Ask them to introduce and pass the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act in the 2026 session.

The fight for our children’s innocence rests with Topeka with one bill that could change everything.

Parents are no longer asking for permission to protect their children.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Ginsberg v. New York (1968)

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)

Miller v. California (1973)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

K.S.A. 21-6402 "Harmful to Minors"

K.S.A. 21-6401 "Promotion of Obscenity to Minors

K.S.A. 72-3120 "Parent's Rights"

Arizona HB 2495 "Opt-in law" (2022)

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 230

The Child Internet Protection Act (K.S.A. 75-2589)

Kansas State Library Handbook

ALA Bill of Rights
—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/kansas-childhood-innocence-and-parental.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Rutherford County Library System Being Bullied by American Library Association Mirrors

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 03:18:00 +0000

Rutherford County Library System is about to be bullied by the American Library Association and other major national groups that are part of ALA's Unite Against Book Bans, including American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship.

On March 16, 2026, the library board voted 8-3 to move books, mainly about so-called trans children, to the adult section, likely because many now believe medical transitions for children involve horrible mutilation with life worsening and shortening consequences, let alone sterilization. The library director Luanne James refused to comply with the board's directive. Now ALA is bringing its full weight to bear on Rutherford County as it does in hundreds of communities nationwide. This article will disclose some of the ways in the present case.

To start, the ALA has created a local group called "Rutherford County Library Alliance." See:

"Tennessee Walking Horses - TN Parents Astroturfed by ALA Use High Stepping Lies to Overwhelm Rutherford County Library Board; It's an ALA Pattern Nationwide," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 December 2023.
"ALA Details Bribes to Convince Governments to Sell Out Children," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 March 2024.
"so we reached out to a, we reached out to a group and formed the alliance" https://www.youtube.com/live/Zisf2MWKcLk?t=87
$28,999 - "Created and supported 18 local library Alliances to conduct public education and outreach about the First Amendment in Libraries, along with research into book bans."

Rutherford County Library Alliance is a bought and paid for astroturf group for ALA. RCLA even admitted it ("we reached out to a group and formed the alliance"). ALA (via EveryLibrary) 990 filings show its standard operating procedure is to "create and support ... local library Alliances," as shown above. Yet media treats RCLA as if it is truly local, not an astroturf group created and funded by Chicago's ALA to be the Rutherford County branch of the Chicago ALA. The Tennessee Freedom to Read Project (TFRP) is another ALA creation, only this one admits to it: "EveryLibrary, the national political action committee for libraries, supports TNFRP's website and digital engagements."

EveryLibrary 990: "create and support ... local library Alliances"

ALA then has its specially awarded librarians write letters in support of the local group and of the library director defying the library board. One such librarian, Kelly Jensen, who previously trained librarians how to block Christians from book readings in public library meetings rooms, has written an article listing the email of every board member and urging all of her readers to write to the board in support of the library director. The ALA-astroturfed local group will then be at the next meeting handing out purple shirts (an ALA plan to represent red and blue voters united, which they are not when it comes to harming children in libraries) that are provided by ACLU, and books provided by NCAC. Someone let me know what books so I can update this post.

Another way ALA is bringing pressure to bear is by doing what it usually does, namely, lying. Recently Campbell County Public Library in Gillette, Wyoming, had a library board decide to jettison all ALA policy. Library director Terri Lesley decided to adhere instead to Chicago's ALA diktat instead of the board's new rules. So she was fired. She then got help from ALA (though I have no proof for that other than it's obvious given ALA is funding multiple lawsuits nationwide) to sue the library. Without even mounting a defense, the library settled for the full amount of insurance coverage.

ALA brags everywhere that this is a warning to library boards that library directors will follow ALA diktat, not library board rules. It sounds that way, right? Well it's an ALA lie. You see, ALA in the past argued that legal settlements mean nothing. Suddenly its library boards better dare not challenge the power of ALA diktat. ALA argued legal settlements mean nothing when multiple lawsuits by multiple librarians for being s[*]xually harassed by p[*]rn viewers allowing by ALA policy all settled for the limits of the policy. ALA said they were just settlements to get rid of the case, that no librarians have ever been s[*]xually harassed, and that proving such a thing in court has nearly insurmountable odds. So when the settlement favors ALA, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But when the settlement exposes the harm done by ALA to local communities, suddenly the settlements mean nothing and the underlying claims of s[*]xual harassment are "dubious." So, by ALA presenting half the story, it is effectively lying.

In a nutshell, ALA is creating then getting its local group to get ALA partners ACLU and NCAC to make a personal appearance at the board meeting to overwhelm the voting public. And ALA-awarded librarians are writing posts to get its nationwide pressure network to bring its guns to bear on the board. ALA itself is lying about library directors being fired for refusing to follow board directives as required by law. In Tennessee, see § 10-3-104 - Powers and duties of library board.

So what will the board do? Will it follow Tennessee law and stick to protecting local children from material that directly harms them, or will it cave to a massive pressure wave built up by an organization from Chicago that has been working for over 60 years to eliminate parental rights and uses various groups to give the appearance of legitimacy, including ones it created and funded, to give the appearance of local interest in ALA goals?

We shall see.

And naturally, I'll send this in an email to the board, via email addresses I got from a prominent member of ALA's pressure wave. I'd be curious to find out just how many people showed up or wrote emails in response to the pressure wave. I can guarantee you local citizens have no such organized action network as ALA has where essentially every entity opposed to the board is ALA, ALA generated, or ALA aligned. It's like being attacked by multiple mirror images and giving up because you think you're outnumbered.

Let's hope the local Tennessee children win, not the Chicago ALA (ALA), the Chicago ALA (EveryLibrary), the Chicago ALA (RCLA), the Chicago ALA (TFRP), the Chicago ALA (ACLU), the Chicago ALA (NCAC), the Chicago ALA (Luanne James), the Chicago ALA (Kelly Jensen) and the Chicago ALA (media).

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/rutherford-county-library-system.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Community Standards: The Non-Negotiable Shield Against Sexualizing Our Kids

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Sat, 14 Mar 2026 21:42:00 +0000

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged in many American public schools and libraries: parents are increasingly being sidelined from key decisions about their children's education—especially on sensitive topics like sexuality and gender identity.

This erosion of parental authority isn't organic nor is it accidental--it's a deliberate agenda driven systemic shift that exposes young students to explicit materials and certain ideologies without parental knowledge or consent. These efforts are often justified under the banners of “inclusivity” and “education.”

What exactly did you show my kid?

Ironically, parents are not "included" and many materials are being given to children too young to find them "educational" at all.

At the heart of this issue is the longstanding principle of parental rights—a fundamental aspect of society that has been repeatedly affirmed by U.S. courts for more than 100 years. These rights are being undermined by school and library policies that prioritize institutional discretion over family autonomy. Relief from the Courts across the country is being sought by families as schools and public libraries fight to be allowed to continue the practice of open access to sexually explicit materials regardless of age.

This ongoing conflict underscores a core reality: as the Supreme Court has affirmed, parents are the primary protectors of their children's best interests and possess the fundamental constitutional right to direct their upbringing and education without being shut out or overridden by schools or public libraries.

Opponents, however—a powerful vocal minority—have framed parental objections to sexually explicit materials available to children as censorship, successfully influencing policy in many districts and states to effectively override family oversight regarding curriculum, access to sexually explicit materials, and exposure to politically driven agenda initiatives.

Ginsberg v. New York (1968) is interpreted to say that limiting a child's exposure to sexually explicit materials is not censorship, and that obscene materials are not protected speech.

Constitutional Parent's Rights appear to be placed as secondary to a child's "right to read" which is not a right at all, but a suggested library policy by the American Library Association. "Freedom of Information," does not override Parent's Rights, either, also a suggestion from the ALA, however public libraries use both policies to potentially violate Constitutional rights of parents with regard to children's education and development.

Requests to place books in areas accessible to appropriate ages for the materials are met fierce opposition, cumbersome administrative barriers and denials with little recourse. Adults would have access no matter where the book ends up, and no Free Speech Rights are violated by age restricted curation. Many schools and libraries place books based on age and grade levels, and are guided by Community Standards as well as Kansas Law.

Many libraries allow all ages to access all materials

This is not normal for
a children's section

Your little girl is 5 feet away from you looking for her favorite Dora the Explorer book and this page in "It's Perfectly Normal" (Harris, Robie H.) is what she sees in a book on the same shelf.

Can't un-see it, and now you get to explain it whether you like it or not. Even without the illustrations, you can see that the text is not meant for Elementary School children.

Hays Public Library was asked to put it in a Parenting section so you could see it first and decide if you wanted to have that conversation with your child, but they put it in the Children's section anyway.

Your Rights as a Parent just got stomped on.

Good luck with that.

Public schools and public libraries place sexually explicit illustrations and text in front of your children and require you to fight to protect your child from accidentally seeing it.

Over the last 10 years, publishers have increased the production of sexually explicit materials geared toward children, labeling those books as being for “ages 7-10” or “Ages 8+” with no objective criteria or accountability in making that decision. Those designations are a marketing category, not a Child Protective Standard or criteria for curriculum. Books for "ages 7-10" containing words like "clitoris" and "vulva" are clearly not written at the level of a first or second grade child, for example, as seen in Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg, Cory)

By Kansas law, many of these materials, labeled as children's books, would be illegal in any other setting besides the Public Library or School Library. K.S.A. 21-6402 (Harmful to Minors) and K.S.A. 21-6401 (Promotion of Obscenity to Minors) with their shared definitions use the Miller test (Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 in 1973) both indicate that reasonable adults, being “the average person, applying contemporary community standards" could find thousands of books in public libraries and schools to be obscene. K.S.A. 21-6401 applies to both Public Libraries and public schools, and holds the Board of Directors and School Board responsible for policies that allow children to be exposed to materials that may be obscene, as those books would surely meet the definition of Harmful, according to Kansas law.

How far into the majority does it take to be a Community Standard?

Several polls have shown strong public (and often parental) support—exceeding 70%—for parents having the right to review or access what their children are exposed to in school curricula, instructional materials, and libraries. This aligns with widespread calls for transparency in education, where parents want visibility into books, lessons, and content without intentionally difficult bureaucratic hurdles.

Here are some key examples from credible surveys:

A 2022 poll commissioned by the Goldwater Institute (conducted by Scott Rasmussen) found that 84% of American voters agree parents should be able to see the curriculum plans and materials for their children’s classes. This overwhelming majority underscores support for easy access to what kids are learning in school.
A related Scott Rasmussen National Survey (referenced in 2024 analyses) showed 82% of voters favor allowing parents full access to all curriculum plans and materials for their children's classes.
A 2022 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated broad concern about content exposure, with 78% of parents and 84% of grandparents believing it is important for parents to have control over what books are present in public school libraries. Additionally, majorities across parties (including 85% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of independents) viewed it as very important for schools to fully inform parents about classroom teachings.
In a 2025 Washington State poll by RMG Research (for Napolitan News Service), 96% of respondents believed parents should have access to their children’s school curriculum, reflecting near-universal support for transparency in one state context.

These figures come from polls tied to debates over parental rights, curriculum transparency laws, and concerns about explicit materials in schools/libraries.

Community Standards are on full display in these polls.

The practice of disregarding Community Standards not only violates constitutional protections but fractures the trust between families and educators, turning schools and libraries into ideological battlegrounds rather than neutral learning environments. These and other polls clearly indicate the public feels that parents should know what their children are being shown and what is taught to them. That means before it happens. After the fact when it's too late-- the damage is done and the seed of confusion is planted.

Recent court decisions have begun to push back against this overreach, affirming that parents hold primary authority.

The Court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor that a Maryland School Board's denial of parental notice opt-outs for instruction involving LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks unconstitutionally burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of their religion. The Court ordered the school board to provide advance notice and allow opt-outs for the instruction in question while the case proceeds.

In the landmark case Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to temporarily block California's policies (including AB 1955) that prohibited schools from notifying parents about a child's gender identity changes or social transitions without the student's consent. The conservative majority reinstated a lower court's injunction, stating that such secrecy likely violates parents' rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause (for religious families) and the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process protections to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

The Court emphasized that these policies "conceal [information about gender dysphoria] from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours," substantially interfering with parental guidance. This emergency ruling, hailed by advocates as one of the most significant parental rights victories in a generation, has placed California schools in legal limbo and could reshape similar secretive policies nationwide.

Parents are the authors of the standards of the communities in which they live. Both court cases are related to violations of parent's rights due to the active (not passive) attempts to circumvent parental authority. Passive attempts to go around a parent's rights would include putting an sexually explicit book in the children's section, and then blame the parent for not supervising well enough when their child picks it up.

If public libraries and schools
would consider Community Standards,
much of the turmoil today
could have been prevented

Community Standards have been left outside the gate as if they don't exist

The surge in litigation —and the avalanche of resulting legislation—is precisely what happens when Community Standards are ignored, while parental rights, women's rights, and children's rights are systematically trampled upon.

Over the past decade, we've seen a relentless push to expose young children to sexually explicit materials and ideologies that promote gender confusion, often without meaningful parental input or consent. The result has been widespread parental outrage, eroded trust in public institutions, and a flood of lawsuits challenging school policies, library practices, and state laws. Courts and lawmakers are now forced to step in and restore the natural balance because basic constitutional protections—long recognized as fundamental to family autonomy—have been overridden using public schools and libraries as launching pad, causing societal chaos.

When fundamental rights are ignored at scale, the legal system becomes the only recourse left to protect children, safeguard women's spaces and opportunities, and reaffirm that parents—not schools, libraries, or distant bureaucracies—are the primary guardians of their children's well-being and upbringing.

Gender ideology has taken over education and dominated the conversation in practically every industry and social setting. Policies regarding what children read and materials used for education have been co-opted by non-governmental organizations with no accountability to voters or families into every public school and public library across the country.

Parents are told that it is their responsibility to monitor what their child sees while policies and legally maneuvered defenses undermine any true empowerment to exercise that responsibility. Libraries and schools are not telling parents what's actually in the books they are giving to the children. What happens when trusted adults over a period of years repeatedly tell an entire generation of children that they or a bunch of their friends are in the "wrong body" and that their parents are wrong about it they don't agree?

The beginning of the end buried in the pages of books for kids

Example:

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg), a book in the Children's section in many libraries including the Hays Public Library, has the following quotes:

"But having a penis isn't what makes you a boy. Having a vulva isn't what makes you a girl" p. 71.

"I think this is the part where they tell us about the difference between boys and girls." "Only boys and girls? What about the rest of us?" "Excellent question, Zai. If everybody is different, how could there be only two kinds of people?" p. 72-73.

"Sometimes the people looking see a big clitoris and think it's a penis. Sometimes they see a small penis and think it's a clitoris. Sometimes they aren't sure." p. 77

So if the adults in the room can't be sure if a baby is a boy or a girl, how can the child ever be really sure what sex they are?

They can't, and that's the point of books like this.

This book teaches little kids about
masturbation and points out that
children can't really be sure of their sex

Editors have dropped hints throughout thousands of books that children might be in the "wrong body." Public schools and libraries have put those books in front of millions of children, defending the practice by saying the publisher says the book is for children and somebody somewhere gave the book a good review.

Community Standards be damned.

So here we are...

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort or mental tension that arises when a person holds two or more conflicting beliefs, values, attitudes, or ideas. Children manifest conflicting messages about gender/sexuality (e.g., family teachings vs. school/media content) with confusion, anxiety, depression, or giving in to alignment with one side or the other if only to resolve unbearable tension.

Schools and Libraries have been used as tools, a means to an end, an insidious garden to deeply plant the seeds of gender dysphoria in the most vulnerable, impressionable young minds, advanced and guarded by an aggressive political agenda that should have absolutely nothing to do with children.

Why are children being exposed to sexually explicit materials only in public schools and libraries?

K.S.A. 21-6401
and K.S.A. 21-6402
prohibit display
of obscene materials
to minors

Because it would be illegal in literally any other setting. Public schools and libraries are institutions where Community Standards are supposed to be a factor.

Children from pre-school on up are bombarded with messaging about sexual orientation, gender ideology, confusing mixed messages, and are divided from their parents and communities by all of it.

The resulting generational cognitive dissonance has caused societal upheaval

States are passing laws that prohibit boys from entering girls private spaces, competing in girls sports, listing anything but the biological sex on a Driver's License, and more; all to relieve the cognitive dissonance and legal entanglements that have been created by it.

In the Kansas Senate Bill 244 (SB 244), enacted in February 2026, "Sex" is defined as biological sex at birth (male or female, based on reproductive biology/genetics).

Settled biology now requires a law to enforce it, because little boys have been told for years that they can be girls and vice versa, just by saying it is so, in thousands of books and classrooms across the country.

27 states have laws explicitly banning male students from participating in female sports, requiring participation based on sex identified at birth. This covers K-12 schools (and often higher education). An additional 2 states (Alaska and Virginia) use regulations or agency policies to achieve similar restrictions.

