SafeLibraries

Sexually Harassed Librarian Gets $150K; Library Media Play Hide the Poppycock

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:09:00 +0000

A sexually harassed library employee's civil suit against her library has just settled for $150,000. But you wouldn't know it from the library media. They're playing hide the "poppycock" so librarians will not figure out they can sue to stop the harm caused by unfiltered porn.

$150K for Sexual Harassment in Public Library

The Birmingham Public Library, Birmingham, AL, had (and may still have) an anything-goes policy that allowed pornography, and as a result the librarian was repeatedly sexually harassed by patrons. Result? A $150K settlement with the city of Birmingham. And she's not the only librarian forced to sue in that library after library management refused to budge:

"Birmingham Settled Sexually Hostile Work Environment Suit Against Library for $150,000," by Kent Faulk, The Birmingham News, 3 May 2012.
"Birmingham and Library Board Settle Sexually Hostile Workplace Lawsuit," by Kent Faulk, The Birmingham News, 19 April 2012.

American Library Association and Sexually Harassed Librarians

The American Library Association [ALA], the leading group advising libraries nationwide how to skirt the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] that would have blocked pornography, the group that state/federal filtering case winning library director Dean Marney says uses "dogma" to mislead people, the group where Birmingham library director Irene Blalock "is a member ... and presently serves on the board of the Public Library Association, a division of ALA," has done nothing to help the injured librarians. In addition it has suppressed information on this latest librarian sexual harassment settlement from its publications.

Besides the ALA, the non-ALA Library Journal is also hiding something. For example, the recent $150K settlement is nowhere to be found in the Library Journal or the ALA's monthly American Libraries magazine, its ILoveLibraries.org, or its home ALA.org, even months later.

The Library Journal Plays Hide the "Poppycock"

Worse still, in addition to not helping the beleaguered librarians and library employees, in addition to actively suppressing clearly library-related news of the settlement of a library employee harassment case, the Library Journal mocked anyone who would dare suggest unfiltered porn could lead to sexual harassment cases. "Poppycock"! No, I am not making that up, I'm just reporting it:

"ALA Picks and Pans: Programs by Topic & Specialty," by John N. Berry III, Library Journal, 1 June 2002:
Pornography in Libraries: Sexual Harassment?

ACRL. Sun., Jun. 16, 10:30 a.m.-noon. Does the availability of sexually explicit materials on the Internet really create a sexually hostile workplace for library staff? The EEOC says 'probably,' but they don't write laws. Hear that poppycock and a response from librarians who still believe in intellectual freedom.

Below is a screen grab of the "poppycock" mockery because you have to see this for yourselves. I've no doubt that sentiment comes from the ALA speaker herself, but I did not have luck finding the text of the poppycockery:

Highlighting the "poppycock" with which
the Library Journal mocked those
who say library porn may lead
to sexual harassment cases.

Is $150K poppycock? Is $435K poppycock?

$435K for Sexual Harassment in Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library

As to the $435K case, see:

"No Smut At Work, Please," by Gary Young and Staff Reporter, The National Law Journal, 15 September 2003:
On Aug. 15, the Minneapolis Public Library announced that it had agreed to pay $435,000 to 12 employees-lead plaintiff Wendy Adamson, five other librarians, five aides and a page-who accused the library administration of subjecting them to a hostile work environment by leaving them exposed to pornography.

"EEOC Finds Library Policy of Unrestricted Internet Access Creates Sexually Hostile Work Environment for Librarians," by Unnamed, Tech Law Journal, 23 May 2001:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Minneapolis Area Office, issued a Determination that the Minneapolis Public Library subjected librarians employed by the library to a "sexually hostile work environment" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for maintaining a policy of unrestricted Internet access.
"Controversial Ruling on Library Filters," by Carl S. Kaplan, Cyber Law Journal, The New York Times, 1 June 2001:
In early 1997, the Minneapolis Public Library began giving its patrons unfettered and unlimited access to the Internet. The library's First Amendment-inspired policy was intended to provide a needed service to the community. But Wendy Adamson, a reference desk librarian at the library's central branch, said it effectively made her working life a nightmare, and federal officials appear poised to agree with her.

Acting on complaints from Adamson and other librarians at the city's central branch library, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Minneapolis office ruled last week that the library, by exposing its staff to sexually explicit images on unrestricted computer terminals, may have allowed for a hostile work environment. The blockbuster finding, issued on May 23 following an investigation by the agency, came in response to complaints filed a year ago by Adamson and 11 of her colleagues.

Free speech advocates quickly expressed concern that the E.E.O.C.'s decision is a dangerous precedent that could pressure libraries to aggressively monitor patrons' viewing habits or install filtering software as a means to ward off potential discrimination suits. But Adamson and Bob Halagan, the lawyer for the librarians, hailed the commission's finding as a victory for common sense.

Adamson said the complaints were filed only after she and other librarians repeatedly notified library officials about their concerns and detailed what they said were the new policy’s negative impact on staff and patrons.

"Our downtown library became a club for a large number of men who were viewing pornography all day," Adamson, who has been a librarian for over 30 years, said in an interview. "I'd see these men at the door at 9 a.m. and some of them would still be there at 9 at night."

Adamson said that while she was sitting at her workplace and doing her job, she would look up and see "horrible" stuff on the screens of nearby terminals. "I'm talking about torture and sex with animals," she said. It was "really demoralizing and depressing."

Computer printouts of sexually explicit pictures littered the library, Adamson said. She said she saw some men at computer terminals engage in what appeared to her to be masturbation and that computer users would verbally abuse her when she tried to enforce time limits.

The worst part of her day, she said, was watching, helplessly, as members of the public—including children—encountered unwanted sexual images on terminals. Often, she said, a patron who wanted to do conventional research would approach a terminal and find that it was locked onto a sexually explicit site—owing to a "quicksand" feature some porn sites use that prevents users from leaving the site. She said she repeatedly had to calm the patrons and reset the terminal's browser.

"We were told [by administrators] to avert our eyes. But we were surrounded by it," she said, adding that library officials did not respond to staff complaints about the policy.
....
For her part, Adamson said that she hopes the ruling will empower other librarians who feel harassed to speak up.
....

Sound familiar?

Blocking Porn is Antithetical to Intellectual Freedom?

Read that poppycock paragraph again: "Hear that poppycock and a response from librarians who still believe in intellectual freedom." Notice anything? In context with the title and the rest of the paragraph, the writer is saying that blocking pornography is antithetical to "intellectual freedom." The US Supreme Court said the exact opposite a year later in 2003. So the ALA (and Library Journal) is teaching things that it wants people to think but that is simply the exact opposite of reality. See:

US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003), e.g., "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights." See also:
"Library Porn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007,
"The Problem of Library Porn for Librarians," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 4 May 2011, "[Librarians who defend pornography access]… sound like fools when they defend public library porn because of an alleged dedication to access to information. Men who sit in front of library computers viewing Internet porn aren't 'accessing information,' unless we want to make 'accessing information' a new euphemism for getting sexually aroused and possibly doing something about that arousal," and
"Libraries and Porn Privacy," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 27 April 2011.

ALA Propagandist Attorney Theresa Chamara

Speaking of the exact opposite of reality, the ALA is still pulling the wool over people's eyes. Just recently one of its leading attorneys warned libraries to avoid filtering libraries claiming such filtering would invite litigation. First, it would be the ALA/ACLU, both losing plaintiffs in US v. ALA, that would bring such suit, so warning libraries about law suits they might themselves bring is partly dishonest and partly a threat. Second, the ALA attorney, Theresa Chamara, writing even after the $150K and the $435K poppycock, while threatening litigation should libraries filter, completely 100% leaves out the exact opposite, that not filtering may result in $150K/$435K poppycock. So librarians are getting intentionally misleading information from top ALA leadership using an attorney to freeze them into inaction on filters. See for yourself, and pay attention to the comments as well:

"Why Recent Court Decisions Don't Change the Rules on Filtering," by Theresa Chmara, American Libraries, 24 July 2012:
Libraries should continue to be wary of using internet filtering systems that block constitutionally protected material for adults or minors. .... If libraries use filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, those libraries may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses.

Isn't $150K or $435K significant? But there's no hint of such costs for the failure to filter, merely a warning that filtering "may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses." That is intentionally misleading.

Further, Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, points out the significant differences between a filtering suit and a sexual harassment suit, something else Ms. Chmara conveniently omits:

Of course, a library that uses filtering software on all its terminals risks inviting—and losing—a First Amendment lawsuit, Volokh said, alluding to a 1998 federal district court decision declaring that the filtering policy of a public library in Loudoun County, Va., was unconstitutional. [Note: US v. ALA grew out of that case and effectively reversed the Loudoun decision.]

But losing a First Amendment lawsuit will subject a library to "nominal damages," Volokh said. Losing a Title VII discrimination lawsuit can result in damages "with lots of zeros in it," he said. Faced with the choice between two equally hazardous legal alternatives, library trustees will logically opt to install filters and ward off harassment suits with potentially massive damages, he said.

Exactly.

Can you see why the ALA attorney conveniently left that out? Quote source: "Controversial Ruling on Library Filters," by Carl S. Kaplan, Cyber Law Journal, The New York Times, 1 June 2001.

Keep In Mind That ALA Intentionally Misleads on Library Filtering

Keep this in mind when false advice comes your way from the ALA. ALA said filters were unconstitutional. False. ALA said blocking porn violates intellectual freedom. False. ALA now says libraries may be exposed to litigation for filtering computers. True, but not the whole truth, it is very rare, and it pales in comparison to consequences for not filtering, as Mr. Volokh pointed out.

Librarians May Wish to Consider Other Sources of Library News

If you are a librarian reading this post, this may be the only source of information for you about sexual harassment in libraries due to unfettered porn occasioned by ALA diktat. ALA/Library Journal suppresses such information and calls it "poppycock." In contrast, information contained herein, along with the underlying hyperlinks and their associated primary sources linked therein such as actual legal complaints, may give you what you need to bring your own legal action for redress and an end to ALA policy applied locally that is causing so much harm—like $150K worth of harm for one librarian, the case for the other librarian still in the works, and $435K worth of harm for twelve librarians.

Birmingham Public Library $187,107.94 CIPA Fraud

In the past I spelled out how the Birmingham Public Library may be defrauding the federal government. In the year and a half since then, I am now convinced that the library is indeed defrauding the federal government, I can prove it, and I will submit a CIPA Whistleblower Alert.

First, reread what I wrote about the issue in the past.
Second, I hereby update those numbers which show the fraud continued even after the filing of the EEOC complaints and civil suits and even after I provided the library with notice that it may be committing fraud:

2010: $21,805.20

2011: $6,814.08 + $16,935.36 = $23,749.44

Total defrauded from 2004 to 2011: $187,107.94

Third, while the library has computer filters, they are being disabled for porn, not just for "bona fide research or other lawful purposes," as CIPA requires. This is obvious in light of the $150K settlement in one of the sexual harassment cases. The other is still in litigation.
Fourth, in violation of CIPA, adults may turn off the filters for themselves. CIPA requires a librarian to do this. As the Library Journal put it, "Birmingham filters the Internet but allows adult users to turn the filter off."
Fifth, and this is the smoking gun, watch plaintiff Barbara Ann Wilson describe how the filters "do not work," and that violates CIPA:
[Ms Wilson] We do have filters but they do not work.
....
[Mr. Morel] And their response, in essence, in writing was we have a filter and her allegations have no validity.

If the allegations had no validity, Birmingham may have settled for nuisance value, but $150K out of the demanded $300K far exceeds nuisance value. Fifty percent is no nuisance value.

Is There a Tactical Effort to Settle Cases to Prevent Precedent Setting?

The $435K case settled. Now the $150K case settled. Who wants to bet that the cases are settling due to a tactical effort to avoid any court from setting precedent by ruling that pornography in public libraries may lead to sexually harassing work environments like the EEOC did? I predict all such cases will settle because the ALA and its acolytes do not want a poppycock precedent.

ALA Will Never Assist Sexually Harassed Librarians

To help keep these cases low key, library media play hide the poppycock and effectively censors out settlement news so it will not be known to librarians generally. Think about this. Librarians and library employees are sexually harassed in their places of employment due to unlimited porn viewing. The policies that enabled such porn viewing come directly from the ALA and from local acolytes like Irene Blalock who will refuse to change such policies until forced. "[W]e have a filter and her allegations have no validity." "If you don't like it, leave." There's a general disdain among the "intellectual freedom" crowd for anyone who would dare cut off access to public library pornography, despite the law such as US v. ALA. That's "poppycock," a British term for bullsh-t. ALA even misleads the entire nation to think library porn is not a problem while library filters are. In furtherance of maintaining the illusion of control over public libraries to allow continuing access to unfettered porn, such people will never come to the assistance of the employees suffering as a direct result, they will never provide truthful information when misleading people carries their agenda so much further.

Advice for Attorneys to Push for More Settlement Money

Therefore, given the above, I hereby suggest that attorney Adam Morel push for an even higher settlement percentage for the next harassment case. The library would rather settle than allow a precedent that will show other librarians the way to stop being harassed in their own libraries as a result of unlimited porn. And see if this helps any:

"Challenges and Solutions for Public Employers: Maintaining Work Environments Free of Harassment and Discrimination by Non-Employees," by Hope N. Chaut, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 1455 (2005).

Nice new logo. Just add "of poppycock and porn" to the end of the sentence.

Lastly, note I have been writing and speaking on this particular injustice in Birmingham for years, since 18 January 2011. I'll be happy to assist any library employee or legal counsel.

Isn't It Sad

Isn't it sad that SafeLibraries is speaking out for sexually harassed librarians and library employees, while "ALA Blowhards" do nothing to help and may actually be making things worse? "Know the ALA."

Hat Tip to Safe Schools, Safe Libraries Project

Hat tip: "Birmingham Settled Sexually Hostile Work Environment Suit Against Library for $150,000," by Dawn Hawkins, Safe Schools, Safe Libraries Project, 8 August 2012. Note: Safe Schools, Safe Libraries Project is not SafeLibraries, and I recommend following them on Twitter @Porn_Harms. Curious note: The Birmingham Public Library @BPL, free speech advocates as they want us to think they are with all porn all the time, blocks me from following them on Twitter!

URL: tinyurl.com/HideThePoppycock

Follow @SafeLibraries

Panic Buttons for Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Libraries need panic buttons because crime is so bad? I learned about this in #libchat—so librarians find this notable and are apparently concerned:

Q7 A public library in Chicago may issue panic buttons for library staff. Good idea? #libchat
— Natalie Binder (@nataliebinder) August 2, 2012

Here is the story:

"Cook Memorial Officials Weighing Panic Buttons for Libraries," by Russell Lissau, Daily Herald (Chicago, IL), 1 August 2012, hyperlinks in original:

Cook Memorial Public Library District officials may purchase panic buttons for employees.

Library Director Stephen Kershner said he began thinking about upgrading security after the Cook Park Library in Libertyville was expanded and the Aspen Drive Library in Vernon Hills Library was built. Those projects were completed last year.

Libraries are open places where hundreds of people come and go every day, Kershner said, and some visitors can be dangerous.

“At my first library job, we had encounters that turned violent,” Kershner recalled. “There are safety considerations because we're open buildings.”

The buttons likely would be wireless and could be placed at high-profile spots such as the reference or circulation desks, Kershner said. They often look like garage-door openers.

If a librarian were to activate one, an alarm would be sent to the district's security company and to police, Kershner said.

Kershner came to Cook Memorial about two years ago from the Pasco County library system in Florida, where he oversaw seven libraries as the assistant director for public services. Those buildings had panic buttons that alerted the local sheriff's department to emergencies, he said.

Libraries at the University of Maryland, Phoenix College in Arizona and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are among the other facilities equipped with panic buttons for employees and visitors.

“We want to make sure we have a safe environment for everyone who uses or works in our public facilities,” Kershner said.

Library board President Bonnie Quirke said she'd also been thinking about implementing new security measures. Last month's shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., made taking such steps paramount.

“As violence increases in public places ... I believe that this is very prudent and necessary,” Quirke said.

Cook Memorial's buildings and grounds committee could discuss the plan at a meeting set for Aug. 16, Kershner said. The full board could debate the matter Aug. 21.

Related media:

Panic button demonstration

Follow @SafeLibraries

Time to Ban Patrons Instead of Filtering Porn in Public Libraries; Guest Post by "Adult Services" Librarian

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 03:45:00 +0000

When I first started at my small town library two years ago, I was so thrilled to begin work as a real reference librarian. That more people in town had dropped out of high school than attended graduate school did not bother me—I had arrived on my beacon of light powered by ideals from Library School. That librarians could empower patrons to be just like Ray Bradbury and educate themselves through their local Public Library excited me. Accessing information, whatever information they want, is our mission as librarians after all, and I vowed to dutifully serve my role as conduit.

There's No Right to Porn in Public Libraries

Although I've never helped a patron search for pornographic materials, as the second in command at my library, I've encountered several situations over these two years where patrons have viewed graphic images on our public stations. Most recently, I had to ask a patron to leave who was watching loud and explicit pornographic videos. That it was offensive even to me, a bleeding heart hippie and liberal, is beside the point. What is upsetting is that some people believe accessing pornography at the public library is a right.

The Annoyed Librarian on the Problem of Library Porn for Librarians

The Annoyed Librarian said it well:

[Librarians who defend pornography access]… sound like fools when they defend public library porn because of an alleged dedication to access to information. Men who sit in front of library computers viewing Internet porn aren't "accessing information," unless we want to make "accessing information" a new euphemism for getting sexually aroused and possibly doing something about that arousal.

Source: "The Problem of Library Porn for Librarians," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 4 May 2011.

I heartily agree. As much as I despise the argument disgruntled patrons use when I tell them they have fines ("my taxes pay your salary!"), I think this is one instance where most patrons of a small town library would agree with me: no one wants their 75 cents of town taxes going towards a neighbor's public sexual satisfaction. Maybe there should be public adult only libraries, I'm not sure. But I am confident public institutions that require its employees to monitor computer usage would not want to face a sexual harassment lawsuit from one of its employees because she was forced to sit at a desk in view of naked genitalia. Let alone from one of its loyal conservative patrons with young children.

Local Library Trustees Asked to Filter Out Porn to Protect Children

The trustees at my soon to be former library are being petitioned by a group of parents to purchase filtering software to prevent patrons from viewing pornographic images. This is a valid reaction, because our current policy gives patrons a warning to end their pornography viewing behavior before they are banned (temporarily, typically three or six months). This group of parents is upset that their children were privy to sexually explicit content and harsher action was not taken immediately against the offending patron (he got a warning and his sessions for the day were terminated).