Key states include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Recent additions strengthening laws in 2025 included Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Utah.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in January 2026 on challenges to Idaho and West Virginia laws (cases like Hecox v. Little and B.P.J. v. West Virginia), with indications the conservative majority may uphold such bans under Title IX and equal protection grounds. A federal executive order (2025) and NCAA policy changes have also aligned with restricting women's categories to those assigned female at birth.

This man was told he could
be a woman if that's what he
wanted to be

Pending legislation in 2026 includes dozens of sports-related bills (96 tracked so far) in various states, often seeking to codify or expand these restrictions, including definitions of sex/gender.

Around 21 states have laws or policies expressly prohibiting males from using female bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or changing facilities in K-12 schools and/or government-owned buildings (e.g., public facilities). Some extend to private settings or add criminal penalties.

Explicit bans (often in schools/government buildings):

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and others with variations in the laws.

Pending legislation in 2026 includes 44+ bathroom-related bills, with some expanding to private businesses or adding enforcement mechanisms.

Drag queens roll around
on the floor
with children
while parents are
shamed for objecting

All of this because Community Standards are not only ignored, but condemned

How much of a majority does it take to make a Community Standard?

Rasmussen Reports / Capitol Resource Institute Poll (September 2025): An overwhelming majority opposes sexually explicit books in public school libraries.

70% of voters are concerned (50% very concerned) that school-age children are exposed to sexual material that is not age-appropriate.
62% believe books with explicit sexual depictions of sex acts (including homosexual sex) should not be in public high school libraries.
Opposition rises to 74% for middle schools and 81% for elementary schools.
Majorities across parties (78% Republicans, 51% Democrats, 58% independents) say it's very important for schools to fully inform parents about classroom teachings. Source: Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,212 likely voters (margin ±3%).

Earlier Rasmussen Reports Poll (September 2022): Similar findings with high concern.

77% concerned about exposure to sexually age-inappropriate material (55% very concerned).
78% of parents and 84% of grandparents believe parents should have control over books in public school libraries.
70% of parents and 86% of grandparents oppose schools teaching how to perform sex acts. These results show broad bipartisan agreement on parental control and opposition to explicit content.

EveryLibrary Institute / Book Riot Parent Perceptions Survey (2023, updated context in 2025 reports):

60% believe school libraries should restrict access by age or require parental permission for certain books.
76% think parents should decide if their child accesses info on challenging topics like sex ed.
85% believe some books are inappropriate for all children.
95% want school libraries, but with safeguards.

Parents' rights should not face a barrage of legal challenges, it should be the other way around. Parents don't have to prove they have rights, the Supreme Court already did that. Schools and Libraries should have to prove that they are upholding those rights and are in compliance with the law.

Community Standards should be the prevailing wind of common sense

It is the legal and moral responsibility of all adults to protect all children, Parents have the Constitutional right to decide what is best for their child without deception or barriers from schools, public libraries, or politicians with an agenda.

Having a sense of community means knowing your neighbor’s child is as precious as your own—and acting like it. Parents want to protect all children, no one is asking for anything that doesn't accomplish that goal. That's the Community Standard everywhere, for all children are to be protected.

Parents should be able to trust that their Community IS the Standard.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/community-standards-non-negotiable.html

Follow On X: @patriotesse

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

IMLS is the Latest Target of American Library Association with Kelly Jensen Smearing It As Doo Doo

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 02:38:00 +0000

Kelly Jensen does doo doo smear on IMLS

Kelly Jensen uses hate and projection to smear IMLS (United States Institute for Museum and Library Services). IMLS gets smeared like doo doo, because this is one underhanded, disgusting technique ALA uses to push its efforts to indoctrinate children in schools and libraries using the taxpaying public's money to do so.

Kelly Jensen's doo doo references, themselves a form of projection, start right in the title of her latest IMLS hit job, the first significant word:

"The Ensh*ttification of the Institute of Museum and Library Services Trucks On: What's Happening and What You Can Do; Nearly a Year After the Institute of Museum and Library Services was Dismantled, What's Happening At the Agency? What Can We Do to Help Out?," by Kelly Jensen, Book Riot, 2 March 2026.

Oh look, she censored the word in the title by using an asterisk, but it's spelled out right there in the URL. So it's okay for kids and URLs but not for Book Riot by Riot New Media:

https://bookriot.com/the-enshittification-of-the-imls/

In fairness, she did use the word in the text, in one of many efforts to smear IMLS:

"further enshittifying democracy, rather than serving the American citizenry."

And these people are supposedly "trusted experts" for children, set into law by ALA's "Freedom to Read Act" that ALA is spreading across America and the federal government.

School librarians are not trusted experts. If anything, they represent the "ensh*ttification" of public education throughout America, and the scatological reference is just more projection.

Trusted expert Kelly Jensen is an awarded hero of American Library Association with a Presidential Commendation from ALA's American Association of School Librarians (AASL). That means she's a trusted expert for ALA itself. ALA librarians award each other, like they award books they want kids to read, like Gender Queer. Awards are given to people and books for the most kids harmed or the best potential to harm kids. This is sort of like "Library Girl" Kendra Sunderland won multiple awards from the adult entertainment industry.

School librarians generally are not trusted experts for school children, given they are trained no book is ever inappropriate for any child and given the vocal ones are uniformly opposed to America and capitalism, like the one suing me who published on Bluesky, "THE REVOLUTION IS OVERDUE," but I digress. So many other cases, other librarians, I should write a separate story about it.

Back to Kelly Jensen, here is the doo doo level of her AASL Presidential Commendation arguments against IMLS:

the perfect encapsulation of how the Trump Vance administration is hellbent on destroying an agency dedicated to sharing and protecting truth, facts, and information
the regime's obsession with and dedication to AI is about bowing to technocrats and further ensh[*]ttifying democracy, rather than serving the American citizenry
The Trump Vance regime
No one in the current regime
IMLS is an arm of propaganda for the Trump-Vance regime
The IMLS Freedom Trucks stole over $14,000,000 from U.S. taxpayers, intended to serve public libraries and museums, and funneled it directly into the pockets of the right-wing private corporation PragerU
the Freedom Trucks, which the regime claims celebrate America’s shared cultural history in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary

Maybe if she keeps saying "regime" often enough it will become the truth? She's a "trusted expert" after all, with a Presidential Commendation. She writes "regime" 20 times in her one screed. Here's more:

a history and philosophy of whitewashing history
It is infuriating to see that states with lower literacy levels, where schools have become the most targeted by partisan politics (past and present), where books and texts filled with facts and history have been yanked off the shelves "to protect the kids," and where money is being stolen from public schools to fund the private education of the already-wealthy are the ones getting the "treat" of Freedom Trucks
These Trucks further lie to some of the most vulnerable about this country’s history and further the propaganda that the regime hopes they’ll continue to swallow down without question

Here's where she calls everyone stupid if they allegedly lack "critical" skills:

Too many of those who will hop aboard the trucks lack the critical literacy skills (of all kinds) to ask questions.

This gutter level of argument and projection goes on and on for the remainder of the hit piece. I'll skip it now.

Contrast that writing with real journalism, real reporting, presenting many of the same issues, but without the hate and projection:

"Top Library Advocate: Backing Drag Queen Story Hour Supports Parental Choice," by Susan Crabtree, RCP Staff, RealClear Politics, 3 March 2026.

🚨NEW: American Library Association President Sam Helmick (they/them) Says Backing Drag Queen Happy Hour Supports Parental Choice.

Helmick’s statement comes amid a fierce debate over the rights of parents to opt children out of sexual lessons or material in schools and the… pic.twitter.com/yYCna3fSuh
— Susan Crabtree (@susancrabtree) March 3, 2026

Also, Kelly Jensen takes a victory lap that she supposedly forced IMLS to change its home page. She writes on Bluesky:

Yes, indeed, the IMLS home page is back to what it was before they spit out AI slop on it last week.

Guess what works? Exposing, amplifying, shaming, and pushing back.

Pure propaganda. First, IMLS likely corrected things on its own. Second, Kelly taking a victory lap is a joke. Last year she wrote an article that had absolutely zero effect on IMLS. She leaves that out of her fakery. Last year she wrote "The Latest From IMLS and What You Need to Prepare For Right Now," and all that exposing, amplifying, shaming, and pushing back made no difference. Though back then she used administration 4 times and no regimes. Now that she's using 20 regimes, that made the difference. She's a trusted expert on her own delusions of self worth.

Besides, how good is Kelly as a "trusted expert" on IMLS if she brags about and recommends other librarians block federal government accounts on Bluesky?

"Mom, what did you do on your Friday night?"

Well, I spent it blocking federal departments and agencies on Bluesky, like in any other normal f[*]cking reality.

I'm looking forward to what the new IMLS will do for America.

How about you?

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/imls-is-latest-target-of-ala.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Object to this book in the Children’s section? You're out of luck

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:18:00 +0000

ALA inspired policy effectively blocks any meaningful challenge by Parents for materials they don't want their children to see at the public library, even though the law requires it.

Teenagers in sexual positions in

"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie H. Harris

with illustrations by Michael Emberley.

Many public libraries in Kansas and most other states have adopted a new policy, guided by the American Library Association (ALA), that limits citizens' and parents' rights to challenge books and materials accessible to minors in libraries and via online downloads.

At Hays Public Library (HPL), key policy elements include:

"A Citizen’s Request for Reconsideration of a Library Material may only be submitted by residents of Ellis County." However, HPL materials are shared via interlibrary loan, resource sharing, rural outreach, and school support through the Central Kansas Library System (CKLS), serving 17 counties. Citizens and parents in the other 16 counties cannot request reconsideration, despite most checkouts originating outside Ellis County (per the latest Library Board meeting). This restricts parents' rights to guide their children's education when using public libraries.

"An item reviewed through the reconsideration process is not eligible for review again until 5 years after the date the review is completed." The Library Director does not publicize titles under consideration and can reject new requests by claiming prior objections (even if unresolved).

"Due to the nature of a consortium and digital collections, content on Sunflower eLibrary cannot be reconsidered if it was purchased and shared by another library. Content on other online resources may also be ineligible for reconsideration depending on how the library subscribes to content on each online resource." Minors can download sexually explicit books unrestricted, eliminating parents' ability to challenge shared digital materials—comprising nearly all titles.

HPL refuses to limit juvenile cardholders to juvenile titles or shield children as young as 5 from viewing sexually explicit print books. All ages access all materials freely, burdening parents to prove obscenity rather than requiring the library to demonstrate child protection.

Librarians, per ALA's Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement, consider no materials obscene for children, ensuring that all ages have access to all materials. Public libraries and the Kansas State Library Handbook follow ALA guidelines, overriding and blocking parental objections.

A key passage from Justice Brennan's majority opinion in

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)

, explains parental responsibility: "First of all, constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society. 'It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.' Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166. The legislature could properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility."

This affirms:

Parents hold a fundamental, constitutionally recognized role as primary directors of their children's upbringing and moral development.

The state can enact laws (e.g., age restrictions) to support parents' responsibilities, not undermine them.

Government has a legitimate interest in child welfare, especially limiting third-party exposure to harmful content without parental consent.

Drawing on precedents like

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

and

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925

), the Court emphasized parental primacy in child-rearing, permitting aligned state intervention.

Troxel v. Granville (2000)

reaffirmed that fit parents presumptively act in their children's best interests, curbing state interference in family decisions like education.

The interpretation supports parents' primary responsibility for children's moral and developmental "education" (child-rearing), allowing laws to restrict unsuitable materials without overriding parental choices. This has influenced later parental rights cases in education and upbringing.

HPL's policy protects the library from repeated requests. While reasonable policies are lawful, a 5-year blackout is unreasonable—spanning from 8th grade to adulthood—prioritizing library convenience over parental rights. It fails to uphold laws supporting parents' guidance of children's education.

Thousands of libraries use this policy, treating reconsideration requests as censorship. At HPL, all such requests sought only to relocate sexually explicit books to the adult section for parental review before checkout; none demanded removal (though the director removed low-circulation titles voluntarily).

Adapted from Sunflower eLibrary and ALA policies, it's nationwide, restricting parental rights and exposing millions of elementary-aged children to sexually explicit materials (defended as educational regardless of age) without parental knowledge or recourse (if prior objections exist).

The Library Director suggested another option: forgo a library card or accept the policy.

So either deal with it or get out and stay out.

Yet, taxpayers fund these public institutions.

Does it sound like this policy will withstand legal scrutiny?

"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie H. Harris

with illustrations by Michael Emberley.

Does this look like a perfectly normal

children's book to you?

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/02/object-to-this-book-youre-out-of-luck.html

On X:@patriotesse

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Public Library Books Instructing Children How to Masturbate on the Shelf for Kindergartners

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 01:52:00 +0000

Request for Reconsideration Led to

Relocation in Children's Section

"Like other holes in the body, the anus

is usually very sensitive, which means it

can feel good to touch but can also hurt

if we are rough with it" (p. 63)

Sex is a Funny Word (Cory Silverberg)

p. 64 shows "grown up" clitoris and vulva in

a book in the Children's section

The process began with a standard reconsideration request under the Hays Public Library's Objections to Books or Materials Policy. I asked for a sexually explicit book to be placed in the Adult section or in a future Parenting section. The book, Sex is a Funny Word (Cory Silverberg) was on the shelf in the Young Adult section, accessible to 9 years old and up.

After working through the reconsideration process, the request was denied. The Director then took action and moved it to Children's section of the library—exposing preschoolers and early elementary grade students browsing open shelves near computers and play areas to pages and pages of instructions and encouragement to masturbate, intended as sex education for children too young to read the text or understand the illustrations.

I appealed the Director's denial to the Board of Directors per library policy. After nearly an hour in Executive session and a statement by the Board attorney, the Board Chair asked if anyone wanted to appeal the Director's decision to place this book in the Children's section.

The silence was deafening

The board denied the appeal by sitting in total silence, some looking at the table and some staring straight ahead. .By doing so, the board assumed responsibility for the new placement of Sex is a Funny Word in the Children's section at the Hays Public Library.

In the December meeting where I made my appeal to the Board, some members did speak up during discussion. One member asking "Why did we put this book in the Children's section?" The Director responded "That's where it is in some other libraries." The Mayor stated "How can we know which books are ok" and "maybe we need to get some professionals in here to help decide which books are ok?" In this meeting, total silence.

The copyright page of the book shows that the title is for ages "7-10," however there is no objective criteria that the publisher is required to follow when making that determination. The library then relies on the publisher's designation to defend placement of the book, completely ignoring Community Standards as required by Kansas law (Read more about the Policy Shell Games here) and common sense when it comes to exposing children to mature themes.

This was not neutral curation. The director had the option to maintain status quo by denying the request for reconsideration and leaving the book where it was. Instead, action was taken, Choosing the youngest patron section possible in total disregard for the book's content including graphic descriptions and illustrations of sexual organs, encouragement of masturbation, and presentation in a colorful illustrated format appealing to prurient curiosity for children.

There's more....

It's Perfectly Normal is not normal in the Children's section

"It's Perfectly Normal" (Robie H. Harris, Michael Emberley) is also on the shelf in the Children's section at HPL, where little kids can go right from Dora The Explorer and books about dinosaurs to looking at these illustrations alongside text that is clearly written for much older readers.

The text has much of the same verbiage as Sex is A Funny Word, but with even more detail and graphic descriptions of how "after a bit, a person's vagina becomes moist" and "after a bit, a person's penis becomes erect."

This book in the Children's section lists different kinds of intercourse, including vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse. The intention of these two titles is sex education, but the placement

in a section where children who

cannot read the material negates any educational value of the materials.

The industry standard for a child's book is 32 pages, in part because a parent has to read to the book to the child and the child's attention span is well researched and limited. "It's Perfectly Normal" has 128 pages, and Sex is a Funny Word has 157 pages. Books of this length are not typically provided for reading to a child, and both of these books are written to appeal to those above the age range for the Children's section.

Hays Public Library is not the only library intentionally placing books like this in the Children's section. Libraries all across the State of Kansas are placing the books in the same area and fighting to keep them there.

WHY?

What does Kansas law say?

Obscenity to Minors Under K.S.A. 21-6401

K.S.A. 21-6401 defines "obscene" via the three-prong Miller v. California test (1973).The test looks at the whole work (not just one part). It uses local community standards (not national ones) for the first two parts. Kansas laws (like K.S.A. 21-6401 on promoting obscenity and K.S.A. 21-6402 on material harmful to minors) build directly on this Miller test to define and regulate obscene or harmful content, especially to kids.