But Filtering Software is Imperfect

Current filtering software is very imperfect and requires someone to continually adjust "the filter as needed when sites that should be allowed are being blocked." I can't imagine how my library (or anyone else's for that matter) would be able to justify a poorly staffed reference desk but a position that would be able to vigilantly un-block sites like "child sex abuse information" or "breast cancer facts." LibraryFiltering.org (from which the previous quote was taken) also warns: "do not rely upon patron complaints to tell you whether your filter is working because experience shows that most patrons do not complain when a site is blocked."

Porn Viewing? Then Ban Patrons Instead—First Strike, You're Out

I think it is a fair solution (considering limited human and financial resources) to ban patrons from the library when they violate a clearly stated computer use policy—first strike, he should be out. Viewing pornography is a personal choice, and looking at it in a public space forces it on others. Perhaps if we look at it as a form of visual rape, maybe we won't have so many librarians crying injustice.

After the Thrill is Gone

What can you do when your dreams come true

And it's not quite like you planned?

Throughout my two years at my position as Adult Services and Reference Librarian, I can now see my slow transition away from my initial thrill in helping people access information. In my first month on the job, I vividly recall helping a patron set up a Facebook account; he wanted to locate an old girlfriend and "heard this was the best way to find her." Of course, Facebook requires an email address, so I helped him set up that account first, spending two hours with him over two days. As a one woman department, there were undoubtedly other patrons who could have used my assistance, but since I was away from my desk for so long, I'll never know—I should have referred him to the monthly Social Networking Workshops I used to teach.

It only occurred to me weeks later that I could have been abetting a stalker, but since I was so passionate about helping teach people how to access the online world, I did not judge his request for assistance. I do, however, question my title: Google "adult services" and you'll know what I mean.

A librarian submitted for publication the above on banning patrons instead of

using filtering software in public libraries. I am publishing it

anonymously for her protection. I am happy to

present fresh, new ideas like this.

Join the Watchdogs.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Guilty of Religious Discrimination; Another Censors and Discards Books Having Christian Content

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:03:00 +0000

Seaside Public Library in Seaside, OR, has been found guilty of religious discrimination and will now pay for its sin. Liberty Counsel gets the credit for this:

"Seaside Library Changing Policy Following Lawsuit," by Jeremy C. Ruark, Seaside Signal, 20 July 2012.

The real sin is that libraries continue to discriminate against Christians even after similar religious discrimination cases have been decided for religious freedom:

"Library Denies Civil Rights of Christians and is 'As Blatantly Un-American and Unconstitutional As You Can Get,'" by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 June 2008.
"Children's Christian Artwork Censored in Menomonee Falls Public Library," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 April 2010.
"New Smyrna Beach Dumps Evil Christians," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 21 February 2010.

See also:

"Faithful Christian Canadians Not Welcome On Library Boards," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 23 July 2009.
"How Selection is Used to Censor: The ALA, Conservative Christians, and the Annoyed Librarian's Tour de Force," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 8 October 2008.
"ALA Personally Attacks ALA Councilor Who As a Conservative Christian Sometimes Stood Alone Against 180 ALA Councilors Debating Non-Library Issues; Young ALA Members Urged to Stand Against the ALA When It Takes on World Issues Having Nothing To Do with Librarianship," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 14 June 2010.

Even the American Library Association [ALA] is on the right side on this issue:

"Library Gets Religion; ALA Right Again," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 23 June 2009.

But I believe ALA has more work to do to get out the message so more libraries will not lose more money in religious discrimination cases. Speaking of which ...

Lancaster Public Library Censors and Discards Books with Christian Content

Book warning children against sexual predators

censored and discarded by the Lancaster Public Library.

On a related point, I am currently investigating the facts in a religious discrimination case where it appears the Lancaster Public Library, Lancaster, PA, has discriminated against placing a book in its collection precisely because of its religious content. The book teaches children how to attempt to recognize and stop sexual predators. It gaves this important message a religious twist, and that was the stated reason the library refused to place the book in its collection. It may even have thrown out many copies purchased by the donor instead of returning them.

I predict you won't hear the ALA decry the censorship of this book, in part since it fakes censorship controversies to promote its own agenda:

"Banned Books Week is Gay Promotion? Author Admits ALA Faked 2010 Top 10 Challenged Book List," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 September 2011.

Read a "Censored" Book: Sara Sue Learns to Yell & Tell

Want to read a "censored" book? The very one the Lancaster Public Library "censored" and threw out?

Read a "censored" book before another library throws it out! Visit and purchase the "censored" "Yell & Tell" books!

NOTE ADDED 22 JULY 2012:

Illustrative of the discrimination/damage caused by the Lancaster Public Library in rejecting the Yell & Tell books on children defending against sexual predators, even if from a Christian perspective, is the following:

"Awareness is Our Best Defense Against Pedophiles Like Jerry Sandusky," by Jerome Elam, The Washington Times, 21 July 2012, emphasis mine:
We now face a new evil, and the trial of Jerry Sandusky is the Pearl Harbor in that war against child abuse. It is our call to action, both survivors and the rest of society to establish a united front against the vandalizing of our children’s innocence. We have to empower and educate parents and establish programs in our schools, public and private, along with our churches, youth leagues and summer camps to educate adults and children about the signs of child abuse.

....

We also need to enlist the aid of those individuals whom children idolize in the sports and entertainment industries to make public service announcements about recognizing and reporting child abuse. We need to explore every avenue to arm children with the ability to trigger a chain of reporting that effectively deals with any inappropriate sexual behavior before the curtain of silence falls.

NOTE ADDED 24 JULY 2012:

While the library is busy banning Christian books and the ALA has not and likely will not do anything about this, the ALA is actively promoting:

Public libraries promoting one religion's free speech while squelching another's is a problem, is it not? Remember, "Know the ALA."

NOTE ADDED JULY 29 2012:

I have asked Lancaster Public Library to respond directly to me on this issue within a month. So far, after about a week, no response.

Think about this. Using the library's religious discrimination as the reason to keep children from identifying and reporting sex abuse, the Lancaster Public Library is doing the *exact opposite* of what is being sought by Erin's Law, emphasis mine:

All it took was one night for my innocence to be stolen. From ages 6-8 1/2 and 11-13 two men molested and raped me. I wasn't telling because nobody had educated me to tell. The only message I was getting was from the men abusing me. These men told me they would come get me, they knew where I lived, no one would believe me, I had no proof, and I would destroy my family if I told our secret. There are children across this world being told the same thing I was told and I have now made it my mission to educate and empower every child with their voice through Erin's Law. A law I am determined to get passed in all 50 states.

See: http://www.erinmerryn.net/erins-law.html

Yell & Tell books educate/empower children to tell, yell and tell. Lancaster Public Library's religious discrimination is standing in the way of educating/empowering children to yell and tell. Is it not?

NOTE ADDED 4 AUGUST 2012:

I just found a story about the Lancaster Public Library showing it knows it is wrong to block books. These are quotes that, even if not good library practice, apparently do not apply to Yell & Tell books:

"The goal of the library is to buy things people in the community want to read"
"Whether or not the book is considered 'good' by any measure is up to the public"
"Taking books off the shelf isn't the point of the library"
"It's not the library's job to censor material"
"Ephrata library's Penny Talbert, left, and Manheim library's Barbara Basile see their job as catering to library patrons' requests, not thwarting them"

"No 'Shades' of Censorship Here; When It Comes to Blue ‘Grey’ Trilogy, Librarians See Things in Black and White"

Originally Published Jun 02, 2012 23:53

By LYNN ONDRUSEK

Staff Writer

Sunday News (Lancaster, PA, USA)

E.L. James' erotic novel "Fifty Shades of Grey" is causing a stir in communities across America, and it's no different here.

The book and its two sequels — focused on the twisted sexual relationship of an innocent college girl and a young tycoon with control issues — have been in high demand in the Library System of Lancaster County.

That's kept copies off library bookshelves, making local library patrons wait to check out the trilogy's titles.

Within the library system last week, there were 161 holds on 25 copies of the book, according to the system's online catalog. Sixty-two of those holds were registered from Lancaster Public Library, said Heather Sharp, community relations manager.

The book, often referred to as "mommy porn," has also been downloaded as an e-book 15 times, according to Mary Ann Heltshe-Steinhauer, spokeswoman for the library system. The two other books in the trilogy, "Fifty Shades Freed" and "Fifty Shades Darker," have eight downloads each.

The "Fifty Shades" craze is just reaching Manheim Community Library. Executive Director Barbara Basile said it has been a sleeper so far.

"It took a bit of press to wake up [readers]," she said. "I think once the teachers are off from school, it will pick up."

Basile said her library ordered the book after getting a number of requests for it. The goal of the library is to buy things people in the community want to read, she said.

That's why this small-town library and others here haven't pulled the questionable book off the shelf, as is being done in some areas in the country.

Whether or not the book is considered "good" by any measure is up to the public, said Heltshe-Steinhauer, adding that the storyline and publicists' hype have sparked readership. So much so that Adamstown Area Library had to order more copies to meet patrons' demands, said Sharon Haney, head circulation assistant.

Taking books off the shelf isn't the point of the library, said Penny Talbert, executive director at Ephrata Public Library. That would be doing a disservice to the community, especially in the case of a book in high demand, she explained.

"Libraries carry things that may be offensive to people," she said. "But if you don't want to read it, then you don't read it. It's not the library's job to censor material."

.

American Library Association's Social Activism Undermines Public Trust in a Community Institution

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:44:00 +0000

Read this report highly critical of the American Library Association's "social agenda":

Agenda on the Shelves; The American Library Association's Social Activism Undermines Public Trust in a Community Institution, by Emily Whitten, WORLD Magazine, 6 July 2012:
The ALA's increasingly vocal social agenda combined with policies that prevent local librarians from responding to their community's values are very real dangers. And these policies may be undermining library relevance and public trust at a time when both are sorely needed.

Read this response by librarian David Lee King:

"Bad Reporting and Weird Views about ALA," by David Lee King, David Lee King, 7 July 2012.

Now read my own comment:

The ALA's actions include not only those described above, but also intentionally false and misleading actions intended to mislead an entire nation. For example, ALA publishes each year an annual list of the top 10 most challenged books. This year’s list, for example, notes the "jump" of "The Hunger Games" from 5th position to 3rd position, likely as a means to ride the wave of the movie's popularity, and no actual proof of actual numbers is ever given despite request.

But in 2010, the ALA rode another wave. It pushed 2 books on the list as being opposed for their LGBT content. It said the top book was challenged dozens of times. In reality it was challenged only 4 times all year across the entire nation. It said another LGBT book was challenged for its LGBT content. In reality the parents objected to the graphic of two Boy Scouts watching two people having anal sex, and, more significantly to the matter of the ALA's intentional deception, the author of the book admitted that ALA told her other books had been challenged more often that hers, but it pushed the book up the list due to its LGBT content and its successful removal from a single school.

And I have the tape recording of the author saying this in public at her speech at a New Jersey Library Association annual meeting. See/listen for yourselves: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/banned-books-week-is-gay-promotion.html

So the ALA essentially faked its 2010 annual list of top 10 challenged books to push the LGBT issue.

That said, I have no evidence that ALA was pushing the LGBT issue to promote it. Rather I suspect it pushed the LGBT issue to cynically take advantage of the false controversy it was intentionally faking so the LGBT community would pick up the issue and carry the ALA's false censorship message further than the ALA could do alone. I think the ALA was stepping on the LGBT community to use it to its own advantage. Similarly in 2011, the ALA dropped all LGBT books from its annual list and is now riding The Hunger Games movie wave to push its false message.

Remember, the last book censored in the USA was "Fanny Hill" and that was about half a century ago. So the ALA definitely needs help in spreading its false message that censorship is occurring everyday in nearly every community. Desperately faking / manipulating lists to promote falsity is a sure sign the ALA knows people are not buying the bull.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, tell everyone what you think about the Emily Whitten report in the comments below.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Obama and the ALA Plagiarist

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:33:00 +0000

The Obama administration may select an American Library Association [ALA] plagiarist, former ALA president Camila A. Alire, for its National Council on the Humanities [NEH]. "Because democracy demands wisdom, NEH serves and strengthens our republic by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of history to all Americans."

In addition, Alire lent little support during her time as ALA president or past president while Cuban librarians languished in jail and the civil rights of gay librarians were ignored. I am not sure how plagiarism, which is intellectual theft, nor how turning a blind eye when she could have made a difference to the Castro regime's book burnings, librarian jailing/torture, and gay librarian abuses meets the stated goal of the NEH to which Alire may be appointed.

Camila A. Alire is not up to the standards of the Obama administration and should not be selected for the NEH post.

Here is relevant information:

"President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts," by Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 28 June 2012:
Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: Camila A. Alire – Member, National Council on the Humanities....
"ALA Screws Gay Librarians; Gay Civil Rights Community Should Demand ALA Action; Rank and File Rebellion Against the ALA Leadership Needed," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 January 2011, quoting Robert Kent (hyperlinks added):
But it is to be hoped that those attending her presentation will ask Ms. Alire questions about her adherence to these principles. Why, during her presidency of the ALA, did Ms. Alire fail to defend library workers in a neighboring country who are being persecuted? What good does it do to advocate high principles in theory while failing to implement them in practice?

Among the most recent outrages ignored by the ALA, the association at its just concluded San Diego failed to take action against recent raids on gay libraries in Cuba. (For details, see the Recent News section of our website.)

Yesterday civil liberties journalist Nat Hentoff, in his latest column on this subject ("The Endless Shame of the Spineless ALA," see link below) asks some of these questions regarding Ms. Alire's failure to respond to appeals, which Ms. Alire has declined to answer for many months. The library community has a right to ask Ms. Alire why she refuses to defend in practice the rights she defends in theory.

We in the Friends of Cuban Libraries urge the people attending Ms. Alire's UCLA presentation to politely insist that she provide answers to these important questions.
"ALA Double Standard on Accuracy in Texas State Board of Education Proposal on School Book Content; ALA President Plagiarizes to Promote Matter Outside ALA Purview," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 18 May 2010 (hyperlink omitted, and my prediction came true):
Let alone the ALA has no standing in the educational arena, let alone the ALA has a double standard in requiring accuracy, the ALA, President Camila A. Alire herself, has signed a letter to the Texas Education Agency that is nearly 100% plagiarized. That's theft.

Shocking as this statement of the ALA's wholesale copying may be, I am just the messenger, not the plagiarizer. The ALA president's letter is over her signature and is dated 13 May 2010. It is a near complete copy of a letter dated 11 May 2010 by Martin Garnar, Chair of the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee:

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Garnar, Martin wrote:
....
Camila A. Alire is not on the Intellectual Freedom Committee. She has clearly plagiarized. Both Alire's letter and Garnar's letter are reprinted below. Go ahead, compare them. See for yourself. It's truly disgraceful and I predict there will be no consequences whatsoever.
"Will ALA Silence Lead to Death?," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 13 March 2010.
"[ifforum] Hunger Strike Appeal: Librarian in Danger," by Robert Kent, The Friends of Cuban Librarians, 11 March 2010.

President Obama, please do not appoint Camila A. Alire for the reasons stated above. For full disclosure, I made a similar request in the past:

"Anything Goes for America if Seattle Public Library Director Susan Hildreth's Nomination is Confirmed for the Institute of Museum and Library Services," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 November 2010.

Follow @SafeLibraries

NCAC Pushes Porn on Libraries; Fifty Shades of Grey Propaganda: Brevard Buckles, Harford Holds

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:49:00 +0000

The National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] is now openly pushing pornography into public libraries:

"NCAC, Free Speech Groups Criticize M.D. Library's 'Porn' Ban," by National Coalition Against Censorship, National Coalition Against Censorship, 12 June 2012, emphasis added:
The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) united with other freedom of expression organizations again today on behalf of E.L. James' best-selling erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey (Vintage), this time in Harford County, Maryland.

In a joint letter (below) issued to the county library's board, NCAC has arrayed co-signers representing publishers, authors, booksellers and journalists from across the nation to urge Harford County to reconsider the thinking behind its generic ban on "porn," a subjectively and selectively defined category.

"There is no justification for the wholesale exclusion of books with sexually explicit content, whether called 'erotica' or 'pornography'," [sic] the letter states.

Given those statements, it is now safe to say the NCAC is openly pushing pornography into public libraries.

The NCAC, ALA, ACLU, PEN, AAP, ASJA, ABFFE, and IBPA All Push Porn in Public Libraries:

Along with the NCAC are other groups in its letter to Harford County, including the American Library Association [ALA], the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], the PEN American Center [PEN], the Association of American Publishers [AAP], the American Society of Journalists and Authors [ASJA], the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression [ABFFE], the Independent Book Publishers Association [IBPA], and more. The ALA is not a direct signatory of the NCAC letter, but the AAP representative, Judith Platt, is also the Vice President of the ALA's Freedom to Read Foundation that lists her ALA and AAP posts.

As they all signed the letter saying there is no justification for libraries to exclude porn, this means the NCAC, ALA, ACLU, PEN, AAP, ASJA, ABFFE, and IBPA are all pushing pornography into public libraries.

The ALA Pushes Porn in Other Ways As Well:

By the way, the ALA has taken no significantly visible, public stand supporting libraries that follow selection policy to keep out pornography. It has not and will not support Harford County Public Library Director Mary Hastler, for example. Telling, no?

Au contraire, the ALA gave huge support, even an award, to school librarian Dee Venuto who supported keeping her students exposed to inappropriate material, including a picture of two men having anal sex while two Boy Scouts looked on:

"School Media Specialist Passes Sexual Content Review to Students; Dee Venuto Says It Is Discrimination to Keep Children From Material Including Lengthy, Vivid Descriptions of a Ménage a Trois"

And with respect to public library computers, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act has recently spoken out about how the ALA endangers children in a third of American libraries:

"CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected"

Evaluating the Veracity of the NCAC Claims Supporting Library Pornography:

Is it true that "there is no justification for the wholesale exclusion of books with sexually explicit content, whether called 'erotica' or 'pornography'"? After all, it is the leading argument in support of forcing various communities to accept pornography into their public libraries. "A policy that excludes an entire category of works that are protected by the First Amendment is a censorship policy, impermissible in a public library," they say. But is it true?