Any material is "obscene" if all three prongs are met:

(A) The average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

Prurient interest = shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion (Roth v. United States, 1957; reaffirmed in Miller v. California, 1973)

What is the intention of these excerpts from Sex is a Funny Word?

pg 25: "Sex is something people can do to feel good in their bodies" → Introduces sex primarily as a source of physical pleasure.
pg 28: "Part of sex is feeling joy and pleasure." → Reinforces pleasure as central to sex.
pg 46: "If I could be naked all the time I would" → Normalizes desire for constant nudity.
pg 48: "Some people love the feeling of being naked. When you are naked you can see and touch your body without clothes getting in the way." → Links nudity directly to unrestricted touching and visual pleasure.
pg 60: "Some nipples are sensitive, and some are not. Nipples can feel very good to touch" (with illustrations labeled kids and grown-ups) → Explicitly states that touching nipples feels "very good."
pg 61: "Like nipples, some people's breasts are sensitive and can feel good when they are touched" (illustrations of kids and grown-ups) → Extends pleasure claim to breasts, including children's bodies.
pg 62: "Like other holes in the body, the anus is usually very sensitive, which means it can feel good to touch but can also hurt if we are rough with it" (illustrations) → Describes anal touching as potentially pleasurable, normalizes that touching may be "rough."
pg 64: "The clitoris can be very sensitive, and touching it can feel warm and tingly" (illustrations of vulva/clitoris/vagina) → Describes clitoral stimulation as producing pleasurable sensations.
pg 66: "Like the clitoris, the penis can be very sensitive, and touching it can feel warm and tingly" (illustrations of penises, some erect) → Describes penile stimulation as pleasurable, with visual depictions of erection.
pg 107: "You may have discovered that touching some parts of your body, especially the middle parts, can make you feel warm and tingly. Grown-up call this kind of touch masturbation. Masturbation is when we touch ourselves, usually our middle parts, to get that warm and tingly feeling." → Explicitly defines and normalizes masturbation as a pleasurable self-touching activity.
pg 108: "When you were younger, you may have discovered that it felt good to touch yourself. You may have done this even when you weren't alone." → Suggests masturbation can occur in non-private (that means PUBLIC) settings and feels good.

In Summary for the 1st Prong (A)

Taken as a whole, the book Sex is a Funny Word repeatedly frames sexual body parts and self-touching as sources of pleasure ("feel good," "warm and tingly," "very good to touch"). Illustrations of children's and adults' genitals, nipples, breasts, and anus reinforce this focus. This emphasis on sexual pleasure could be found to appeal to prurient (shameful/morbid) interest in sex. Books intended for education do not typically focus on pleasure in this way.

B) the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has patently offensive representations or descriptions of:

(i) Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse or sodomy; or (ii) masturbation, excretory functions, sadomasochistic abuse or lewd exhibition of the genitals; and..

In Summary for the 2nd Prong (B)

pg 60–66: Detailed descriptions and illustrations of touching nipples, breasts, anus, clitoris, and penis, with statements that these areas "can feel very good" or "warm and tingly" when touched.
pg 107–108: Explicit definition and normalization of masturbation as touching "middle parts" to achieve pleasurable "warm and tingly" feelings, including the suggestion that children may have done this publicly when younger.
Comic Book Style Illustrations: Labeled drawings of children's and adults' genitals (penis, vulva, clitoris), nipples, breasts, and anus—some showing erection or sensitivity focus.

The material contains patently offensive representations and descriptions of masturbation and lewd exhibition of the genitals (detailed illustrations and positive framing of touching private parts for pleasure). In Ellis County, Kansas, such explicit depictions and encouragement to masturbate in a book for very young children would likely be viewed as patently offensive. Publishers assume parental involvement or guidance during the reading or viewing of sexual education materials, which would require age-restricted check outs or placement in a Parenting section.

(C) taken as a whole, a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value;

(2) "material" means any tangible thing which is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound or other manner;

In Summary for the 3rd Prong (C)

The book is presented as educational (sex education, body positivity, boundaries), but the excerpts focus heavily on pleasure from touching genitals, masturbation, and nudity rather than purely biological or safety-focused information.
For the target audience of the children's section, detailed pleasure-based discussions of masturbation and genital sensitivity lack serious educational value. These passages go beyond basic anatomy into explicit arousal descriptions.
The illustrations of children's genitals and statements normalizing childhood masturbation ("when you were younger, you may have discovered...") could be seen as lacking serious value for very young children who could only be toddlers or Kindergartners in younger years.

The pleasure-centric focus on masturbation and genital touching, described using words like "clitoris" and "anus" could lead a reasonable person to find that—taken as a whole—the book lacks serious educational value for children especially when considering that some of age ranges viewing books in the children's section are not old enough to read the book at all, let alone be mature enough for the content. The prurient emphasis outweighs any redeeming value for preschoolers and early elementary ages.

Reckless = Disregard for Substantial Risk

K.S.A. 21-6401.

Promoting obscenity; promoting obscenity to minors. (a) Promoting obscenity is recklessly: (1) Manufacturing, mailing, transmitting, publishing, distributing, presenting, exhibiting or advertising any obscene material or obscene device;

(2) possessing any obscene material or obscene device with intent to mail, transmit, publish, distribute, present, exhibit or advertise such material or device;

(3) offering or agreeing to manufacture, mail, transmit, publish, distribute, present, exhibit or advertise any obscene material or obscene device;

(b) Promoting obscenity to minors is promoting obscenity, as defined in subsection (a), where a recipient of the obscene material or obscene device or a member of the audience of an obscene performance is a child under the age of 18 years.

The statute requires only "recklessness"—disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct will promote obscenity to minors.

(e) Evidence that materials or devices were promoted to emphasize their prurient appeal shall be relevant in determining the question of the obscenity of such materials or devices. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person promoting obscene materials or obscene devices did so knowingly or recklessly if:

(1) The materials or devices were promoted to emphasize their prurient appeal;

The book's repeated emphasis on how touching genitals, nipples, breasts, anus, and masturbation produces pleasurable sensations ("feel good," "warm and tingly," "very good") constitutes promotion emphasizing prurient appeal.

With this action, the disregard for risk was obvious. The book was moved from a section for teenagers to a section for Elementary students and pre-school ages. By placing it in the Children's section rather than simply denying the reconsideration request and keeping it in Young Adult (reserving access for older minors while shielding younger ones), the Director showed knowing disregard for the substantial risk of escalated exposure to children by promoting the book to an audience even more likely to experience that prurient appeal defined in Kansas law. The board's denial of appeal ratified this choice, showing collective disregard for the now increased risk of exposure to even younger children, including Pre-K.

In Ellis County—in a conservative Kansas community—graphic depictions of sexual organs and masturbation in a children's book would offend prevailing standards.

"Educational" claims crumble for preschoolers: no serious value justifies exposing 4-year-olds to mature sexual concepts.

Legal Definitions in Multiple Statutes

Support Consistent Interpretation

During public statement, the library's attorney stated that K.S.A. 21-6402 (Harmful to Minors) does not apply to libraries, meaning that any criminal prosecution could not use that statute as a basis. That is correct, however a more protective and productive clarification would have included the overlap in definitions with K.S.A. 21-6401.

The definitions in the Harmful to Minors statute (K.S.A. 21-6402) overlay heavily with the Promotion of Obscenity to Minors statute (K.S.A. 21-6401) and help interpret what counts as prohibited content under the broader, non-commercial latter statue that does apply to libraries. By disregarding the intention and spirit of the legal definitions included in K.S.A. 21-6402, the attorney may have missed an opportunity to educate the Board and Director, as well as the public, regarding the statute that shares those definitions and the policy requirements in following the law with regard to promoting obscenities to minors.

K.S.A. 21-6402's definitions flow into K.S.A. 21-6401's analysis—helping establish that content like these books about masturbation and genital-pleasure sections could be "obscene" for younger ages in a non-commercial setting like a public library. That overlap strengthens any recklessness argument under 21-6401(b) and weakens the library's conditional defense if policies don't adequately restrict access.

The shared concepts are almost identical: prurient appeal, patently offensive sexual depictions (including masturbation and lewd exhibition of genitals), and lack of serious value. Material that are obscene under 21-6401 (full Miller test) will always qualify as "harmful to minors" under 21-6402's variable standard (inspired by Ginsberg v. New York).

Courts interpreting K.S.A. 21-6401 can look to 21-6402's definition as persuasive guidance for what Kansas considers "patently offensive" or lacking value to minors. The explicit pleasure-focused language and illustrations of sexual organs in the excerpts (e.g., masturbation defined as touching "middle parts" for "warm and tingly" feelings, genital sensitivity resulting in sexual pleasure, public masturbation) make it easier to argue that Sex is a Funny Word and It's Perfectly Normal meet K.S.A. 21-6401's stricter obscenity test when made accessible to young children.

No one has to prove it would harm small children to see these books

Kansas courts have never required "scientifically certain" proof of harm for such laws to apply, in line with Ginsberg v. New York, 1968. A reasonable belief in risk suffices. Placing explicit material in the Elementary school section ignores that risk entirely and robs parents of any choice over what their children see at the public library.

The policies of the library make it very difficult for parents to exercise the responsibility they are entitled to, both in the Community and by law.

The library policy states that children younger than 9 years old must have a parent or legal guardian present, but that means that a daycare provider can bring in 5 or 6 children under the age of 8 after school and it's not realistic that one adult can see what the children are seeing when excitedly browsing through books, expecting turtles flying space ships but seeing a drawing of erect penis instead.

The Public Library policy is that all ages have access to all materials, because to do otherwise would be censorship, but that's not accurate

In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York law which established the concept of "variable obscenity"—material can be regulated differently for children than for adults. The ruling affirmed the state's power to protect minors' welfare and support parental authority in child-rearing, without invading protected First Amendment expression for adults or minors in a way that amounts to censorship.

The Court held that the restriction was constitutionally permissible because it targeted only minors and did not interfere with adults' rights to obtain or distribute the material.

In short, the case stands for the idea that narrowly tailored limits on minors' access to sexually explicit (but not fully obscene-for-adults) material are not impermissible censorship—they serve compelling state interests in child protection. This reasoning has influenced later laws on "harmful to minors" materials, including in Kansas where the definitions of obscene materials in K.S.A. 21-6401 Promotion of Obscenity to Minors are cross-referenced with K.S.A. 21-6402 Harmful to Minors

Why are these books in the Children's section?

If a book is in a section where the children are too young to be educated by it, and it's not censorship to move it, why is it there?

Moving books with illustrations of sexual organs and descriptions of sexual activity to a parenting section would show the library's commitment to:

Alignment with Parental Authority: The U.S. Supreme Court in Ginsberg v. New York (1968) affirmed that "parents' claim to authority in the rearing of their children is basic in our society" and that states (and by extension, public institutions) may enact reasonable measures to support parents in discharging that responsibility (390 U.S. at 639). The Court emphasized that while ideal supervision of children's reading is left to parents, "the knowledge that parental control or guidance cannot always be provided and society's transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children justify reasonable regulation" (id. at 640). Variable standards for minors' access to sexually explicit materials are not censorship but a way to reinforce parental discretion.

Practical Support for Existing Policy: Hays Public Library's Parent’s Guide and Service Policy already place responsibility for guiding children's exposure on parents/guardians. Moving the books to a Parenting section (Adult) would allow parents to be more responsible for what their children view in the library and prevent accidental access which opens the library up to scrutiny in application of obscenity standards by Kansas law.

Community Standards and Precedents: In Ellis County and similar Kansas communities, concerns about young children's unsupervised access to explicit illustrations (e.g., couples in sexual positions or pleasure-focused descriptions of genital touching) are common. Other libraries have successfully implemented similar relocations, restricted access, or parental-consent mechanisms for sensitive topics without violating intellectual freedom principles. Moving sex education books to a Parenting section maintains open access while addressing developmental appropriateness for children, consistent with expert guidance on delaying detailed sexual content.

No Impact on Intellectual Freedom: The books would not be removed, restricted for adults/older patrons, or labeled as "banned." This respects the Library Bill of Rights while honoring the Court's view in Ginsberg that such targeted supports for parents are constitutional and beneficial.

If the books are supposed to be educational, then they must be kept in a Parenting section where parents can decide at what age their child is ready for that topic.

Parents should be able to trust the library, not have to fight to protect their kids from it.

"Constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in the rearing of their children is basic in our society, and the legislature could properly conclude that those primarily responsible for children's wellbeing are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility." Ginsberg v. New York P. 390 U. S. 639.

These books would not be considered offensive in a Parenting section where parents could decide when their child is ready for this information and images or the promotion of masturbation and sexual activity. In the Children's section, they are highly offensive and without any educational value because of the misplacement with regard to ages served in that area.

Parents don't have to prove to the Library Board of Directors that the materials are offensive. The Library Board has to prove to parents that the library can be trusted to protect parent's rights to decide when their child is exposed to sexual materials.

Kansas libraries are taxpayer-funded public institutions. Parents entrust them to actively protect children's moral development. Parents expect to exercise their own rights to decide what sexual materials their children will see and when they will see them.

It defies common sense that books written and illustrated the way that these books are would be purposely placed in view of young children under the guise of "education" when many of the kids in that age group can barely read, and others are not old enough to read yet at all.

It's not about whether a court of law would determined if the materials fail the Miller test. It shouldn't come to that, and it wouldn't come to that if Community standards were respected or even considered at all.

When boards and directors completely disregard the exposure of young children to sexual materials—especially after formal challenge—they don't potentially violate just the statute, but the trust of families and the community as a whole.

Sources cited:

Objections to Books or Materials Policy

Obscenity to Minors Under K.S.A. 21-6401

K.S.A. 21-6402 (Harmful to Minors)

Roth v. United States, 1957

Miller v. California, 1973)

Ginsberg v. New York, 1968.

Ginsberg v. New York P. 390 U. S. 639.

Policy Shell Games Hides Parents' Rights

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/02/public-library-books.html

On X: @Patriotessse

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

The Librarians Film is Agitprop to Produce Outrage So American Library Association Librarians Can Continue Harming Children

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 10:31:00 +0000

The Librarians film is agitprop intended to produce outrage about "censorship" and "book bans" among the general public so the American Library Association's school librarians may continue to ply schoolchildren with inappropriate material, as they have for 60 years.

Worse, the film is intended to be used as agitprop for years to come. Agitprop means "agitation" and "propaganda," per Dr. James Lindsay, who also discusses "paltering," which is exactly what the ALA does—particularly in The Librarians.

I have already written about the film in The Hill, including its paltering by providing a half-quote of President Dwight D. Eisenhower to give an impression about inappropriate books in schools that is essentially opposite of what the full quote said. Please read:

"Shame on PBS: 'The Librarians' is One Big Lie to Parents and Kids," by Dan Kleinman, opinion contributor, The Hill, February 2, 2026. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5715291-shame-on-pbs-the-librarians-is-one-big-lie-to-parents-and-kids/.

I will dissect the film as time goes on, so follow me here and @OccupyLibraries. But in the meantime, let's look as how the film is agitprop—because Kim A. Snyder, the film's director, says it is:

[Amanda] Jones said that the film shows how librarians are banding together and bringing these stories to light.

"We've gone from being independent and isolated to what Kim has said, that we're like librarians without borders because we're building relationships with other librarians," Jones said.

Now, after screening the documentary in various places, the "librarians without borders" have started a movement. "The Librarians" team plans to continue this campaign throughout 2026. They hope to encourage civic engagement and take these book debates out of a polarized partisan space.

The PBS broadcast premiere puts the documentary into homes all over the country.

"The majority of Americans really care but had no idea things had gotten like this, specifically in terms of the impact on the librarian," Snyder said. "We want to expose that and have people be both outraged and activated to get civically engaged. We also want to support organizations of librarians as they are the firewall protecting one of the most fundamental rights in our democracy."

Source: "Louisiana Librarian Who Fought Against Book Bans Will Be Featured on New PBS Documentary," by Joy Holden, The Advocate, February 6, 2026.

Kim Snyder is consistent with her message that The Librarians is agitprop designed to get people who support harming kids to get onto library and school boards:

Kim A. Snyder directed “The Librarians” 2025 documentary by American Library Association. It’s agitprop to motivate people to get on school + library boards to ensure children remain exposed to ALA’s indoctrination and s•xualization plan.

Now hear Kim Snyder say this herself. pic.twitter.com/p69pvyDlGa
— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) February 6, 2026

So let's not all be taken in by an organization that has worked for over 60 years to eliminate parental rights and indoctrinate schoolchildren.

Lastly, listen to Dr. James Lindsay discussing agitprop and how paltering is used for that purpose—and remember to follow me for more on this agitprop called The Librarians as time goes on.

—

URL of this page:

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-librarians-film-is-agitprop.html

On Twitter:

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

NJ Freedom to Read Act Model Policy Is Invalid Since It Was Written by a Fired Librarian

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Sat, 07 Feb 2026 15:57:00 +0000

NJ Freedom to Read Act model policies are invalid since they were written by a fired librarian. School librarian Elissa Malespina, who was fired from Verona High School for book displays on race and LGBTQ+ themes, and school librarian Martha Hickson, who retired from North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School before she could be fired for giving kids obscenity under NJ 2C:34-3, wrote the policy for the new New Jersey Freedom to Read Act. Martha Hickson introduced New Jersey State Senator Andrew Zwicker to the Freedom to Read Act that is written by the American Library Association in Chicago, Illinois. That is now New Jersey law.