No. It is not true. Further, the NCAC and its fellow travelers know it is not true and purposefully fail to inform communities. They say a "censorship policy" is "impermissible in a public library." That is true. But to make the stretch that pornography is being "censored," and to say that is "impermissible," is intentionally misleading. The NCAC left out critical information that would make its propagandistic claims completely evaporate. As Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie." Simply put, the NCAC cabal is lying to local communities.

US v. ALA Says Libraries Traditionally Exclude Pornography and Libraries Have Broad Discretion to Make Selection Decisions:

Proof? There is a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of pornography in public libraries, and among the interested parties were the ALA, ACLU, and the AAP. The point being they knew about this case as they were directly involved, and knew its outcome, yet now they choose to leave out key information about the case from the letters they sign that are sent to communities and from the interviews they have with the media. Remember, a half truth is a lie.

Truth? United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194, 2003: "The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny...." "[H]eightened judicial scrutiny [is] ... incompatible with the discretion that public libraries must have to fulfill their traditional missions. Public library staffs necessarily consider content in making collection decisions and enjoy broad discretion in making them."

Contrast the NCAC et alia: "Our concerns are heightened by the library's effort to justify the exclusion as part of a categorical ban on 'porn.'" The Court will not use heightened scrutiny to review a library's selection policy discretion, but the NCAC knows better and its "concerns are heightened."

Truth? US v. ALA: "A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material.... Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion."

Contrast the NCAC: "There is no justification for the wholesale exclusion of books with sexually explicit content, whether called 'erotica' or 'pornography.'" So the US Supreme Court found "most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion," but communities are told by the NCAC that "there is no justification for the wholesale exclusion of books with sexually explicit content, whether called 'erotica' or 'pornography'"?

Another Double Standard:

By the way, the argument is made that the book should be allowed in because so many other libraries allow it in. The NCAC says, "Libraries all over the country, including Anne Arundel County, Carroll County, Howard County and the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Maryland, have purchased the book and have long waiting lists of patrons eager to borrow the book." But that's a double standard. When the US Supreme Court says, "Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion," that broad exclusion of porn by so many other libraries suddenly no longer applies. Suddenly, merely on the weight of the vociferousness and audacity of the NCAC and gang and the media storm they generate, libraries are to ignore what most other libraries do in keeping out porn, while at the same time follow what many other libraries do in allowing in porn. We're all supposed to jettison hundreds of years of common sense that libraries don't stock porn because the NCAC says so.

Deception/Half Truths by the NCAC is Designed to Push Pornography on Communities:

The NCAC actually cites the US Supreme Court to say that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion," but then leaves out another US Supreme Court case that is directly on point.

And communities are supposed to take the NCAC seriously? It pushes pornography on libraries and does so by deceptively leaving out key information that would lead communities to be fully informed and make a decision opposite the one the NCAC wants. As Alan Dershowitz would say, "She should go back to law school, where she will learn that it is never appropriate to submit an affidavit that contains a half truth, because a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie, and anyone who submits an affidavit swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." And any organization seeking to push a community to allow porn in its public library better tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The NCAC, ALA, ACLU, PEN, AAP, ASJA, ABFFE, and IBPA have failed in that regard.

Case Study in Effect of NCAC Propaganda/Threats on Communities:

Be that as it may, when the NCAC propaganda is combined with legal threats, communities might fall right in line.

Harford County is Under Attack Right Now:

One such community under threat right now is the one involving the Harford County Public Library in Maryland. Here is the NCAC cabal's first propaganda salvo across that communities' bow:

"NCAC, Free Speech Groups Criticize M.D. Library's 'Porn' Ban," by National Coalition Against Censorship, National Coalition Against Censorship, 12 June 2012.

I just wrote about that library myself, and definitely read what the Annoyed Librarian said:

"Brave Librarian Ignores False Censorship Charges to Keep Fifty Shades of Grey Out of Harford County Public Library," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 7 June 2012.
"Fifty Shades of Illogical," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 11 June 2012.

Notice how the NCAC uses the folding of Brevard County, Florida, to the NCAC's propaganda and legal threats as a basis for moving like locusts to the next community, in this case Harford County, Maryland: "NCAC publicly opposed the removal of Fifty Shades of Grey in Brevard County, FL in May, writing three letters to public officials there. After reading NCAC's letters, the library reconsidered their decision and once more allowed the books to circulate. There are now almost 500 holds on 15 copies of the book." That was no "reconsideration." That was the NCAC and the ACLU holding a gun to the heads of the community leaders who feared looking like "censors."

And look, the letter sent by the NCAC group to Harford County is substantially similar to the letter sent to Brevard County. This is what I meant by "moving like locusts to the next community," in addition to attempting to denude the community of its library selection policy.

A Look at the Brevard County Case:

Let us examine that Brevard County case in more detail. It illustrates the propaganda razzle dazzle, the effect of threatening local communities, the full court press that is placed on a community (that is just now starting in Harford County). Brevard County caved. Let's examine why so we can learn how its done so the NCAC will have a harder time of fooling the next community.

Setting the Stage:

First, let me set the stage with the numerous relevant people, places, policies, cases as knowing this ahead of time will make things easier to understand. You see, to see through the razzle dazzle, you have to see all relevant sources of information, not just those of the NCAC's choice. Informed consent only happens when people are informed, not misinformed:

The People and Places:

American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] @ACLU
ACLU Florida [ACLUFL or ACLU since it is a state affiliate] @ACLUFL
American Library Association [ALA] Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF] @OIF:

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there." [Source: "Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week: An Interview with Judith Krug," by Curriculum Review, 46 Curriculum Review 1, September 2006, p.12.]
"The baggage that [the ACLU] carr[ies] with them ... [j]ust because of who they are and what their reputation is and what they do. They bring a lot of baggage to court." [Source: "Speaking Our Minds: Conversations With the People Behind Landmark First Amendment Cases," by Joseph Russomanno, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2002, p.420.]

Brevard County, Florida, USA @BrevardCo_FL:

"Brevard is home to the Kennedy Space Center and major space-related industries and employs a highly technical labor force."

Brevard County Libraries:

@CBLRC @DeGroodtLibrary @MBPL_FL @MimsScottsmoor @PortStJohnPL @SuntreeLibrary

Catherine Schweinsberg, Library Services Department Director
E.L. James, author of the Fifty Shades trilogy @E_L_James
National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] @NCACensorship:

"NCAC Opposition to 'Fifty Shades' Ban Big in the News," by Acacia O'Connor, Blogging Censorship for the National Coalition Against Censorship, 25 May 2012.
Letter from ACLUFL/NCAC to Brevard County, dated 24 May 2012.
Letter from NCAC/ABFFE/AAP/PEN American Center/ASJA/IPBA to Brevard County, dated 15 May 2012.
"NCAC Interview: Linda Tyndall Fights for 'Fifty Shades,'" by Unnamed, Blogging Censorship for the National Coalition Against Censorship, 15 May 2012.
"Video: 'Fifty Shades of Grey' Fans Speak Out Against Library Ban," by Acacia O'Connor, Blogging Censorship for the National Coalition Against Censorship, 11 May 2012.
"Bring Fifty Shades of Grey Back to Brevard County," by Acacia O'Connor, Blogging Censorship for the National Coalition Against Censorship, 9 May 2012.
Letter from NCAC to Brevard County, dated 8 May 2012.

NCAC as Previously Exposed by SafeLibraries:

Articles I have written about the NCAC injecting itself into other matters are relevant to helping people understand the prior actions of the NCAC. That may be relevant to deciding who much weight to give to NCAC pronouncements or demands in local community matters:

"How to Make Libraries Safer," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 9 September 2011, wherein slides 14-24 discuss the NCAC working together with the usual other groups in another "demand letter" to mislead yet another community. Notice some of the same excuses are used there as they were in Brevard County. At some point misleading communities becomes boilerplate, at the NCAC's letter to Harford County being substantially similar to one of its letters to Brevard County illustrates. [Slide 26 illustrates the "get it out of there" quote given above under the ALA.]
"ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 9 March 2011.
"Kentucky School Superintendent Exposes False Cries of Censorship; Removes Educationally Unsuitable Books from Curriculum Despite Being on ALA's List for Reluctant Readers," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 30 November 2009.
"NCAC Supports Censorship with Double Standards and Made Up Facts," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 November 2009.
"NCAC Promotes Porn; Says Keeping Inappropriate Material From Children is Censorship; It Has Lost All Credibility," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 November 2009.
"Leesburg, FL, Misled by NCAC and ABFFE; Both Write Letter Filled with False and Misleading Statements; Kids' Right to Read Project Misleads," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 4 September 2009.
"West Bend, WI, Affirms Library Ouster Setting National Example of Local Control Despite Outside Influence," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 19 May 2009.