Now revealed is that Martha Hickson and Elissa Malespina also wrote the school policies required under the law:

Martha Hickson

Before I was fired, I already knew Martha Hickson’s story. I reached out to her for help and guidance while writing South Orange and Maplewood’s district policies related to censorship and book challenges. Her experience and deep understanding of how these attacks unfold shaped that work in lasting ways. The policy we wrote, informed by her knowledge, is now used as a model across New Jersey.

When I did lose my job, Martha was the first person I called. I was crying. I was overwhelmed. I was dealing with severe depression and anxiety triggered by my firing. Martha did not just listen. She helped me find a therapist and a doctor. She gave me the courage to speak publicly about what happened, not for attention, but so others would not feel as isolated as I did.

Seeing us together on screen, as we testified at a hearing in support of New Jersey’s Freedom to Read bill, was a reminder that this work is collective, and that the relationships built in this fight often begin long before crisis hits.

Source: Elissa Malespina blog post provided in X post thread shown below.

When you see Elissa Malespina together with Martha Hickson on the screen in "The Librarians," it's right after Martha Hickson says, "fifth graders have penises."

And these are the people who wrote the policy to be followed by all schools in New Jersey and modeled in other states.

Unbelievable.

The policy schools must follow per a law written by American Library Association was written by a school librarian fired for gr[00]ming and another school librarian who retired before job action could be taken against her and who worked with ALA to get the Freedom to Read Act passed in New Jersey—because "fifth graders have penises."

"The policy we wrote, informed by her knowledge, is now used as a model across New Jersey."

Unbelievable.

Here we see fired school librarian Elissa Malespina and school librarian Martha Hickson in American Library Association’s “The Librarians” after Martha says, “fifth graders have penises.”

Elissa just admitted she and Martha wrote the school library policy required by NJ FTRA. pic.twitter.com/ekpHNnO6Gj
— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) February 7, 2026

By the way, the NJ Freedom to Read Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:34A-1 et seq.) requires:

To assist boards of education in developing a policy on the curation of library material within a school library, the commissioner shall develop a model policy. In developing the model policy, the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian, the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, and the New Jersey School Boards Association.

Clearly we have an admission here that the model policies were written by two school librarians, one fired and the other who helped ALA get it passed into law in New Jersey.

We have an admission against interest here ("policy we wrote, informed by her knowledge, is now used as a model across New Jersey") that the policies were not developed as required by the law, or at a minimum one of the consultants who wrote the model policy for the commissioner had already been fired for ideologically gr[00]ming school children.

School Library Journal tells us what happened from a point of view very much in favor of Elissa Malespina. Still, we get a sense of why she was fired:

"Mrs. Malespina does a nice job with creating collections for display about equity, specifically regarding the themes of race and LGBTQ. However, the selections never seem to go beyond those two topics. This has created the perception that the library is about only two things and not necessarily about promoting a variety of different books centered around a variety of different topics. Although it is difficult to say, this may be why the number of books that are checked-out of the library is not as high as might be expected. This approach to library displays creates a student space that is not inclusive enough to a wide variety of topics such as sports, politics, health, science fiction, graphic novels, etc. In order to create positive interactions with students and parents the space has to be a hub for events and a space that promotes a variety of topics and interests. It is recommended that there is a reflection on what the space is for and how it can be better utilized to serve the student and broader community."

In the review's conclusion, the principal said he would not recommend that the school bring Malespina back for the next school year.

Source: "After Her Book Displays Drew Criticism, Librarian Elissa Malespina Lost Her Job. She's Here to Say 'I'm Not OK with This,'" by Kara Yorio, School Library Journal, 18 October 2022.

So now we know why she was fired. My opinion from reading this is that she was fired for ideologically gr[00]ming school children. Whatever—this is the person who wrote the policies where the law says "the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian, the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, and the New Jersey School Boards Association." Even if Elissa Malespina was actually consulted under the law, her having been fired for ideological gr[00]ming of children should have invalidated her participation. Thus the model policies are essentially invalid.

Any law case brought to invalidate the NJ Freedom to Read Act will point to this very issue. Any other state laws copying from New Jersey will be similarly suspect.

The law is not being followed. The policies as written violate the law. This was always the intention of the cleverly worded FTRA as written by ALA, but here is the solid proof that ALA people—including a fired librarian—wrote the policies, not those charged with that duty under the law.

So the model policies are illegal. Schools need not follow illegal model policies, and those that already have should rescind them. They were written by a school librarian fired for ideological gr[00]ming of school children, not as required by law.

—

URL of this page:

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/02/nj-freedom-to-read-act-policy.html

On Twitter:

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Freedom to Read Act Incorporation Into School Policy Eliminates Local Control

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 08:12:00 +0000

Dear North Hunterdon-Voorhees School Board Members,

For weather-related reasons, I will not attend the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, January 27, 2026. But I hereby submit comments nonetheless for your consideration. I see you are having a "first reading." So I suppose my comments would apply to that or to a possible "second reading."

[Read the 11pp proposed policy 6163.1 here.]

[Watch NHV BOE discuss the policy here.]

Easy suggestion first. I'd like to tell you my experience obtaining the policy on the agenda so you can know how some might view it, or actually not view it, which is the problem I'll be addressing.

It did indeed take a bit of rooting around to finally find the page having the agenda. Then the agenda says, "First Reading of Policy." It's too general. What policy? It's under "Policy and School Security," so that tells me almost nothing. I took a gamble and clicked on the link. No real notice went to the public other than "first reading of policy." It's almost like it's sneaking in or perhaps being hidden from people like me. Only then did I finally see "Policy 6163.1 – Media Center/Library" and the changes to be made, then only if I scrolled down to the next page. You really have to dig and maneuver to get to the point where you finally get the notice you should already have had from the agenda but it's not there. The problem with this is, besides not providing notice in an understandable form, people who are casually involved in school workings may not ever get to the point of being properly noticed, while the regulars who already know one has to root around are at a significant advantage over casual viewers. You could be discouraging casual viewers, let alone not providing adequate notice. So that's just a suggestion for you to consider.

Another easy suggestion. Existing policy requires people to state their name and address and affiliation, if any, before speaking. At least in other states, that's a violation of state and federal constitutional rights to seek redress of the government and attorneys general have forced public bodies to drop such requirements. Further, in modern times, that exposes people to potential harassment, and it gets recorded on video, so the exposure is perpetual. American Library Association members, for example, file OPRA/FOIA requests for such information, then it is used in lawsuits, movies, whatever. Such information should be clear that it is optional, not required. Who knows, it might even cut back on the need to respond to OPRA requests if the information is simply not collected in the first place, thereby reducing any costs in researching and replying to such requests.

Now regarding the 6163.1 proposed media center, library policy:

1) The policy allows for electronic databases to be used, and they should. However, some of these databases expose children to inappropriate material not allowed if such material were purchased in print for the school library. The proposed policy does not account for that and it should.

2) The policy states, "Every student shall have access to a media collection containing materials appropriate to age level...." Gender Queer is "age appropriate" but it otherwise is what Pico calls "pervasively vulgar or otherwise educationally unsuitable" so it may be removed from the library. Playboy would be age appropriate, for example. That is a weakness in the policy. The policy would allow Gender Queer while Board of Education v. Pico, U.S. Supreme Court 1982 holds the exact opposite result and the book would be removed.

3) The former version of the policy said, "The superintendent has final responsibility for the selection of media center materials by professionally trained personnel including media specialists, teachers, principals and supervisors." That's being removed. The new policy eliminates the Superintendent and substitutes therefor the school librarian. Under Pico, the Superintendent has the authority to immediately remove material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable. No review committee would be needed, saving everyone a ton of time and money. Under the new policy, the school librarian now makes the decisions, not the Superintendent. That eliminates the protections of Pico. Further, nothing at all will ever be deemed as inappropriate by school librarians, other than works by conservatives or dead white males, a term I get from American Library Association directives. The former school librarian for example, Martha Hickson, testified in Trenton, as shown in the new American Library Association film called "The Librarians," that, "in my professional role, there is no p*rn*graphy for minors in, uh, school libraries so there is no need to restrict it. Book restrictions are, however, a form of censorship. Your personal opinion about obscenity does not make it so." Martha Hickson goes on to say, in response to what a legislator said, "fifth graders *have* p*nises." So the change in the policy to eliminate the Superintendent and substitute in the school librarian will ensure that nothing ever gets removed. Voting for this policy change is like voting for anything goes in the school library. Librarians are trained by American Library Association that nothing is ever p*rn*graphy because only a lawyer or a judge can make that decision, and, as Martha Hickson testified, it will be claimed it's censorship to remove such material.

4) The policy does not disclose that Pico applies and California v. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court 1973, does not apply to school books. The "as a whole" standard comes from the Miller case. Miller does not apply in schools. Pico does. So, for example, a school may remove Gender Queer from a school library for being pervasively vulgar and/or educationally unsuitable. Indeed Pico has been used repeatedly to remove that very book successfully. Miller, on the other hand, would require Gender Queer to stay in the library, since "as a whole" it is not obscene, and only a judge can rule it as such anyway. So under Pico, a Superintendent may remove Gender Queer immediately, and under Miller, Gender Queer will never be removed. No book ever will be removed under Miller since Miller is almost never used to determine works to be obscene. It would be a ridiculous endeavor since a case by case basis would be needed, precisely the reason why American Library Association holds it out as the gold standard when in reality it does not apply.

5) The policy is essentially a restatement of the NJ Freedom to Read Act, a law that will eventually be challenged and fail since it overrides Pico and N.J.S. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18, at a minimum. So I'll save the time of laying it out instance by instance but the comparison with FTRA shows it is essentially a copy, and FTRA was written by American Library Association in Chicago, IL. Board members have an ethical duty to apply local law, not material written by outside special interests groups like American Library Association. For example, the diversity and inclusion language as defined by American Library Association and included in the proposed policy and FTRA would make it so Gender Queer may not be removed, despite Pico, despite 2C:34-3. So yet again, the policy ensures children will, by policy, be exposed to material that could otherwise be removed or not purchased, but for the policy. As if the policy overrides New Jersey law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

6) The policy's removal request procedure is one recommended by American Library Association to intentionally a) drag out the process, b) cost money, c) provide the excuse that book reconsiderations waste money, d) asks leading questions of requesters to get them to say things not relevant to the review but that can be used to sink their request, e) unnecessarily narrows the pool of potential complainants. I'm surprised it didn't put a multi-year limit on again requesting a review since Martha Hickson said it should be five years precisely to eliminate the constitutional rights to seek redress of the government for four years.

7) The inclusion of the parent in the review committee is an American Library Association ruse. It's to make parents think their input is included. In reality, however a parent votes, it is always overridden by the rest of the committee. It's a ruse. In a Florida case, three parents did a comprehensive review of three books and decided two stay but one goes. They wrote a full report. The committee ruled to keep all books without even considering the parents' input for which they worked so hard as part of the committee. When the parents asked why their hard work was not even considered, the librarian on the committee said it wouldn't have mattered since the rest of the committee voted to retain all three books. This is the very ruse that this new policy embeds. I guarantee you all parental input on the committee will be ignored. This will be at least the third way that absolutely nothing will ever be removed from the school library. And it is all because Chicago's ALA has been working towards this goal for over 60 years. If you vote for this policy, you vote for Chicago ALA policy and your kids will be harmed. ALA is getting the school to play all these games at whatever time and expense just to cover up that nothing will ever be removed from the library. Just skip over the charade and make the policy say nothing will ever be removed from the library, so don't ask, and don't complain, and that's it. Done.

8) The policy says challenged material stays on the shelves until the challenge is finalized. That language comes directly from American Library Association. This is now a fourth way the children will remain exposed to inappropriate material despite Pico, 2C:34-3, and the Superintendent's previous ability to immediately remove materials under Pico.

9) The policy exempts from criminal and civil liability school librarians who violate 2C:34-3. By policy, poof, 2C:34-3 disappears. Pico disappears. Superintendents making appropriate decisions under Pico, poof, gone. All by the proposed policy.

10) The policy does not cover the communications of the school librarian. Former school librarian Martha Hickson used her personal Twitter account to conduct school business. She even provided training to librarians nationwide while recording on school grounds presumably during school time specifically telling them to direct message her on her personal Twitter account. Multiple OPRA requests for her communications were easily defeated by claiming there's no control over her personal accounts and she otherwise has no emails to disclose--because she did everything on her personal account. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Require that school business is conducted on school-supplied resources for the board's own good and for proper compliance with open government and records retention laws. Consider making persistently conducting school business on personal accounts a terminable offense. Librarians are trained to use Slack and Signal to circumvent parents, legislators, and the courts. That must not be allowed and can be precluded by policy. It should be added to the proposed policy, although it suffers from so much that it should be defeated. Sure, let them use personal accounts for personal goals and friendships and general librarianship growth, but for school-related communications, that should be precluded. Martha Hickson, for example, regularly communicated school business via her personal accounts with American Library Association. That is precisely why 400 people came to school board meetings and overwhelmed the four locals, two of which now appear derisively in "The Librarians" by American Library Association. The ALA president even gave a speech to all ALA membership that Martha Hickson was super important in ALA's imposing its way in North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School. All done without any records exposed to open government laws or retained under government retention laws. That has to be stopped. If anyone wishes to engage American Library Association about school business, it must be via use of school communications means subject to New Jersey laws and board policy.

11) The policy doesn't even address the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision from June 27, 2025, addressing parental rights, religious freedom, and the use of certain books in public elementary schools. Public schools cannot compel young children to participate in instruction or exposure to materials that interfere with religious upbringing in a significant way. The Court emphasized parental rights in directing the religious and moral development of their children. American Library Association hates that case. That's why it's not in the proposed policy. The only parental rights present are a ruse, as previously stated.

12) "In selecting materials to recommend for purchase, the media specialist shall evaluate the existing collection and consult reputable, unbiased, professionally prepared selection aids, and specialists from all departments and/or all grade levels." This is specifically designed to use only reviews from ALA-approved sources including ALA's own Booklist. It is specifically designed to disallow consideration of reviews from parental groups like RatedBooks dot org. It embeds into the policy an anti parent policy. Did you know that ALA hated BookLooks dot org so much (a parental review site that no longer exists) that it created its own Book Résumés that's just like BookLooks only without the excerpts and graphics but with all the glowing reviews from the approved book review sites? Did you know it was Martha Hickson who initially used NHV time, money, and servers to build what eventually got adopted by ALA as the new Book Résumés site? So the proposed policy includes yet again another subtle but present anti parent policy.

13) Limiting access to children to developmentally appropriate material is not censorship.

14) Books may have s*xualized content but it's not noted in Scholastic reviews and the like. The policy does not address that.

15) Nor does the policy address librarians making available websites that provide access to the very material school policy otherwise precludes.

So what we have in the new policy is the wording from the Freedom to Read Act from Chicago's American Library Association that has been working for 60-plus years to eliminate parental rights and indoctrinate children, crystallized into a policy that was essentially hidden on the agenda page, all to ensure children by policy get indoctrinated and s*xua*lized per ALA diktat. And the policy lacks significant protections and allowances for parental rights.

I have no clue who came up with the wording for the proposed changes, but that person or those persons did what's best for American Library Association, and the school children be damned.

Don't be angry with the way I worded things or what other board members may say about me. Set that aside. For the children, consider what I have said and consider if you really truly want this proposed policy 6163.1 to be applied to your school and your school children and your school parents.

Your policy should allow your Superintendent to remove books like Gender Queer and if it doesn't, something's off. Recall the whole multi-year battle over the books started when the Superintendent told Martha Hickson to remove a certain book, and Martha Hickson went immediately to American Library Association, got them instantly engaged, then intimidated the Superintendent into backing down from his request. The ALA bullying was nonstop after that. And it continues to this day with the proposed wording of policy 6163.1.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of these matters.

Dan Kleinman

—

Dear NHV Board of Ed,

I hereby add additional information based on new information just received, then one additional comment.

Beth Bourne has published on X https://x.com/bourne_beth2345/status/2015961359180300604?s=61 that the California Freedom to Read Act is causing librarians to admit nothing will ever again be removed from a library no matter how inappropriate. She includes a video of the librarians not caring a whit about harm to the children.

This is directly applicable to proposed policy 6163.1 since the proposed policy is essentially a mini version of the New Jersey Freedom to Read Act. So you can see the similarity between the California and the New Jersey version, because American Library Association wrote them both, and whomever wrote the proposed policy also inserted the American Library Association wish list that means "no restrictions for children."

As I stated in my original email this morning, the proposed policy implements the NJ FTRA so it will ensure school children are indoctrinated and s*xualized per ALA via NHV BOE school policy.

Here is what Beth Bourne wrote, an analogous confirmation from a California public library:

🚨🚨UNREAL: Yesterday I asked the indoctrinated far-left librarians in Davis why they want kids to access s[*]xually-explicit books that encourage p[*]rn consumption, like “Let’s Talk About It.”

The library manager said the recent passing of “California Freedom to Read Act” (AB 1825) means no restrictions for children.

The librarians also seemed fine with predatory men self-identifying into the Women’s Restroom.

To prove the stupidity of the policy, I identified as a man and walked into the Men’s Restroom.

You can’t hate @GavinNewsom and @TheDemocrats enough.

“The California Freedom to Read Act (AB 1825), signed in September 2024 and effective January 2025, requires public libraries receiving state funds to adopt written collection development policies by January 1, 2026, to prevent book bans.

It prohibits removing materials based on topics or views, protects library staff from retaliation, and forbids restricting access based on age or background.”

Why do children need to be indoctrinated into radical queer theory and transgenderism?
Davis branch library in Yolo County, CA near Sacramento.

While I am writing with that new information, here is an additional problem with the proposed policy.

16) Policy 6163.1 should provide for parents what the librarians and school teachers already have, namely, access to a database of all holdings in the school library and all holdings in classroom libraries, sorted by classroom. Full transparency is the key here. How can parents exercise constitutional rights if they are kept in the dark about school and classroom library contents? Martha Hickson even put up black paper on the library windows to prevent anyone from looking in. I entered the library once for a few minutes when it was open and was accused of criminal activity for breaking into the library after hours, supposedly. Why the secrecy? Why the reaction if gosh forbid a parent gets inside the library? Why the OPRA request for library security camera videos to see the alleged crime? How will parents know what's in the library if some policy does not require full access and if the library windows and classroom libraries are kept out of sight?

And this suggestion is also based on new information since I wrote this morning:

17) Policy 6163.1 should include a means to perform appropriate background checks on possible school librarian candidates, including psychological examinations. Times have changed and librarians have turned dark. Such people should be weeded out. I won't list names but one librarian has just been arrested for threatening the President. Another one threatened the President but has not yet been arrested. Others threaten Elon Musk with death. School librarians. Martha Hickson herself posted about 8647, so yet another threat to the President, right from the former school librarian who first ran to American Library Association and caused all the problems in the first place. Granted she was retired at the time of the threat. A library director in Louisiana was recorded days ago telling a patron that her "d*ck" was bigger than his so he should "s*ck" hers. Multiple librarians are involved in what's called ICE protests but is really part of a planned insurrection against the American government. Oh yes, Martha Hickson is one. Such people should not be hired. The policy should weed them out, perhaps even allow for their removal if such behavior occurs during employment. Any investigation should include their social media. Many adults working in the public school system suffer from one or more mental health issues. The proposed policy leaves out that these kinds of people should not be anywhere near children, and there's no mention of anything at all to prevent such possible disasters. The Boy Scouts say "Be Prepared." The proposed changes to policy 6163.1 leaves on the blindfolds.

Thank you for these additional considerations. You're in charge. You need to do the right thing now by setting appropriate policy. The proposed policy is a disaster waiting to happen.

—

URL of this page:

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/01/freedom-to-read-act-incorporation.html

On Twitter:

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Policy Shell Game Hides Parents' Rights in Kansas Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Ancar) — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 21:11:00 +0000

Just moving these books

to the adult section
won't matter, Sunflower eLibrary
lets kids download their own copy anytime.

Public libraries in Kansas shuffle policies with Sunflower eLibrary and trample Parents' Rights to object to s*xually explicit materials freely accessed by children in online accounts.

The Kansas State Library Handbook (2020 edition, pp. 18–19) directs public libraries to maintain a clearly defined method for handling complaints about materials. The guidance recognizes that challenges may occur and requires the library board policy to oversee a formal reconsideration process, including meeting personally with the Director, submission of a written request, review by designated staff or a committee, and appeals to the governing board, which holds final decision authority.

The 2017 version of the Handbook stated that "the library director should explain that they are complying with the law’s requirements for consideration” (p. 19).

Reconsideration is a procedural right...

The guidance did not change, however the 2020 version states “the library should explain to the complainant its materials selection policy, stating that the library board "subscribes" to the ALA (American Library Association) Freedom Statements (ALA Bill of Rights) (p. 19). The ALA's Library Bill of Rights has no legal force, with the judge describing the statements as an "aspirational creed" rather than a binding legal standard. (Berry v. Yosemite Community College District, Case No. 1:18-cv-00172-LJO-SAB. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018). It is not a federal statute and the ALA has no authority in Kansas. No identified cases show any ALA policies being upheld in court (or by libraries in litigation) specifically to deny reconsideration requests for shared digital items. Berry v. Yosemite Community College District limited the legal weight of the ALA Library Bill of Rights in court.

The Kansas State Library Handbook is weaker and less defensible by the recent changes made. Compliance with Kansas statues is required regardless of what inspired the language in the Handbook, which is produced with public funds and issued as governmental guidance to public libraries.

Children have unfiltered access to adult titles and parents can't object...

Sunflower eLibrary, a statewide consortium serving up to 150 Kansas public libraries, enforces a policy that categorically bars reconsideration of tens of thousands of shared digital materials stating, “Due to the nature of consortium or digital content, it is not possible for individual libraries to remove shared and/or content from the consortium. Individual libraries may remove content purchased under their Advantage accounts. Patrons wishing to challenge content need to submit a formal reconsideration request with each library that owns a copy of the title on the consortium, according to each library’s individual reconsideration policies and processes. Individual libraries who object to content shared by other libraries are encouraged to reconsider their participation in Sunflower eLibrary” (quoted from email dated January 9, 2026 from Hays Public Library Director).

The Hays Public Library adoption of this policy is even more restrictive, stating, “Due to the nature of consortium or digital collections, content on Sunflower eLibrary (Libby) cannot be reconsidered if it was purchased and shared by another library. Content on other online resources may also be ineligible for reconsideration depending on how the library subscribes to content on each online resource.” As a result, patrons are denied any meaningful reconsideration process for all the materials that libraries make available through consortium access unless their local library owns the title.

There is no statutory, constitutional, or delegated authority under Kansas law that permits a library consortium to unconditionally bar reconsideration of shared digital materials, redirect reconsideration exclusively to an “owning” library, or preempt local library board authority under K.S.A. 12-1225 Powers and duties of board. This restriction contradicts the Kansas State Library Handbook (2020, pp. 18–19)) requirement that public libraries maintain a clear, accessible method for complaints about any material available via its catalog or credentials—no exceptions for shared digital items—and exceeds the consortium’s statutory authority.

Because participation in Sunflower eLibrary is conditioned on compliance with this policy, its adoption produces a uniform statewide practice among member libraries that essentially prevents patron reconsideration of shared digital content.

Enter the Consortium...

The Kansas Public Library Handbook lists no barriers to the formal reconsideration process. The process applies whenever a member of the public objects to any material available in the catalog. A library makes material "available" when it appears in the catalog, and can be borrowed, downloaded, or viewed with library credentials, or are presented as part of the collection. Kansas law attaches full reconsideration obligations at that point, with no statutory exemptions for vendors, consortium membership, awards, nor licensing terms. The Handbook makes no exceptions for digital materials, shared/consortium-purchased materials, nor ownership by another library.

The Sunflower eLibrary is not an independent legal entity but a voluntary cooperative consortium formed by member public libraries to share digital resources via OverDrive. It operates through administrative agreements coordinated by regional library systems. A consortium derives its authority solely from its member libraries and cannot acquire oversight authority nor override the legal requirements for compliance of those individual public institutions.

The consortium does not have the authority to ban reconsideration of library materials in any format, regardless of ownership, in conflict with the reconsideration policies and statutory requirements of participating library boards.

Libraries must break the law to stay in good standing as Sunflower eLibrary members...

By conditioning participation in the Sunflower eLibrary consortium on compliance with the terms that exceed its statutory authority, (eliminate meaningful reconsideration and skip over local library board governance), the consortium violates the State ultra vires doctrine. In Kansas, an act is ultra vires when a public body, board, or agency exercises power not affirmatively granted by statute and is therefore void and unenforceable.

No matter who writes the policy, Kansas law has the last word...

Kansas courts consistently hold that Kansas public institutions, including the State Library, public libraries, regional libraries, and by extension Sunflower eLibrary, possess enumerated powers only. Any guidance issued must implement or interpret only existing law and remain tied to express statutory authority.

Kansas law does not permit a public entity to require waiver of statutory protections or duties as a provision of voluntary participation in a public program. Participation and membership fees (paid with public funds) do not create new authority to restrict patron rights or bypass statutory due process. Neither vendor terms by private entities (i.e., publishers, book sellers) nor consortium policies can supersede public-law obligations. Such conditions are void and unenforceable because they are contrary to statute and public policy.

The consortium is exercising power it does not have, enforcing it through conditional participation, and requiring public institutions to act unlawfully to remain members.

Nice try, Kansas doesn't allow that...

The consortium policy that bans reconsideration of shared materials at the point of access through Sunflower eLibrary is ultra vires under Kansas law. Neither K.S.A.75-2547 et seq. (Regional LIbrary Systems), K.S.A. 12-1225, nor any other statute grants a regional library system authority to override or condition away the statutory and board-governed duties of member public libraries, rendering the policy void from the beginning.

Laundering the Accountability

This arrangement constitutes a public-private policy shell game, deliberately diffusing and obscuring accountability across multiple layers to evade statutory duties:

Local public library boards deflect reconsideration requests by pointing to the consortium's "rules" banning reconsideration of shared titles.
Sunflower eLibrary enforces the restrictive policy in up to 150 public libraries as a condition of participation and redirects local libraries to enforce intentionally difficult and burdensome procedures to discourage reconsideration directly from owning libraries as the only other option.
Upstream guidance from the publicly funded Handbook lends aspirational cover from a private lobby group (ALA) with no statutory authority in Kansas.
The result: responsibility is shuffled so no single entity bears practical liability, while patrons face prohibitive obstacles, in violation of the intent of the governmental guidance in the Handbook.

A public entity may not do indirectly what it lacks authority to do directly.

As an extension of Kansas public library systems established under K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq., and as a recipient and administrator of public funds, the Sunflower eLibrary consortium must operate within the bounds of Kansas law governing public libraries and regional systems. While the Kansas Public Library Handbook does not itself carry the force of law, it constitutes official, publicly funded government guidance intended to implement statutory duties.

Each member library remains a governmental entity subject to Kansas law, and participation in the consortium represents an extension of local library operations, not the creation of separate governing authorities. Neither the consortium nor its member libraries may rely on consent, contractual agreement, or voluntary participation to shield unlawful policies from enforcement or corrective action.

Nothing in the Public Library Handbook or Kansas statute authorizes a director to refuse a request or reroute it solely because another library bought the title. A public library does not have the lawful authority to defer responsibility or duties once their patrons are granted access to the materials.

Direct conflict with Definitions in the Kansas Harmful to Minors Law...

The Kansas Harmful to Minors law (K.S.A. 21-6402) prohibits knowingly distributing, presenting, or making available material that is harmful to minors (appeals to prurient interest of minors, patently offensive s*xual conduct descriptions, and lack of serious value). The consortium policy barring reconsideration of shared digital materials directly conflicts with the law by preventing or redirecting evaluation of material made available to minors. While K.S.A. 21-6402 applies to commercial establishments (may not cover public libraries), K.S.A. 21-6401 (Promoting Obscenity to Minors) broadly prohibits promoting obscenity to minors, using overlapping definitions in the 'harmful to minors' language to how 'obscene' is defined in K.S.A. 21-6401. This statute reinforces the legislative requirement to shield children from sexually explicit books, and does include public entities like libraries. Any public library policy that allows children to access sexually explicit materials is in conflict with the coordinated definitions K.S.A. 21-6402 Harmful to Minors and K.S.A. 21-6401 Promotion of Obscenity to Minors and undermines the statutory librarian defense, preempts local board authority under K.S.A. 12-1225, exceeds regional system powers under K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq., and is ultra vires, void, and unenforceable. The statute requires accountability at the point of access, being at the library serving the minor. There are no exceptions in the law for shared digital materials.

Your kid gets to see it whether you like it or not...

The policy “Shared digital materials cannot be reconsidered” is a categorical elimination of review for the largest and fastest growing category of access. The practical effect is no local review of shared digital content, no local ability to restrict, reclassify, or remove content for minors, no governing board oversight where the minor lives, and effectively no reconsideration process at all for most titles offered by all of the libraries in the consortium across the entire state. Kansas law gives no authority to the consortium to prevent reconsideration of any library materials.

The Sunflower eLibrary policy ensures no reconsideration body has authority over shared digital materials and is incompatible with the statutory design. By creating an unauthorized digital exemption and refusing statutory review at the point of access, whether that be on a library computer or on a personal device accessing the library patron account, the consortium policy flies in the face of the legislative intent.

Sunflower says the Library Board of Directors cannot object, either...

The law holds the Board of Directors responsible, not the Library Director who is following the Board approved policy, so the consortium policy undermines the statutory librarian defense under K.S.A. 21-6401(g)(2) (Safe Harbor) by cutting out board-approved governance. The consortium policy is used by local libraries to shield digital materials offered to minors from reconsideration, but it in effect increases the risks to the Directors by removing the protection of this law.

By stripping local boards of authority to reconsider shared digital materials, the consortium rule exceeds delegated authority and conflicts with K.S.A. 12-1225’s (Library Board Powers and Duties) allocation of governance responsibility. A consortium policy cannot lawfully remove board oversight without express statutory delegation.

The policy surpasses the service-coordination limits of K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq. (Regional Library Systems Scope of Authority) which does not authorize Sunflower eLibrary to preempt locally accessed content governance, nor elimination of local complaint procedures, nor allows the library to use the policy of a consortium to override the guidance of the Handbook regarding reconsideration (which allows no exceptions for shared digital materials).

The Consortium operates outside the law...

No statute authorizes denial of reconsideration based on ownership, licensing structure, or consortium participation. A library consortium that bans reconsideration of materials without statutory authority is ultra vires (Latin for “beyond powers”). A public library board that adopts a policy that contradicts state law is ultra vires and cannot defer responsibility to the consortium who is already in violation of statute by banning reconsideration of shared library materials at the point of access.

The Sunflower eLibrary policy—as applied—is ultra vires, void, and unenforceable. It conflicts with statutory reconsideration requirements, protections for minors, and local board governance. The redirection defense creates an intentional barrier that effectively nullifies patron rights for shared digital content.

Local boards remain ultimately responsible and cannot lawfully defer to the consortium or rely on private ALA guidance. Patrons retain the right to request reconsideration directly from their local board for any accessible material.

Almost half of the public libraries in Kansas have adopted the Sunflower eLibrary policy as an active defense for refusing reconsideration requests and all patrons who use those libraries have been misled by these policies to accept that they have no right to request reconsideration of any of those shared materials, all in violation of Kansas law.

Kansas law—not consortium policies, not private lobby guidance—has the final word. Kansas statutes do not bend to voluntary agreements that strip away statutory rights and parental oversight. Communities have the right and responsibility to protect children, and no shell game of deflection and misdirection can lawfully deny that role.

Resources include:

Statutes (Kansas Statutes Annotated)

K.S.A. 12-1218 — Establishment and governance of public libraries
K.S.A. 12-1225 — Powers and duties of public library boards
K.S.A. 12-1227 — Library board authority (related provisions)
K.S.A. 12-1260 — Library district provisions
K.S.A. 21-6402 — Harmful materials to minors
K.S.A. 21-6401(g)(2) — Librarian safe harbor / board-approved policy defense
K.S.A. 75-2547 et seq. — Regional systems of cooperating libraries
K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 12 — Public libraries
K.S.A. Chapter 75 — State agencies and public administration
SB 394 — Child Internet Protection Act
State Library and Regional System Regulations K.A.R. Agency 54

Official Government Guidance & Regional Library Sources

Kansas Public Library Handbook (2017), pp. 18–19
State Library of Kansas — library.ks.gov
Kansas Revisor of Statutes — ksrevisor.gov
Kansas Government Information Library — kgi.contentdm.oclc.org
Kansas Regional Library Systems — mykansaslibrary.org

TPIA / FOIA Request 001: Llano ISD Board of Trustees

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Sun, 18 Jan 2026 06:54:00 +0000

Dear Llano ISD Board of Trustees,

There is a potential for a serious problem within either the Board of Trustees or school management, faculty, or employees. This is not exaggeration nor a reason for ridicule.

On Saturday, January 10th, 2026 at 9:53 PM, I sent you an email entitled, "Schools Displaying 'The Librarians' Might Renew Bullying of Parents, Presenting Liability." I then published, "Schools Displaying 'The Librarians' Might Renew Bullying of Parents, Presenting Liability" at https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/01/schools-displaying-librarians.html .