The Cases:

US v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003) [US v. ALA], is mainly about Internet filters, but the plurality and various dissents discuss book selection policies, says that libraries have broad discretion to make decisions under these policies if not ideologically driven, anything-goes policies are not appropriate for public libraries, and most libraries exclude pornography from print collections:

Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. Appellee ALA's Library Bill of Rights states that libraries should provide "[b]ooks and other ... resources ... for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves." 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (internal quotation marks omitted). To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons. Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide "universal coverage." Id., at 421. Instead, public libraries seek to provide materials "that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community." Ibid. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have "requisite and appropriate quality." Ibid. See W. Katz, Collection Development: The Selection of Materials for Libraries 6 (1980) ("The librarian's responsibility ... is to separate out the gold from the garbage, not to preserve everything"); F. Drury, Book Selection xi (1930) ("[I]t is the aim of the selector to give the public, not everything it wants, but the best that it will read or use to advantage"); App. 636 (Rebuttal Expert Report of Donald G. Davis, Jr.) ("A hypothetical collection of everything that has been produced is not only of dubious value, but actually detrimental to users trying to find what they want to find and really need").
....
A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material.... Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny....
....

[Justice Stevens dissent:]
As the plurality recognizes, we have always assumed that libraries have discretion when making decisions regarding what to include in, and exclude from, their collections. That discretion is comparable to the " 'business of a university ... to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.' " Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result) (citation omitted).4 As the District Court found, one of the central purposes of a library is to provide information for educational purposes: " 'Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.' " 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (quoting the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights). Given our Nation's deep commitment "to safeguarding academic freedom" and to the "robust exchange of ideas," Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967), a library's exercise of judgment with respect to its collection is entitled to First Amendment protection.

[Justice Souter dissent, Justice Ginsburg joining:]
Public libraries are indeed selective in what they acquire to place in their stacks, as they must be. There is only so much money and so much shelf space, and the necessity to choose some material and reject the rest justifies the effort to be selective with an eye to demand, quality, and the object of maintaining the library as a place of civilized enquiry by widely different sorts of people. Selectivity is thus necessary and complex, and these two characteristics explain why review of a library's selection decisions must be limited: the decisions are made all the time, and only in extreme cases could one expect particular choices to reveal impermissible reasons (reasons even the plurality would consider to be illegitimate), like excluding books because their authors are Democrats or their critiques of organized Christianity are unsympathetic. See Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U. S. 853, 870-871 (1982) (plurality opinion). Review for rational basis is probably the most that any court could conduct, owing to the myriad particular selections that might be attacked by someone, and the difficulty of untangling the play of factors behind a particular decision.

Board of Education v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982) [Pico]:

[Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Stevens, concluded:]
(c) Petitioners possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries, but that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. Whether petitioners' removal of books from the libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 . If such an intention was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. Pp. 869-872.

[Justice Blackmun concluded:]
[A] proper balance between the limited constitutional restriction imposed on school officials by the First Amendment and the broad state authority to regulate education, would be struck by holding that school officials may not remove books from school libraries for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in the books, when that action is motivated simply by the officials' disapproval of the ideas involved. Pp. 879-882

The Media:

"Fla. County OKs Previously Banned Book; Guilty Pleasure: Librarians Turning 50 Shades of Red," by MSNBC, MSNBC, 25 May 2012:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"50 Shades to Return to Brevard County Library Shelves; Brevard County Commission Chair Says the Book Will Return," by Britt Kennerly and Dave Berman, Florida Today, 25 May 2012. [Same story at USA Today.]
"Libraries Debate Stocking 'Fifty Shades of Grey' Trilogy," by Julie Bosman, The New York Times, 21 May 2012.
"Florida County Pulls Fifty Shades of Grey From Shelves," by Meredith Schwartz, Library Journal, 11 May 2012.

How the ACLUFL/NCAC Letter Misleads Local Populations:

The NCAC letter to Brevard County dated 8 May 2012 misleads people by claiming a book's removal under the library's selection policy violates the First Amendment because the book had already been selected under the policy and cannot now be removed. Besides, it claims, the library already has other similar books, and the book is extremely popular. It also argues people should not "have their choices limited or dictated by the subjective and moralistic views of library or other public officials." In support it cites an inapposite US Supreme Court finding about "prescrib[ing] what shall be orthodox," although removing material that does not meet the library's selection policy has nothing to do with that. Allow me to address some of these issues later with regard to a subsequent NCAC letter.

The next NCAC letter was dated 15 May 2012. It gathers many groups together to bring further pressure to bear on the library. It claims, "A policy that excludes an entire category of works that are protected by the first amendment is a censorship policy, impermissible in a public library." It then repeats the "political orthodoxy" case as if repeating it will suddenly make it relevant when it was not before. It then presupposes that it knows better than the local community and the US Supreme Court by saying, "The idea that 'erotica' should be categorically excluded from public libraries has no merit." Then the popularity mantra is repeated. Why have local library policies at all if reliance on popularity is the standard to be used? Lastly, they "strongly urge" the library to change its decision based on its view on the matter.

Then a third letter from the NCAC hit, this time with the ACLU's Florida branch, and this time with an open or implied legal threat. I will discuss this third letter in detail as it is apparently the one that scared the community into doing as the ACLU/NCAC demanded in their "demand letter."

SafeLibraries Response to the "Demand Letter" of the ACLU/NCAC:

The following is my response to the ACLU/NCAC "demand letter":

The ACLU/NCAC starts out saying obvious truths: "Public libraries enrich our lives. Books teach us; they entertain us; they confound us; and they challenge us. And sometimes, they make us uncomfortable." So far so good. Then they take a turn down the road of attacking people, Brevard County people, Brevard County librarians, for being un-American censors:

But there is no room on library shelves for censorship. The County's removal of 'Fifty Shades of Grey' from circulation simply because some readers may find its content offensive is un-American; it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 4 of the Florida Constitution; and it exposes the County Commission to potential liability for violations of those rights.

In my experience, ACLU/NCAC letters are occasionally accompanied with some kind of legal threat, actual or implied. And there it is: "exposes the County Commission to potential liability for violations of those rights." This is intended to frighten the local community into action they want, instead of what the community wants or instead of no action.

For example, when the public library in Nampa, ID, finally, after years of effort trying, placed sexually explicit books behind the counter to prevent access by children, the ACLU sent a threatening letter that such action violates the First Amendment because people would be embarrassed to ask to see the books and the ACLU would sue. The library, within a single week, reversing three years of effort, returned the books to the shelves. But what the town did not have the time to realize, given the legal threat and the misinformation provided by the ACLU, was that the ACLU had already lost on that very same issue of embarrassment before the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA in which the ACLU was a party. The ACLU never advised Nampa about that case, as it does not now advise Brevard County. The ACLU raised an issue it knew it had already lost but that the local population would not know about. That is deceptive to the core, and now the ACLU/NCAC is making similar demands with similar threats, right in Brevard County. (I spoke with The Joy of Gay Sex co-author Felice Picano about this incident, but that's an aside [ safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/10/dear-felice-picano-joy-of-gay-sex-co.html ].)

Where's the deception? In the very claim that frightened the library into giving in to the ACLU. Embarrassment. You see, the ACLU had made that very same claim five years earlier in that Supreme Court case I mentioned above and lost on that issue. The Court said, "the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment." So exactly why did the ACLU demand five years later that Nampa back down due to the embarrassment issue? Obviously it had no substantive argument, thanks to US v. ALA, so legal threats and demand letters sufficed to fool the community, and it did, and the children suffered as a result.

Notice the ACLU/NCAC tugs on the community's heart strings, using the library's own words against it:

Many Brevard residents rely on the library. Some cannot afford books; they don't own e-readers or tablets to which they can download books. They rely on the "over one million, two hundred and fifty thousand books, periodicals and newspapers," in your seventeen brick and mortar branches, to "think more and become smarter."

The ACLU/NCAC is mocking Brevard County, in case anyone did not notice.

Now comes the peer pressure—everyone else loves the book, what's wrong with you?: "'Fifty Shades of Grey' is an international phenomenon, a love story about two consenting adults who express their passion for each other in ways that may startle some readers and offend others." Then they name several serious literary works, some of which they point out are on Brevard County Libraries shelves. Is Brevard County supposed to be a cookie cutter of everywhere else that peer pressure will cause it to violate its own book selection policy? I hope not.

It's like the ACLU/NCAC cares not that local communities have selection policies in place or that local librarians get to make decisions based on that policy; rather, for them, it's anything goes: "None of these books is obscene; none, including 'Fifty Shades of Grey,' should be removed from circulation. One reader's pleasure may be another's pain; 'one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.' Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971)."

Now what they say next is most significant, in part because it appears legitimate on its face, like the embarrassment claim in Nampa, and in part because it is completely false, like the US Supreme Court having already told the ACLU the embarrassment theory is not viable. One can no longer trust the misinformation coming from the ACLU/NCAC after learning what I am about to expose—the media have totally missed this. The "demand letter" says:

In this case, those decisions had been made: the book had already been purchased with the approval of the library selection committee. Once a book of fiction is purchased and made available to the public, county officials and those acting on their behalf cannot remove the book from circulation based solely on its content. That is government censorship, which is prohibited by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That is flat out false. First, common sense says librarians do not read and approve each book before it goes on the shelves. Common sense says if you realize you have made a mistake and allowed a book that policy would otherwise have precluded, you can remove the book later. That's just plain common sense.

But there is more damning evidence that will prove the ACLU/NCAC is flat out lying. That evidence comes from an impeccable source, a source the ACLU/NCAC would never oppose because this person used her ACLU leadership position and knowledge to create the policy that anything goes in public libraries. She's the reason why we are here looking at this issue. This person even created Banned Books Week, created the American Library Association [ALA]'s Freedom to Read Foundation. She created the ALA's OIF. This person is Judith Krug. Judith Krug said something that 1) the ACLU/NCAC did not even tell Brevard County, and that 2) says the exact opposite of the ACLU/NCAC's false claim that once a library selects a book, it may never be removed. And that is why they did not tell Brevard County about this.