What I sent you, and what eight other people sent you, was published, with only email addresses redacted, on the internet, in a post to a Facebook group called "Llano County News Wire." It exposed personally identifiable information on the TPIA responses. Ridicule ensued at the site, likely part of the reason or goal for the exposure. See: https://www.facebook.com/llanocountynewswire/posts/pfbid0jRsuKFgrr9jEMyLvYFUAxm8nHohD3CEkQvPYyUsXqwRKD3aVUf8XVoQ7N5k9spV3l or https://www.facebook.com/100063579010535/posts/1497987242330562/

By the way, in that comment by "Llano County News Wire," he/she does not merely report news but kickstarts the ridicule of the parents he/she just doxxed. He/she says, "Keep in mind most came from people living in other states or towns." So already the message is don't listen to us; that's not journalism. He/she leaves out that the American Library Association and nearly all of the contents of "The Librarians" comprise "people living in other states or towns." He/she uses it as a smear on parents writing to the school, while defending "people living in other states or towns" as shown in ALA's movie and with ALA policy all over the school that's causing the problems in the first place, the Library Bill of Rights, for example. ALA is from Chicago, Illinois. By the way, I'm in that movie, and you'll see me in the audience in New Jersey, right before school librarian Martha Hickson says, "fifth graders HAVE penises."

The emails exposed were on Saturday, January 10, 2026, from Susan Perez at 11:25 AM, Bonnie Wallace at 12:01 PM (who won the Little v. Llano County case and who is shown speaking in "The Librarians"), Ron Herrin at 4:30 PM, Dan Kleinman (myself who is seen in "The Librarians") at 8:54 PM. Also on Sunday, January 11, 2026, from Deborah Leimbach at 7:52 PM. Also on Monday, January 12, 2026, from Jackie Cherico at 2:12 PM, Mary Moore at 5:36 PM. Also on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, from Teri Hubbard at 7:04 AM, Larry Huston at 7:32 AM. So the most recently exposed was from Larry Huston on Tuesday, January 13, at 7:32 AM. Some of those people were doxxed.

They were then published on the internet at "Llano County News Wire" on Friday, January 16, at 9:03 PM. That leaves a gap of a little over three and a half days, assuming someone knew to file a TPIA request on Tuesday morning.

In Texas, TPIA / FOIA requests take time. A sample form can be found at NFOIC here: https://www.nfoic.org/texas-sample-foia-request/ where it reads, "The Texas Public Information Act requires that you 'promptly produce' the requested records unless, within 10 days, you have sought an Attorney General’s Opinion." In my experience, that almost always means you'll get a response, if any, on day ten.

The need for the TPIA request to produce emails I submitted and did not otherwise announce publicly was somehow instantly identified. Then the TPIA request was submitted in record time. And the records were turned over in absolute record time. Then they were published. All that in in a mere three and a half days. It's impossible without someone on the lookout and someone greasing the wheels, someone from inside Llano ISD.

I don't believe that super fast timeline is possible were it done honestly. Someone within the school is ratting out the parents to subject them to bullying and ridicule. In a case where I showed strong evidence that the showing of "The Librarians" may result in continued serious bullying of a parent who needed round-the-clock police protection, now I'm getting bullied by how the school reacted to multiple emails from parents opposing the showing of "The Librarians." To me, Llano ISD is using bullying to smear my reporting "The Librarians" they intend to show in the school is itself bullying another parent. It's bullying to protect bullying, with both people being bullied trying to stop children from being harmed by school librarians.

As I said before, there is a potential for a serious problem within either the Board of Trustees or school management, faculty, or employees.

As if knowing something is off and in an apparent effort to allay concerns, "Llano County Wire News" responds to someone suggesting, "Mac Edwards forwards the emails to Tom and the liberals," with the following on Saturday, January 17 at 9:20 AM, "FOIA request. Freedom of information act. They were not forwarded to anyone. They are required by law to respond to a FOIA request".

In my over twenty five years investigating schools and libraries, never has a FOIA requestor ever been tipped off so fast and the FOIA response provided so quickly, then published, then used to ridicule and bully people by doxxing people. Except one other case. Recall that mother in the "The Librarians" who got bullied by librarians and needed 24 hour police protection? She is the only other case I know where they happened so quickly. She submitted a complaint to an anonymous tip line set up precisely to accept anonymous tips about school books, just to allow the school to act without all the drama that ensues from librarians crying wolf. The "anonymous" tip was then immediately reported to the school, thence to the school librarian, thence to a political attack dog for American Library Association who filed a FOIA request, got the "anonymous" tip on video, then doxxed the mother leading to weeks of police protection. The very same mother you will be doxxing and bullying again if you show "The Librarians" in the schools. Schools have antibullying rules. Those go out the window if you show this film.

So not only is Llano ISD bullying parents who complained about "The Librarians" again bullying a family who needed police protection, but it has somehow leaked and sped up a FOIA response to bully parents, exactly as was done in the bullying incident in the movie. Librarians are experienced in, even trained in this tactic. It's just happened again in Llano ISD.

Also, Texas Library Association trains librarians to defy TPIA, to violate the law, all to keep the indoctrination of school children by school librarians from the public and from Texas legislators. Yet, to ridicule and bully parents opposed to ALA's "The Librarians," suddenly the TPIA response is super quick. See: "School Librarians Train to Violate FOIA Law to Keep Parents In the Dark About S[*]xualizing Children" https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/12/school-librarians-train-to-violate-foia.html

So again, there is a potential for a serious problem within either the Board of Trustees or school management, faculty, or employees.

That's the background for the following TPIA request.

Under the Texas Public Information Act, Tex. Gov’t Code §552.001 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records.

Please produce via PDF in response to me the email I sent you on Saturday, January 10th, 2026 at 9:53 PM, entitled, "Schools Displaying 'The Librarians' Might Renew Bullying of Parents, Presenting Liability." I want to see it you properly redact the response or if you merely send it back with just the email blacked out.
Please produce via PDF in your response to me the documentation of a TPIA or FOIA request from "Llano County News Wire" or the person running that comprising, as he/she put it, "FOIA request. Freedom of information act. They were not forwarded to anyone. They are required by law to respond to a FOIA request".
Please produce via PDF or audio recording in your response to me any other communications of any form, including verbal, with the person who allegedly submitted a FOIA request as identified in the above question, and restrict the time frame for this search from January 10, 2026 to the present. Super reasonable. If personal accounts were used to hide such communication(s) from the public, those documents must be released as well, TPIA doesn't protect them. If anyone is in a BCC list, those must be identified as well. BCC is for the emailer's convenience, not a means to bypass TPIA. If you interpret my words in a cagey way or a way you think is clever to keep me from getting information under the law, then you are violating TPIA §552.001: "POLICY; CONSTRUCTION (a) .... The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy."

Hey, piece of cake.

If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $5. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of how school children are being harmed by American Library Association and subgroups like Texas Library Association or EveryLibrary and by local school districts like Llano ISD that allows political candidates like Leila Green Little to have "The Librarians" shown in the school to use the students to boost her own chances of election--in an election against her husband, no less. (Leila Green Little lost the Little v. Llano County case.) For example, the public might like to know of corruption within the school when parents are being ridiculed and bullied by the release of information used to file TPIA requests and get responses super fast, like occurs only in cases where parents are being bullied for opposing how school librarians harm children per ALA's sixty years of effort to eviscerate parental rights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing . This information is not being sought for commercial purposes.

The Texas Public Information Act requires that you “promptly produce” the requested records unless, within 10 days, you have sought an Attorney General’s Opinion. If you expect a significant delay in responding to this request, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Thank you for considering my request.

[NOTE: This email has been published here: "TPIA / FOIA Request 001: Llano ISD Board of Trustees" https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/01/tpia-foia-request-001-llano-isd-board.html ]

Sincerely,

Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

NOTE ADDED 19 JANUARY 2026:

On Facebook, "Llano County News Wire" has deleted my polite comment asking to see the FOIA request and the response. I even gave fair notice that I was one of those whose emails were published. Then I was blocked from the page completely.

This tells me I'm over the target that some collusion has occurred. Such collusion is likely to have violated ethics codes for Texas boards of trustees.

"Llano County News Wire" did, however, respond to my comment, and that is still online. You can see a response to me but my comment to which the response pertains is gone.

Here is the "Llano County News Wire" response to the comment of mine that was deleted:

Dan Kleinman public information request or freedom of information request. You call it what you want, it does the same thing. It said I would like to request copies of any and all emails sent to any and all school board members and school personnel in regards to a film being shown at the high school auditorium on January 24, 2026.

So "Llano County News Wire" evaded the question completely then deleted my comment and blocked me entirely. To me, that's smoke, and there's fire somewhere. I'll do my best to report on that fire.

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/01/tpia-foia-request-001-llano-isd-board.html

On Twitter:

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Schools Displaying 'The Librarians' Might Renew Bullying of Parents, Presenting Liability

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Sun, 11 Jan 2026 02:22:00 +0000

Schools displaying the Sarah Jessica Parker film called, "The Librarians," might renew the bullying of parents by librarians and supporters, thereby exposing the schools to potential civil liability (like negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress) or criminal liability (if there's incitement of illegal acts like threats).

Here is a post I just made in five parts on X about Llano High School holding a showing of the American Library Association agitprop:

Llano High School will show "The Librarians," agitprop by American Library Association to convince adults to allow school librarians to continue indoctrinating and s*xualizing children. It re-exposes a family to continued bullying, thereby exposing Llano ISD to liability.

But Llano ISD will do nothing, fearing Leila Little and Suzette Baker who both sued the county. They are terrified of being sued by either of these folks, so they don’t want to cancel this event. The film is one-sided—the side of ALA that targets kids.

drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing

For an example of what they want the community to see, Dwight Eisenhower is misquoted to give the appearance he opposed "book banning." The rest of his sentence/statement ALA left out since it showed it’s not censorship to remove inappropriate books. It’s fundamentally deceptive.

The family bullied in and shown in the film needed round-the-clock police protection. She got death threats—real ones unlike the flimsy one described—that included a brick and a note in her mailbox. If Llano ISD shows that film, it risks bullying that family yet again.

#LlanoCounty #LlanoISD #txlege

FYI about potential imminent harm done at Llano IDS if the school goes forward with displaying "The Librarians." It’s free on @PBS Feb 6, so just wait a week.

@GregAbbott_TX @DanPatrick @KenPaxtonTX @tedcruz @JohnCornyn

@threadreaderapp unroll

--- 30 ---

The initial post in the thread is shown here and please repost:

Llano High School will show "The Librarians," agitprop by American Library Association to convince adults to allow school librarians to continue indoctrinating and s*xualizing children. It re-exposes a family to continued bullying, thereby exposing Llano ISD to liability. pic.twitter.com/BAFbI730jy
— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) January 11, 2026

I will be sending this post to the school administrators who could stop the showing and prevent the potential liability, let alone the agitprop nature of the film.

In full disclosure, I appear in the film as does Bonnie Wallace and many others from Llano County.

Recall Bonnie Wallace won big in Little v. Llano County, so inappropriate books may be legally removed from library shelves, and yet again, everything American Library Association has been saying is false. That's likely why ALA showed her but left her unnamed in "The Librarians."

The graphic in the upper right is sourced from the Facebook page for Llano County TX Rants & Raves where the text reads:

This documentary is about librarians who are suing cities, counties and school boards to keep harmful content. Suzette Baker who sued Llano County is featured. Any taxpayer who wants to protect minors from harmful content including drawings of couples having sex, sex organs, and more should email (or call) the superintendent and all school board members and the HS principal and express their discontent about this documentary being featured at Llano HS on Jan 24. This email (or call) should be sent immediately.

Who can give me the school email?

mailto:medwards@llanoisd.org
mailto:rick.tisdale@cadencebank.com
mailto:codyfly@benekeith.com
mailto:paul.hull@hitssllc.com
mailto:grant@inmansbbq.com
mailto:jeffk@arrowheadbanktexas.com
mailto:rwilson@llanoisd.org
mailto:spatrick@llanoisd.org

Just look at the upper left hand corner about the war on books- tells you everything you need to know! There is no Reader Foundation only a reading foundation on the web. I'm trying to find out if this Reading foundation has a chapter here in Llano. I find it suspicious that this film would be shown in an election year with the Littles running to split the ticket and unseat Moss. Lord God I pray you will expose this backdoor move by a perverse ideology against our children and community. Amen and so be it!

In small letters at the bottom is:

LCLSF.org. This is Leila Little's foundation. We all need to send an email (or call) and tell the ISD that we are opposed to the HS hosting this.

It is clearly a political rally!

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2496559720410367/posts/25665293903110288/

Interesting! So it seems it's also a political trick to get elected by the losing party in Little v. Llano County! Interesting! Husband and wife are running against each other so one of then gets the seat! Interesting! Using an entire school district for their personal gain! Interesting!

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/01/schools-displaying-librarians.html

On Twitter:

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Facebook Deletes My First Amendment Lawyer's Page About My Being Sued By Amanda Jones

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 21:37:00 +0000

Facebook just removed my First Amendment attorney's page—and censored a post I made about my ongoing lawsuit against Louisiana school librarian Amanda Jones.

Within seconds of posting, this comment was taken down:

Everyone, this is just a small taste of the harassment parents get when they dare challenge American Library Association's massive ability to infiltrate schools with policy that breaks state and local law and instead eliminates parental control. Jessica Viotta allowed that, by the way.

Those wishing to read my attorney's legal documents defending my rights to point out how school librarians harm children, please see https://randazza.com/lawsuits/jones-v-kleinman/

Facebook flagged the post almost instantly, claiming: "The content may contain nudity or sexual activity. This goes against our Community Standards."

The offending part? The **link** to my attorney's public lawsuit page on randazza.com.

I was allowed to repost only after removing "/jones-v-kleinman/" from the URL.

Incredibly, books with explicit instructions on adult sex toys and acts are deemed suitable for school libraries by ALA advocates—but linking to a First Amendment defense attorney's webpage about the resulting lawsuit is too "offensive" for Facebook.

This highlights a broader issue: To effectively discuss age-appropriate library materials nationwide, parents must be able to share specific evidence from challenged books. Generalities like "inappropriate content" don't convey the concern. That's why tools like Rated Books provide detailed excerpts and ratings—while the ALA's "Book Résumés" often omit graphic details to downplay objections.

I've appealed Facebook's decision. We'll see if they restore the full link.

1) My original comment before it was removed.

2) Facebook removal notice popped up.

3) I clicked "See why" and got this.

4) I clicked "Fix it" and got this.

5) I clicked on "Request review."

6) Got first "Request review" page. "Contents like mine should be allowed."

7) I chose "important issue" but "raise awareness" would have fit.

8) Here's the "Review request" summary and submittal page.

9) I submitted and got this "In review" page.

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/12/facebook-deletes-my-first-amendment.html

On Twitter:

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the 'Censorship' Narrative

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:30:00 +0000

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the “Censorship” Narrative

by Mary Library

Mary in the Library Michigan

21 December 2025

The recent alarm sounded by the American Library Association (ALA), PEN America, and their coalition partners paints a picture of a dystopian landscape where books are being snatched from the hands of eager young readers. However, this narrative relies on a fundamental redefinition of terms and a refusal to acknowledge the core concern of American families: the safeguarding of children from s[*]xually explicit material and age-inappropriate ideologies in taxpayer-funded institutions.

What these organizations label a “censorship crisis” is, in reality, a crisis of accountability. For decades, public education and library systems have operated with little oversight, introducing materials regarding gender ideology and s[*]xual practices that many communities find deeply objectionable for minors. Now that parents are exercising their democratic right to oversee their children’s education, these institutions are crying foul.

Here is a look at the reality behind the trends cited in their report:

Reframing “Bans”: Curation is Not Censorship

The central fallacy in the ALA and PEN America report is the misuse of the word “ban.” In a free society, a ban implies that the government has prohibited the publication, sale, or possession of a book. That is not happening in the United States. Every book currently challenged in a school library remains available on Amazon, at Barnes & Noble, and often in the public library down the street.

When a school board decides that a graphic novel depicting oral s[*]x is not appropriate for a middle school library, that is not a ban; it is curation. Libraries have always practiced curation. They have finite shelf space and budgets. For years, progressive librarians have “curated” out books they deemed “outdated” or “culturally insensitive.” Yet, when parents demand the removal of books containing graphic s[*]xual content, it is suddenly labeled an attack on democracy. This double standard exposes that the issue is not about the freedom to read, but about what is being prioritized for children.

The “Soft Censorship” and “Weeding” Myth

The report claims that “weeding” is being maliciously misused by parents. However, weeding is a standard tool for maintaining a healthy collection. The report complains about the removal of books with “diverse representation or s[*]x-related content,” but fails to mention that these are often the very books containing the explicit material parents are objecting to.

If a book is found to contain p[*]rnography or radical political indoctrination disguised as education, it should be weeded. The complaint that “preemptive bans” are problematic ignores the concept of fiscal responsibility. Why should a school district waste taxpayer money purchasing titles that violate state laws regarding obscenity or age-appropriateness, only to have to remove them later? “Do not buy” lists are a sensible administrative tool to ensure collections remain compliant with community standards and the law.

Accountability Laws: Protecting Students, Not Banning Books

The report criticizes laws in Texas (SB 13), Florida, and Utah as “censorship-driven.” In reality, these are transparency and accountability laws.

Transparency: Laws requiring book lists to be posted for 30 days allow parents—the primary stakeholders in a child’s education—to see what is entering the school.

Compliance: The use of AI to scan collections is a logical response to the sheer volume of material. If a district has thousands of books, and state law prohibits s[*]xually explicit content, using technology to flag potential violations is an efficiency measure, not a nefarious plot.

The “chilling effect” described by the ALA is actually the feeling of accountability returning to a profession that has long operated without it. If librarians fear penalties for distributing “harmful materials to minors,” the solution is simple: do not distribute harmful materials to minors.

The Role of Federal and State Leadership

The report attacks the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders regarding “gender ideology” and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). This criticism ignores the mandate given by voters. The 2024 and 2025 elections showed a clear rejection of the progressive cultural agenda in schools.

Schools are funded to teach reading, writing, math, and civics—not to serve as laboratories for social engineering. Executive orders and state laws that restrict the promotion of Critical Race Theory or gender fluidity are not “anti-educational”; they are a restoration of neutrality. They ensure that public institutions do not undermine the values of the families they serve.

“Parents’ Rights” is Not a Rhetorical Guise

Perhaps the most dismissive aspect of the joint statement is the framing of “parents’ rights “as mere rhetoric used to advance censorship. The right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and moral development of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Supreme Court.

When the Florida Freedom to Read Project or the ALA claims that “most parents” oppose these removals, they often rely on broad polls that ask generic questions like, “Do you oppose book banning?” When parents are shown the actual excerpts from the books in question—passages detailing incest, pedophilia, and graphic s[*]xual acts—support for removing these books from school’s skyrockets.

Conclusion

The “censorship crisis” of 2025 is a manufactured panic designed to protect the gatekeepers of culture from the people they serve. The trends identified—state oversight, parental involvement, and the removal of inappropriate materials—are not attacks on democracy. They are democracy in action.

Local school boards are elected. Legislatures are elected. When these bodies act to remove p[*]rnographic or ideologically driven content from K-12 schools, they are fulfilling the will of the voters. The freedom to read is safe in America; what is ending is the era where public institutions could bypass the values of the American family without consequence.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive

new posts and support my work.

NOTE: Above originally published here:

"Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the 'Censorship' Narrative," by Mary Library, Mary in the Library Michigan (Substack), 21 December 2025, hyperlinks and emphasis in original.

substack.com/home/post/p-182259227
Archive: archive.ph/o201d

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/12/protecting-children.html

On Twitter:

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

RealClearPolitics Commentary: 'Wake Up, Parents: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids'

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 02:18:00 +0000

The following "Commentary" is authored by me and published at RealClearPolitics. Emphasis, hyperlinks, and graphics in original:

Kleinman, Dan. “Wake Up, Parents: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids.” RealClearPolitics, December 18, 2025. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/12/18/wake_up_parents_american_library_association_is_still_grooming_our_kids_153640.html.

Wake Up, Parents: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids

COMMENTARY

By Dan Kleinman

Imagine if your 15-year-old came to my house, and I gave them a book about edgy sex positions? What if I gave your 16-year-old a book with graphic illustrations of oral or anal sex?

Would you be happy with that? Or would you be mighty suspicious of me?

Many parents may not know it, but there is an ongoing fight over certain books and whether they should be given to minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent. That’s what the American Library Association wants. The ALA recently launched a nationwide campaign against so-called “book bans,” with ALA President Sam Helmick (they/them) saying it is about the “freedom to read.”

Except, the ALA’s critics do not want to “ban” anything. Nor do they want to challenge the freedom to read – I know because I’m one of them. We do, however, want people to know that the ALA wants inappropriate materials in your kids’ hands, regardless of your parental preferences.

In 2023, Sen. Mike Lee revealed a video of Deborah Caldwell-Stone, then-director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, admitting that the ALA is reframing sexually inappropriate content for minors as “diverse materials” focused on “inclusion.” Caldwell-Stone said the previously quiet part out loud.

It shocked me because I always thought that ALA librarians were the “good guys.” After all, who ever imagined that librarians would play the part of creepy guy in a trenchcoat?

But some of society’s most trusted leaders misuse their power and prestige as cover, at the expense of our kids (think about the Catholic priest scandals). While a tiny percentage of priests are up to no good, the wrongdoers use the cover of their innocent job titles to engage in perverse conduct. In a similar vein, librarians who want to “reframe” perverse fetish instruction manuals as “diverse education” aren’t thinking about your kids’ best interests.

One of the books in question is “Let’s Talk About It,” which is aimed at teenagers with graphic images of how to insert butt plugs or advice on fetish pornography websites. Another is “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” which contains multiple pages of illustrations depicting oral sex. The explicit images were entered into the congressional record in 2023 for all to see (fair warning). The pictures are worth a thousand words.

I have reported on these developments at the ALA through my blog “SafeLibraries,” exposing those who are advocating for minors to read books like “Gender Queer” without parental knowledge. I have regularly posted on social media about how this exposure constitutes “grooming,” and I have revealed individual librarians who are intent – with the ALA’s backing – on keeping these books available to kids.

One such librarian is Amanda Jones, who has publicly supported “Gender Queer” and “Let’s Talk About It” as suitable for kids. Those who dare to question “Gender Queer,” are in her words, “targeting LGBTQ and other marginalized communities.” Now, Jones has sued me in federal court for defamation and false light for calling that “grooming.” (I have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case with the help of veteran First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, and it is currently pending.) I stand by that opinion.

Let’s be very clear: This is not a partisan issue. So-called “book bans” are abhorrent, and even sexually explicit books like “Gender Queer” have a place on Amazon.com or at Barnes & Noble. However, that place is not somewhere kids have unfettered access.

None of us – Democrat or Republican – grew up in a world with images of blowjobs or butt plugs on the shelves. Is it “banning books” if the public library doesn’t stock Marquis De Sade? Is it “censorship” when sexual content can be found everywhere but the kids’ section?

For the ALA and individual librarians to recommend books about “marginalized communities,” that is one thing. As they grow older, kids should learn about differences in race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But a 14-year-old should never be encouraged by their local librarian to read about oral or anal sex – full stop.

This is not normal. Even left-wing friends of mine have been repulsed after skimming “Gender Queer,” especially at a time when U.S. literacy is plummeting (according to even leftist librarians). Nevertheless, the ALA has joined forces with Hollywood to celebrate Amanda Jones in a new documentary called “The Librarians,” ironically produced by “Sex and the City” actress Sarah Jessica Parker.

I have been called a “Nazi” and a “fascist” for taking this stance, which is shared by parents on both sides of the political aisle. But the ALA won’t silence us, and it is time for all parents to speak out against child grooming – especially in our libraries.

Dan Kleinman is the owner of SafeLibraries educational services. He is also executive director of the World Library Association, an alternative to the American Library Association.

Other URLS:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/wake-parents-american-library-association-122858852.html

—

Marc Randazza - Jones v. Kleinman: randazza.com/lawsuits/jones-v-kleinman/

Marc Randazza X post: x.com/marcorandazza/status/2001766590044606917 (X set it as "age-restricted adult content" although school librarians make it available to schoo children)

GiveSendGo - Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

On Twitter:

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

'Unelected Librarians' Do Not Control Public Libraries, Parents Do; Withhold Funding Until Children Are Protected From Explicit Material

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 03:31:00 +0000

I am writing as a deeply concerned parent, citizen, and representative of Sioux County to demand immediate action to protect our children from explicit and sexually graphic materials that remain freely accessible in our public libraries.

Recently, parents in Sioux Center brought a shocking case to the attention of the Library Director and Board: their young child was able to check out a book from the adult section containing sexually explicit content wholly inappropriate for minors. These parents asked only for basic safeguards so their children would be protected when visiting their local library. Instead, the Library Director and a majority of the Board voted to continue allowing minors unrestricted access to adult materials. This decision is a profound failure of leadership and common sense—one that the people of Sioux County have noticed and will not accept.

I call on the library board members who voted against reasonable restrictions to reverse their decision immediately and implement clear, enforceable policies that protect minors from explicit content. At minimum, these policies must include:

Prohibiting minors from checking out materials from the adult section, and
Establishing a transparent review process that gives parents—not unelected librarians—the final say on what is appropriate for children.

Finally, I urge the Sioux County Board of Supervisors to use every tool at your disposal—including the immediate withholding or cutting of all county funding—to compel every library in Sioux County to adopt and enforce strong child-protection policies. Taxpayer dollars must never subsidize the distribution of explicit material to minors. Any library that continues to defy the reasonable demands of parents should have its public funding revoked until full compliance is achieved.

The safety and innocence of our children should never be treated as negotiable. They are the most vulnerable members of our community, and they deserve leaders who will stand up for them without apology or compromise.

I expect a written response from the Library Board, and the Library Director outlining the specific actions that will be taken within two weeks.

God Bless,

Rep. Skyler Wheeler

[NOTE: Source of above: Facebook - Skyler Wheeler, State Representative at Iowa House of Representatives

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/12/unelected-librarians-do-not-control.html

On Twitter:

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Informing Iowa Legislators About American Library Association

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Mon, 24 Nov 2025 13:37:00 +0000

Critique of the American Library Association's Influence on Libraries and Legislation

The American Library Association (ALA), headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, has pursued policies for over 60 years that critics argue undermine parental rights in favor of unrestricted access to materials for children. Central to this is the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," adopted in 1939 and amended multiple times (most recently in 2019), which prohibits denying library use based on age, among other factors. This policy effectively treats age-based restrictions as discrimination, allowing children access to any materials without barriers. For historical context, see Rita Koganzon's analysis of 1970s school book controversies, which highlights how such disputes empowered parents to challenge perceived indoctrination in educational content.

This approach has accelerated the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, prompting increased parental challenges. In response, librarians—often aligned with ALA guidance—portray these complaints as burdensome, despite the ALA's role in creating the underlying policy tensions.

ALA's Push to Codify the Library Bill of Rights into Law

To preempt parental challenges, the ALA has advocated for codifying its "Library Bill of Rights" into state laws, potentially overriding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Board of Education v. Pico (1982). In Pico, a plurality opinion held that school boards cannot remove books from libraries solely due to ideological disapproval but may do so if materials are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable. Books like Gender Queer have been removed from schools under this standard, which ALA opposes.

One court has ruled that the "Library Bill of Rights" holds no legal weight—it's merely aspirational and "means nothing" in a binding sense, as stated in Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019). Despite this, ALA has influenced over a third of state legislatures to consider such codification through initiatives like the "Right to Read Act" (also known as the "Freedom to Read Act"). As of November 2025, at least nine states have passed versions since 2023: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Additional states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and others are considering or have advanced similar bills in 2025 sessions. For a detailed parent-focused critique, see the World Library Association's page on the Right to Read Act, which outlines how it limits parental petitions and grants librarians immunity from obscenity laws.

Part of ALA's push to get laws passed includes building in exemptions or affirmative defenses to obscenity crimes for librarians. That has been a long term ALA goal. See: Reisman, Judith A. and McAlister, Mary E. (2018) "Materials Deemed Harmful to Minors Are Welcomed into Classrooms and Libraries via Educational 'Obscenity Exemptions,'" Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 12: Iss. 3, Article 3. Available at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol12/iss3/3:

Similarly, the American Library Association leans upon First Amendment protections against censorship to justify the obscenity exemption for libraries, often offering derisive remarks about parents' efforts to use "harmful to minors" statutes to remove inappropriate books.

ALA's strategy positions itself as both the source of the issue (unrestricted access) and the solution (legislative protections), aiming for nationwide adoption. In Iowa, from which ALA President Sam Helmick hails, this raises questions: Will Iowa follow suit and embed this Chicago-based organization's creed into state law?

Tactics for Influencing Legislators

ALA employs sophisticated methods to advance its agenda, often through affiliates like EveryLibrary, which provides training on "long-term inoculation"—building relationships with legislators to shape policy preemptively. This includes "getting to know your legislators" and "identifying and activating" supporters to prioritize children's unrestricted access. View the training here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. EveryLibrary's ties to ALA are detailed in analyses showing how it facilitates advocacy while maintaining a "crypto" (hidden) affiliation.

Another tactic involves "sustained messaging" to reframe s[*]xually explicit materials as essential for diversity, inclusion, and self-representation, downplaying concerns about appropriateness. This was revealed in training by ALA's former top lawyer, which Utah Senator Mike Lee highlighted in a 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on "banned books." Lee described it as "saying the quiet part out loud," accusing ALA of grooming and s[*]xualizing children to provide minors with explicit content while hiding it from parents. Watch the clip: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.

The "book ban" narrative has been debunked by the U.S. Department of Education, which dropped actions against parents after investigations. Critics trace this hoax back to ALA influence, used to mislead the public and maintain access to controversial materials. Official U.S. Department of Education Press Release (January 24, 2025) announces dismissal of 11 complaints, rescission of guidance, and end to the "Biden's book ban hoax." https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax

ALA's "Unite Against Book Bans" and Legal Setbacks

In response to successful Pico-based removals of "Gender Queer," ALA launched "Unite Against Book Bans" to lobby for laws blocking parental complaints and First Amendment redress rights. Recent setbacks include Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), where the Supreme Court affirmed parents' rights to opt children out of certain classroom content conflicting with religious beliefs. ALA has interpreted this narrowly, claiming it doesn't apply to libraries and warning against its misuse for censorship, but critics argue it's spreading misinformation to downplay parental opt-out options.

ALA's policies have real-world impacts, including harm to children. Detransitioner Maia Poet has publicly shared how a school librarian promoted trans ideology, leading to her binding her breasts and lasting physical damage, without parental knowledge. Watch her testimony, also shown below: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606. Another case involves a public library director reporting a child's death linked to ALA-recommended practices: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAKillsBoy.html.

Deceptions and Hypocrisy

ALA often misleads on legal standards, insisting the "as a whole" test from Miller v. California (obscenity) applies over Pico's "pervasively vulgar" threshold, confusing discussions on school materials. It portrays challengers as extremists, ignoring polls showing most Americans oppose explicit books in schools. Tactics include faking "banned books" lists to mobilize communities (e.g., inflating LGBT book challenges until exposed), plagiarizing maps, and funding astroturf groups to overwhelm legislators with emails and turnout. ALA even trains librarians to evade open records laws by, among other things, using private channels like Signal.

Internally, ALA faces hypocrisy accusations. Trevor Dawes, a university librarian, criticized its shift to closed-door meetings, violating its own transparency policies and undermining advocacy for open government. As Dawes notes: "The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship... is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes."

ALA critiques rating systems by parents like BookLooks or Rated Books (https://www.ratedbooks.org/) while creating its own "Book Résumés," (https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/) which omit excerpts and emphasize awards, always deeming books suitable for all ages. Compare the ratings for Gender Queer on Rated Books with Gender Queer on Book Résumés.

It has promoted "sneaky" Drag Queen Story Hours in conservative areas (archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20170612040326/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intersections-glbt-book-month-dispatch-small-town-librarian).

Another significant deception is the claim of an ongoing "culture war." After 60 years of effort by ALA to accelerate the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, to the point where such material is essentially in every school library today, efforts to stop this are characterized by librarians as merely for political gain.

For example, at the 5:39 mark of ALA's new documentary called "The Librarians," someone says, "Politicians are playing a very dangerous game when they try to make school libraries battlegrounds for their political war, because the only people that that is going to hurt are kids." See https://thelibrariansfilm.com/. So 60 years of effort by ALA cannot be countered by politicians because supposedly the kids are going to get hurt in a very dangerous game, all for politics. It is a significant deception.

Implications for Iowa

Iowa legislators should scrutinize ALA's influence, given its president's local ties. Past Iowa issues include unfiltered library Internet leading to child molestation (exposed in 2011, prompting failed filtering legislation), s[*]x offenders in libraries (addressed in 2009 law), and misleading claims by directors like LaWanda Roudebush on filters. Recent writings highlight Iowa librarians supporting ALA's Marxist-leaning president https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html and details on stopping indoctrination: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/01/details-on-stopping-indoctrination.html.

Should Iowa adopt laws from an organization that flouts its own standards? Legislators face ALA-orchestrated pressure—expect astroturf campaigns—but prioritizing parental rights and child safety aligns with constitutional precedents.

If more details are needed, let me know.