But I will.

Judith Krug pointed out that if you look at a book in a public school and you find it does not meet the selection policy, "get it out of there." That's right, "get it out of there." The ACLU/NCAC says the exact opposite, that once it's there, it stays. The ACLU/NCAC just advised Brevard County of false information and failed to advise of contrary information. This shows they are intentionally misleading communities to force their way on that community.

Let's look at that exact Judith Krug quote. When Krug is asked, "Are there ever instances when you think it's appropriate for a school to ban a book?," she replies:

On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there.

See "Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week: An Interview with Judith Krug" at http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/marking-25-years-of-banned-books-week.html for the entire quote in full context. The following sentence after what I quoted is about when a book does indeed fall within the selection policy, but that is not the present situation.

The ACLU/NCAC has not advised of this. Instead, it advised the exact opposite. How trustworthy is any organization that only gives part of the story, omits other parts, twists the part it gives, and threatens legal activity?

Notice how ACLU/NCAC goes on about all the law suits protecting "ideas" and "free speech" as if erotica/pornography is an "idea" instead of material of prurient interest, as if every library must allow in everything so as not to violate "free speech." Listing all those law suits is supposed to impress people with their knowledge and experience. This from the people who just misled and hid material on the issue of removing books after they have already been selected.

Think about it. Libraries have materials reconsideration policies. Why even have these policies if it an "un-American" violation of the First Amendment to remove anything already selected for the library? Common sense, right?

And they also did not tell you that libraries are not open public fora where anything goes--rather, they are quasi public fora where the government gets to make decisions. See US v. ALA in the context of Internet filters, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html, although book selection is discussed there as well. See? You are making the decisions you may make that are perfectly legal and constitutional. "The right to receive information, the right to read the chosen written word, is not subject to a majority vote. The Bill of Rights protects our freedom to read what others may find offensive or vulgar." Correct. But it's a quasi public forum and you have the right to have a selection policy, apply it, then remove material that you later find does not meet that selection policy. Why even have a selection policy if you are will only end up being brow beaten by the ACLU/NCAC to allow in the very material your policy precludes?

Recall how the ACLU/NCAC left out important information from the ALA. Now, the ACLU/NCAC finally cites the ALA when it suits their purposes: "'And Article III of the 'Library Bill of Rights' mandates that '[l]ibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.' The Brevard Public Library is doing the opposite: it is embracing censorship and abdicating its responsibility to the public." So now the ACLU/NCAC uses the ALA to tell you that you are practicing censorship and abdicating your responsibility to the public. Before they failed to tell you the ALA says it is perfectly okay to remove a book after it has already been selected. Deceptive, no?

By the way, the "Library Bill of Rights" is just a fancy name for a set a principles the ALA wants local libraries to follow. And they still say it is "age" discrimination to keep children from inappropriate material even though the US Supreme Court has said at least twice that the ALA's age discrimination rule it buried in its "Library Bill of Rights" is false and should be edited out. Board of Education v. Pico http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/853.html and US v. ALA.

The ACLU/NCAC "urge[s] you to overturn the Library Board’s decision, return the volumes of 'Fifty Shades of Grey' to their rightful place on the public library shelves, and let your constituents decide for themselves what books they will read out of the 'over one million' books the Brevard County Library has purchased. To do anything less will amount to a continuing constitutional violation." They urge you to do this based on false information, misinformation, omitted information, and personal attack about your being "un-American" censors. Then they threaten legal action to help nudge you to do what they want despite the legality of having, using, and applying book selection policies. Don't fall for it.

And if they do sue you? Don't cave in--their pleading will be filled with the very same misinformation already displayed because there is no legitimate reason why a library cannot apply its selection policy or its material reconsideration policy. Instead, countersue for treble damages for their bringing vexatious litigation, just like in Nampa where they knew they already lost on the very issue that claimed applied in Nampa.

Feel free to contact me at any time should you wish to speak with me personally. Contrary to the negative things the ACLU/NCAC said about you, you and your librarians are all to be commended for standing up to the pressure and doing what is right by your community, not what is demanded by the ACLU/NCAC based on false information and legal threats.

Sincerely yours,

Dan Kleinman
Library Watchdog
SafeLibraries

Brevard County Reaction to ACLU/NCAC Pressure:

The Brevard County reaction to the NCAC empty threat was to give in to the pressure, and fast. These graphics will tell the story—basically you shout loudly about censorship and the local community members will cower under the weight of the false "censorship" charges:

"The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." That is by Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant, former communications director for Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for his presidential campaign. Clearly that is exactly what happened in Brevard County. They did not want to "appear to be censoring," even though they were not, they were fully supported by the US Supreme Court and the library's own policy, and common sense says keeping porn out of libraries is not censorship. Only the tempest in a teapot that the NCAC stirred up gave the appearance that it was censorship to keep porn out of a library, and the library folded. Sad.

By The Way, Fifty Shades of Grey May Be Copyright Infringement:

A boss of mine told me that when people say, "by the way," that means pay attention as that may be the most important point.

By the way, Fifty Shades of Grey author E.L. James ("a pseudonym for London-based television executive Erika Leonard") may have violated the copyright of another. If so, the book should be removed from every single library anywhere.

Here are articles that address this possibility of copyright infringement. You decide:

"The Origins of '50 Shades of Grey' Go Missing," by Carolyn Kellogg, The Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2012.
"'Fifty Shades of Grey' History Excluded from Wayback Machine Archives," by Jason Boog, GalleyCat, 30 May 2012.
"The Lost History of Fifty Shades of Grey," by Jason Boog, GalleyCat, 27 May 2012.
"Master of the Universe Versus Fifty Shades by E.L James Comparison," by Jane Litte, Dear Author, 13 March 2012.

Conclusion—What Will Your Community Do When the NCAC Comes Calling?

So this is how the NCAC pushes local communities and their libraries. 1) Write a letter threatening legal activity. 2) Make false statements designed to mislead/frighten local citizens, politicians, librarians. 3) Omit information that presents a completely opposite view. 4) Contact media in the area to repeat the NCAC misinformation to apply more pressure on the library to reverse its position. 5) Argue law and facts that may be correct but that are not applicable to the local situation. 6) Attempt to bring pressure from all sources so fast and furious that local communities unfamiliar with the law and frightened of the national attention cave in as fast as possible. 7) Above all, the ends justifies the means, so if you have to flat out lie to a local community such as with legal information you know to be false, do it; after all, most communities cave and, if not, there are almost no negative consequences for the NCAC, ACLU, ALA, etc.

Communities must not take NCAC threat letters as authoritative or legitimate. They must not cave in immediately (or ever). They must take the time to evaluate the NCAC statements to see if they are truthful, presenting the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Further, ensure that the NCAC letters are applicable.

In my experience, such letters have never been truthful. They intentionally mislead local communities. Think about this. You write false and misleading letters to communities nationwide, get the media to repeat what you said without the slightest bit of fact checking, and with hardly lifting a muscle you just forced a community out of fear to do what you what. And if in the rare case it doesn't work, then all you lost was an envelope and a stamp but you still got lots of press attention for use in the next community.

Don't let the media scare you either. False claims of book banning and censorship help sell newspapers. Besides, the NCAC misleads the media so they likely are not even aware they are merely repeaters instead of reporters.

So Brevard buckled and Harford is still holding. I urge Harford County to continue holding and I wrote this hoping it may help.

What will your community do when the porn pushing NCAC sends the boilerplate propaganda group letter?

And if the book infringes someone's copyright, all copies everywhere should be removed and destroyed forthwith. Interesting thought, no?

Debate Challenge and Offer of Media Availability:

I challenge the NCAC, ACLU, ALA, etc., to debate me on these issues, or Mary Hastler, or any of the other librarians they ignore or suppress. They never debate because they know they are wrong. In a rare case when a reporter confronted an ALA leader with accurate information from a library director, the ALA was surprised and admitted it made things up. This is why they avoid debate. They are paper tigers.

I invite media to contact me so they can report accurately instead of repeating the dogma.

THIS JUST IN

THE ALA DISAGREES WITH "BANNING" PORN FROM LIBRARIES

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NOTE ADDED 13 JUNE 2012:

Fifty Shades of Grey author Erika Leonard, writing as E.L. James, has blocked my ability to follow her @E_L_James Twitter account. I had been following for quite a while, tweeting about the topic occasionally, even sending her a heads up message here and there (like the one about Dr. Ruth), but never doing anything other than normal, polite Twitter activity that is common on Twitter.

After publication of this blog post that contains links addressing her possible copyright infringement, she has blocked my SafeLibraries Twitter account.

Is that a tacit admission of guilt confirming the copyright infringement?

NOTE ADDED 17 JUNE 2012:

Oh look. Here's a local library director now emulating the big bullies to push porn on her community in NJ. It illustrates an example of the NCAC and gang's propaganda and how it spreads:

"Hot Romance in Hudson County; Local Libraries Have Long Wait Lists for 'Shades of Grey,'" by Vanessa Cruz, Hudson Reporter, 17 June 2012:
In response to the controversy about the book, [Hoboken Library Director Lena] Podles said, "I heard that some libraries that have in their policy that they do not purchase 'erotica.' I personally do not think the libraries should have official policies on banning specific genre. People's definitions and opinions are different; it is up to a person to make that choice."