🚨DETRANSITIONER WARNS PARENTS:

“The 🏳️‍⚧️ Activist Librarians who Derailed My Childhood will Face NO Consequences, but I will Have to Live with Painful, Disfigured Breasts for the Rest of My Life”

🎥 Watch & Share. Parents deserve to know the TRUTH.pic.twitter.com/JnjgXfBipT
— Maia Poet🦎 (@thepeacepoet99) February 16, 2025

Endnotes

1. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights” (adopted 1939, latest revision 2019)

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

2. Rita Koganzon, “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s,” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26

https://doi.org/10.1086/723442

(archive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing)

3. States that have passed “Right to Read Act” / “Freedom to Read Act” legislation (as of November 2025)

EveryLibrary Bill Tracking (includes Freedom to Read protections for libraries/librarians): https://www.everylibrary.org/billtracking Note: This page tracks positive "right to read" bills alongside other library legislation. For recent examples, see Delaware's passage announced November 10, 2025: https://www.alsc.ala.org/blog/2025/11/go-delaware-another-state-steps-up-for-the-freedom-to-read/ (confirms Delaware as a new adopter, building on prior states like California, Illinois, and others). ALA's adverse legislation page also contextualizes supportive bills: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/adverse-legislation-states.

4. World Library Association – Detailed parent-oriented critique of the Right to Read Act

https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/

5. Board of Education v. Pico (1982) – key Supreme Court case on school library book removal

Summary and analysis: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/

6. Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019) – court rules ALA’s Library Bill of Rights “means nothing” legally

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html

7. EveryLibrary / ALA training on “long-term inoculation” and building relationships with legislators

https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks

8. Documentation of EveryLibrary as a “crypto” ALA affiliate and its “long-term inoculation” tactics

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html

9. Senator Mike Lee (Utah) – “saying the quiet part out loud” clip from 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on banned books

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments

10. Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) – Supreme Court affirms parental opt-out rights; ALA’s response

ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom page: https://www.oif.ala.org/what-emmahmoud-v-taylor-em-means-for-your-library/

11. Maia Poet (detransitioner) testimony on harm caused by school librarian promoting trans ideology

https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606

12. Public library director reports child death linked to ALA-recommended practices

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAKillsBoy.html

13. Trevor A. Dawes, “ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values” (July 19, 2025)

https://trevordawes.wordpress.com/2025/07/19/ala-closed-door-meetings/

14. Guide for parents/legislators on obscenity law, Pico vs. Miller standards, and stopping indoctrination

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/01/details-on-stopping-indoctrination.html

15. Harris Poll and other surveys showing majority opposition to s[*]xually explicit books in schools

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/04/most-oppose-explicit-books-in-public.html

16. Exposure of ALA faking “banned books” lists to inflate LGBT challenges (2011)

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/banned-books-week-is-gay-promotion.html

17. ALA caught plagiarizing a student’s “Censorship Map”

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-ala-plagiarism-becomes-truth.html

18. ALA astroturfing: creating and funding local “grassroots” groups to pressure legislators

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/06/ala-details-how-it-controls-communities.html

Bribes/incentives detail: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/03/ala-details-bribes.html Recently in Alabama, four separate ALA-created groups failed to stop the library board from voting against ALA:

Meanwhile, the board finalized a restriction on transgender books for children and teens. Once approved by legislative services, the code states that “any library material regarding transgender procedures, gender ideology or the concept of more than two genders” must be weeded out of library circulation or moved to the adult section. See: https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/alabama-library-board-finalizes-transgender-book-restrictions-delays-fairhope-funding.html

19. ALA’s deleted article on “sneakily” pushing Drag Queen Story Hour into conservative towns (archived)

https://web.archive.org/web/20170612040326/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intersections-glbt-book-month-dispatch-small-town-librarian

20. Librarians trained to evade open-records/FOIA laws using private channels (Signal, Slack, etc.)

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/12/school-librarians-train-to-violate-foia.html

Amanda Jones training example: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/09/amanda-jones-trains-librarians-to-blind.html

21. Iowa-specific posts referenced and other Iowa posts covered by SafeLibraries

- Iowa librarians supporting Marxist ALA president: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html

- Child molestation in Iowa library linked to unfiltered porn (2011): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porn-and-sex-abuse-in-our-public.html "Consider the case of a child molested in a public library bathroom and no one knew that it was the result of p[*]rn viewing! I was the person who exposed the truth. As a result of my work, the Iowa state legislature attempted to pass state library computer filtering legislation. It would not have happened but for my involvement in that community."

- Davenport Public Library director misleads on filters (2010): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/04/revive-iowa-internet-filtering-law-for.html

- Unimpeded child p[*]rn viewing in the Council Bluffs Public Library" (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/terminal-cancer-in-council-bluffs.html

- Iowa nixes s[*]x offenders from libraries (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-nixes-sex-offenders-from-libraries.html
- ALA ruse keeping p[*]rn in Council Bluffs (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/08/ala-ruse-keeping-porn-widely-available.html

- Burlington library director misleads on Internet filters (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/burlington-ia-library-director-misleads.html
- Media needs to wake up to library crime (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-wake-up-to-library-crime-source.html

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/11/informing-iowa-legislators.html

On Twitter:

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Some Media Smear Parents, Laud School Librarians Indoctrinating Kids

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries®) — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 02:18:00 +0000

Some media smear parents, laud school librarians indoctrinating kids. Mike Deak for Courier News, top right (photo credit), obviously took whatever a school librarian said as truth and made zero effort to search out the truth of what he was being told, in my opinion. I'm certain many parents know exactly what I'm talking about.

So here is a response I wrote to Mike Deak and USA Today that needs to know how such "journalists" are damaging their brand by violating their ethics code.

I never got a response from either.

Mr. Deak

Greetings Mr. Deak,

I'm Dan Kleinman. You just wrote a story about me and my businesses, that are not related to the ethics matter that I brought as an individual, that is partly false and possibly defamatory, neither is it journalistic.

Further, your news story was photographed and posted on Bluesky by former North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School school librarian Martha Hickson who added a description to a photo (ALT text) calling me "Dan Klownman." See:

https://bsky.app/profile/sassylibrarian.bsky.social/post/3m24xyegof22k

Given your story's content, it appears to me to have been sourced from Martha Hickson, a person who harasses me on a near weekly basis and who disparages my businesses on a near monthly basis.

Is there a means by which people can officially request corrections in the Courier News? I'll provide you with some context and see if you voluntarily correct the story.

Here's the story:

"BOE is Cleared of Ethics Charges Over Book Banning," by Mike Deak, Courier News, 1 October 2025, p.1, above the fold.

https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/education/2025/09/30/north-hunterdon-voorhees-school-board-cleared-ethics-charges-book-banning/86421724007/

That is deceptive. The book is really not the issue, only the underlying reason potential ethics violations were exposed, and those violations are the real issue. This is accurate:

"Eight present and former members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education have been cleared of ethics charges that they were influenced by special interest groups in a controversy over whether they were guided by a special interest group in violation of ethics laws, made advanced promises to vote a certain way before being elected, another violation of the law, and leaked information to certain members of the public, a third violation of the law."

The following is defamatory, and it's how you describe me to your audience, as if written by Martha Hickson who regularly defames me and my businesses for at least a year:

"For more than a decade, Kleinman, based in Chatham, has waged a national campaign on what he believes are inappropriate books and websites in schools. He is also executive director of the World Library Association, an alternative to the American Library Association which he has called 'terrorist friendly, child unfriendly, and dishonest/unethical.'"

"Waged a national campaign"? I am a parent responding to an approximately 60 year effort by a special interest group from Chicago, IL, American Library Association, to promote age inappropriate material to children. See:

Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing

World Library Association has nothing to do with this case I filed individually. Yet you introduce it by labeling it "an alternative to the American Library Association which he has called 'terrorist friendly, child unfriendly, and dishonest/unethical.'" That's defamatory. You definitely got that from the person defaming me and my businesses for years.

WLA was formed two years ago, yet your quote is from 2011, fourteen years ago. Further, had you yourself looked at the quote, you would have seen it was based on a New York Times story in which the patron privacy rights of one of the 9/11 terrorists who killed thousands of Americans were defending by ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" and "Freedom to Read Foundation" leader Judith Krug after a Florida librarian turned in a terrorist's presence to the police. See:

"A Nation Challenged: Questions of Confidentiality; Competing Principles Leave Some Professionals Debating Responsibility to Government," by David E. Rosenbaum, The New York Times, 23 November 2001.

https://archive.ph/5N5R

So it's an accurate statement to say ALA is terrorist friendly, and it is based on a New York Times story where the ALA leader defended the patron privacy rights of a 9/11 terrorist to use a public library computer to learn how to better kill more Americans. Had you had that context and been a real journalist, I bet you would have excluded that smear of one of my businesses.

Similarly, I gave extensive primary sources proving the other assertions I made long ago that are now presented by you without context in a way that disparages my business. Here are those sources, if they haven't aged out over time:

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/p/know-ala.html

Contrast how you introduced me to your readers with how you introduced Martha Hickson: "Former school librarian Martha Hickson was given the American Library Association's 2022 Lemony Snicket Prize for Noble Librarians Faced with Adversity for her efforts to keep the books in the library."

Clear bias right there in your news story. I supposedly waged a national campaign assumedly falsely calling the American Library Association is terrorist friendly, which it is, while Martha Hickson is an award winning librarian, which she got from ALA to promote how she harmed school children with age inappropriate material that may even violate NJ 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18--the very law the school board explicitly overrode to follow instead the advice of special interest group from Chicago, American Library Association.

You didn't introduce me in a similar fashion. You could have said, for example, that Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, described me as a "trusted source" on the issue of how the American Library Association misleads communities about public library law. See:

https://youtu.be/DEM328ulmgY?t=28m45s

It's right at the top of my About Me page but you missed it because you wrote a hit piece, and that's not journalism. See:

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html

Part of how media manipulates the public is by not presenting information it should. You have done that. And it shows again you got your information from Martha Hickson, not from any actual effort at real journalism.

Had you actually investigated the story, or even asked me for input, you would have known the attorney for the school board, Comegno Law Group, repeatedly violated NJ School Ethics Commission rules--even the Commission's attorney had to interrupt to advise that rules were being broken.

And where did you miss this information that is entirely relevant to the story? Right on the Commission's website, the minutes of the August 19, 2025, meeting. A journalist would have made that part of his story. Instead, I see only a megaphoning of the defamatory statements of Martha Hickson who then implicitly bragged about her getting you to write that story on her Bluesky account by posting it and using it as a platform to again call me Klownman. Here is the link proving the above directly from the NJ SEC site that you completely missed because you wrote a hit piece, not something journalistic:

https://www.nj.gov/education/ethics/minutes/25/08.19.25%20-%20public%20-%20Final%20-%20ADA.pdf

And that violation of rules may have been a violation of the NJ Rules of Professional Ethics and it may have been the reason why the Commission decided as it did. But any potential of that is completely absent from your reporting.

You also missed that one of the Commission's members, Rich Tomko, was hired by the school's superintendent to consult on the Strategic Plan.

As I said earlier, part of how media manipulates the public is by not presenting information it should.

Mike Deak, I'm sure you'll be writing about me again. I'm forgiving. Next time pick up a phone and speak with me before blindly publishing agitprop from an American Library Association librarian.

It might be relevant, for example, that ALA helped Martha Hickson so completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes, so much so that the ALA President bragged about it in her yearly speech to ALA membership about how ALA tools provided to Martha Hickson helped her keep the 2C:34-3 book in the school library. See:

"ALA Details How It Controls Communities Nationwide: The Quiet Part Out Loud Now In Transcript Form"

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/06/ala-details-how-it-controls-communities.html

(35:07):

And so we know that people are battling back and we are using that platform to pull people together. I was at a a conference and uh Martha Hickson was there who some of you may know as school librarian in New Jersey. And when she faced a challenge at her school through that UABB platform, and other forms of organizing, 400 community members came and joined her to sign, to to stand with her in that moment. [00:35:30] So the United Against Book baba Bans platform facilitates that. Our state chapters are using uh OneClickPolitics®, a tool that comes from our Chapter Relations Office and from uh the Washington Office to organize locally. We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work. We continue to look for ways to expand our work in uh the Office of Intellectual Freedom.

"Mike Deak has worked in Central Jersey journalism for more than four decades. Our journalists adhere to the USA TODAY NETWORK Principles of Ethical Conduct For Newsrooms." See:

https://www.mycentraljersey.com/staff/4395507002/mike-deak/

Not this time. You violated a lot of those ethics rules. Read them:

https://cm.mycentraljersey.com/ethical-conduct/

You violated ethics rules, to support a school board potentially improperly cleared of violating ethics rules. All to keep school children reading inappropriate material that may violate New Jersey obscenity law but doesn't violate American Library Association standards or lack thereof.

All of the above is my opinion.

------------

Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

By the Way

By the way, since writing the above, I have learned the NJ School Ethics Commission may have some ethics problems of its own. We shall see.

In the meantime, one of the board members formerly under ethical review (Beth Kotran) is running to be reelected by lying about the ethics decision. I discuss just this at the 28 October 2025 board meeting, seen here:

Miller v. California (1973 SCOTUS)—the landmark obscenity smackdown. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO SCHOOL LIBRARIES. American Library Association says it does cuz it is one of the ways ALA indoctrinates and s•xualizes school children.

Watch me tell a school board to dump Miller:

1/2 pic.twitter.com/eKuIOUfgFB
— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) October 29, 2025

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/10/some-media-smear-parents-laud-school.html

On Twitter:

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

SafeLibraries®

PEN America Fakes School Book Bans in The Hill; Pico-Violative Material May Be Removed Legally

Seeing through the Smoke and Mirrors from the ALA

Texas Freedom to Lie Project

Bad Parenting

George Johnson vs. The Facts

The Economic Argument

3:49—Johnson argued that libraries should carry sexually explicit books because poor kids who want to read them can’t afford to buy them.

The “Anything Goes” Argument

5:05—Johnson said all books belong in libraries.

Johnson Calls Wallace a Liar, Part 1

5:54—Wallace said the ALA defines YA as ages 12 and up. Johnson said that’s not true.

Rules for Thee, but Not for Me

7:55—When discussing his Florida lawsuit, Johnson mentioned the “Trump-appointed judge” and “conservative judge.”

The Therapeutic Argument

8:44—Johnson said removing books that depict the sexual assault of minors will not stop it from happening, and that these books help victims “navigate” their experience.

The Prevention Argument

8:57—Johnson argued that sexual assault on college campuses occurs because “you are not allowing books that teach sex or consent to young adults before we place them in dormitories together.”

The Sex Ed Argument, Part 1

9:14—Johnson said parents who believe sex education should occur at home are unlikely to provide it themselves, arguing that their support for removing sexually explicit books for minors in libraries is evidence of their reluctance to discuss sex with their children.

The Sex Ed Argument, Part 2

9:33—Johnson said, “There has to be some type of way that we’re teaching young adults about puberty, about the changes that are happening to their body, and about the realities that are happening around them.”

Johnson Calls Wallace a Liar, Part 2

10:27—Wallace said she’s found All Boys Aren’t Blue in elementary school libraries in Texas. Johnson vigorously shook his head and said, “She hasn’t.”

Has Public Education Become a PSYOP??

Key Long-Term Changes:

A Proposal to the Kansas Legislature

Kansas Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act-A Proposal for Common Sense and Informed Consent

Kansas Law Is Strong, But Leaves Gaps for Schools and Libraries

Library and School Boards have always had the power to protect children from sexually explicit content. If this proposed legislation becomes law, they will both have the legal responsibility.

The First Amendment Is Upheld

Rutherford County Library System Being Bullied by American Library Association Mirrors

Community Standards: The Non-Negotiable Shield Against Sexualizing Our Kids

IMLS is the Latest Target of American Library Association with Kelly Jensen Smearing It As Doo Doo

Object to this book in the Children’s section? You're out of luck

ALA inspired policy effectively blocks any meaningful challenge by Parents for materials they don't want their children to see at the public library, even though the law requires it.

Public Library Books Instructing Children How to Masturbate on the Shelf for Kindergartners

The Librarians Film is Agitprop to Produce Outrage So American Library Association Librarians Can Continue Harming Children

NJ Freedom to Read Act Model Policy Is Invalid Since It Was Written by a Fired Librarian

Freedom to Read Act Incorporation Into School Policy Eliminates Local Control

Policy Shell Game Hides Parents' Rights in Kansas Libraries

TPIA / FOIA Request 001: Llano ISD Board of Trustees

Schools Displaying 'The Librarians' Might Renew Bullying of Parents, Presenting Liability

Facebook Deletes My First Amendment Lawyer's Page About My Being Sued By Amanda Jones

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the 'Censorship' Narrative

RealClearPolitics Commentary: 'Wake Up, Parents: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids'

By Dan Kleinman

'Unelected Librarians' Do Not Control Public Libraries, Parents Do; Withhold Funding Until Children Are Protected From Explicit Material

Informing Iowa Legislators About American Library Association

Some Media Smear Parents, Laud School Librarians Indoctrinating Kids

Mr. Deak

By the Way