So no more need for library selection policies, right? Anything goes.

NOTE ADDED 18 JUNE 2012:

I just found a written ALA statement on the matter, as opposed to the more recent, spoken one promoting porn above. This written statement does not promote porn and appears to take a reasonable tone, even leaving the final decision to the library, as it should. I am republishing it here since, for reasons I do not understand, the web page on which it appeared is not longer accessible, at least not for the last day or so:

"OIF Statement on 'Fifty Shades of Grey' Controversy," by American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, OIF Blog, 10 May 2012:

The American Library Association supports libraries and librarians across the country, who face difficult decisions every day about how to allocate scarce resources in order to meet the wide-ranging information needs of their communities.

To guide decisions about what materials to select for a collection, libraries develop selection policies, which outline the principles and priorities they will follow in selecting items for the library. Libraries also strive to be responsive to the requests of community members in choosing materials. Selection is an inclusive process that seeks out those materials that will best satisfy the community’s needs for information, entertainment, and enlightenment.

Recent controversy over the novel "Fifty Shades of Grey" has sparked discussion about the line between selection and censorship in libraries. Where selection decisions are guided by the professional ethics of librarianship – which emphasize inclusion, access, and neutrality – libraries choosing not to purchase materials that fall outside their defined collection policies and needs are not censors. Where partisan disapproval or doctrinal pressure guides libraries' decisions to select or remove materials, then censorship can result.

Materials like "Fifty Shades of Grey" challenge libraries' professional ideals of open, equitable, unbiased access to information. They raise important questions about how libraries can best include and reflect the diversity of ideas in our society – even those which some people find objectionable. In all circumstances, ALA encourages libraries making decisions about their collections to keep in mind their basic missions and the core values of intellectual freedom and providing access to information.

NOTE ADDED 19 JUNE 2012:

Another ALA statement on the matter, this one saying excluding "erotica" is "censorship, plain and simple." It also says nothing about the US Supreme Court findings including that libraries traditionally exclude porn. Then notice the very subtle legal threat:

"Controversy in Fifty Shades of Grey," by Barbara M. Jones, American Libraries, 15 May 2012:
The IF Manual also contains information on how to write a good collection development policy—one that will not contain such statements as "no erotica." Remember: Most library collections already contain literature with erotic passages that are constitutionally protected for adults. Excluding all such sexually explicit material is censorship, plain and simple, and could cause legal problems for library management and the board.

I have placed a comment there, and in case it is "censored," I'll republish it here:

Here are some problems with this ALA statement:

1) "The IF Manual also contains information on how to write a good collection development policy—one that will not contain such statements as 'no erotica.' Remember: Most library collections already contain literature with erotic passages that are constitutionally protected for adults. Excluding all such sexually explicit material is censorship, plain and simple, and could cause legal problems for library management and the board." Excluding erotica is not "censorship, plain and simple."

2) This ALA statement completely omits what the US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA that essentially says the exact opposite of what the ALA is saying. SCOTUS says A) most libraries exclude pornography and B) libraries have broad discretion to apply their selection policies. ALA says A) excluding erotica is "censorship, plain and simple," and B) libraries better look out for potential law suits for making bad selection decisions. The ALA and SCOTUS statements are polar opposites. Barbara M. Jones completely failed to disclose and address the SCOTUS statements that go against what she wants people to think. It is not an unintentional omission precisely because her statements are effectively the opposite of those made by SCOTUS in the very case the ALA lost big legally and financially. And the legal threat is empty because libraries have broad discretion afforded them as shown by the SCOTUS decision.

Those problems go to the very heart of the ALA statement and evidence that it may be substantially false and misleading. And omitting the SCOTUS statements borders on dishonest.

Should anyone wish to read more, please see what I have written here:

NCAC Pushes Porn on Libraries; Fifty Shades of Grey Propaganda: Brevard Buckles, Harford Holds

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/06/ncac-pushes-porn-on-libraries-fifty.html

NOTE ADDED 27 JUNE 2012:

And another library properly applied its policy against erotica, despite the NCAC and what ALA said about "such statements as 'no erotica'":

"Fifty Shades of Grey Banned From Mobile's Library as 'Erotica,'" by Rena Havner Philips, Press-Register, 27 June 2012:
[Library spokeswoman Amber] Guy said the library's selection criteria specifically prohibits "erotica," and, besides that, the book hasn't gotten very good reviews in various library and publishers' journals.

The library's board was made aware that library officials chose not to purchase the book at this time, and its members "are in agreement with that," Guy said.

So Mobile Public Library sets another example for libraries to ignore ALA efforts to mislead communities into including erotica and porn in public library collections.

By the way, it is not "banned." That's the media making up the news again. Repeaters, not reporters. The library simply applied its existing selection policy.

NOTE ADDED 17 JULY 2012:

For the many libraries deciding to allow Fifty Shades of Grey despite the law, policy, community standards, common sense, limited resources, poor quality, etc., consider the following, because you may be contributing:

"On 50 Shades of Grey and the Erotization of Male Domination," by Smash, Liberation Collective, 2 April 2012:
In fact, BDSM practices actively oppress women.

....

There is nothing transgressive or feminist about BDSM erotica or sexual practices. The popularity of this new novel, as well as the Twilight series, show the way in which women cope with male violence and oppression by eroticizing male dominance.

NOTE ADDED 28 JULY 2012:

A major anti-porn advocate has come out against the book. "This is a very retrograde and dangerous world for our daughters to buy into, and speaks to the appalling lack of any public consciousness as to the reality of violence against women." Libraries that lend the book contribute to this. Are you proud, librarians?

"Sadistic Romance; Why are Women Devouring Fifty Shades of Grey?," by Gail Dines, CounterPunch, 27-29 July 2012.

GAIL DINES is a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College in Boston. Her latest book is Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked our Sexuality (Beacon Press). She a founding member of Stop Porn Culture (stoppornculture.org).

Follow @SafeLibraries

Brave Librarian Ignores False Censorship Charges to Keep Fifty Shades of Grey Out of Harford County Public Library

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:49:00 +0000

Mary Hastler is a brave library director who has ignored the false censorship charges to keep Fifty Shades of Grey out of the Harford County Public Library. She is a model library director. Read about her and her decision here:

"Harford County Librarian Comfortable With Her Decision Not To Carry 'Fifty Shades of Grey'; Lifelong Book Lover Says She's Not a Censor But Novel Strays Too Close to Pornography to Fit County Collection," by Childs Walker, The Baltimore Sun, 4 June 2012.

Think about it—why is it even news that a library director properly applies library selection policy to keep out pornography?

Here is an email I wrote to her and to the Harford County government:

Dear Mary Hastler, Harford County Public Library Director,

Re: http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/books/read-street/bal-fifty-shades-of-grey-ban-defended-by-librarian-20120605,0,7776944.story

You are a true gem, someone willing to do what's right, someone fulfilling her duties on behalf of the public. You have stood up to the false claims of "censorship" and "banning" by complying with your library's book selection policy, then standing by that decision in the face of the tremendous pressure otherwise. Such pressure has, for example, caused other library directors, such as in Brevard County, FL, to cave in to the pressure and reverse their original decisions.

I feel your local government should appropriately recognize and/or reward you for being a true public servant dedicated to the public, not to the diktat of people and organizations bringing great pressure to bear on you and your community, including the media with its false talk about bans and censorship. After all, your library was created by some legal instrument and given broad but not unlimited power, and the government has the right and duty to ensure the library complies with that law, and I'll bet "anything goes" is not part of that law.

As if you did not already know, the US Supreme Court stands four square behind you regarding your decision on Fifty Shades of Grey:

US v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003) [US v. ALA], is mainly about Internet filters, but the plurality and various dissents discuss book selection policies, says that libraries have broad discretion to make decisions under these policies if not ideologically driven, anything-goes policies are not appropriate for public libraries, and most libraries exclude pornography from print collections:

Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. Appellee ALA's Library Bill of Rights states that libraries should provide "[b]ooks and other ... resources ... for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves." 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (internal quotation marks omitted). To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons. Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide "universal coverage." Id., at 421. Instead, public libraries seek to provide materials "that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community." Ibid. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have "requisite and appropriate quality." Ibid. See W. Katz, Collection Development: The Selection of Materials for Libraries 6 (1980) ("The librarian's responsibility ... is to separate out the gold from the garbage, not to preserve everything"); F. Drury, Book Selection xi (1930) ("[I]t is the aim of the selector to give the public, not everything it wants, but the best that it will read or use to advantage"); App. 636 (Rebuttal Expert Report of Donald G. Davis, Jr.) ("A hypothetical collection of everything that has been produced is not only of dubious value, but actually detrimental to users trying to find what they want to find and really need").
....
A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material.... Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny....
....

[Justice Stevens dissent:]
As the plurality recognizes, we have always assumed that libraries have discretion when making decisions regarding what to include in, and exclude from, their collections. That discretion is comparable to the " 'business of a university ... to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.' " Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result) (citation omitted).4 As the District Court found, one of the central purposes of a library is to provide information for educational purposes: " 'Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.' " 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (quoting the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights). Given our Nation's deep commitment "to safeguarding academic freedom" and to the "robust exchange of ideas," Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967), a library's exercise of judgment with respect to its collection is entitled to First Amendment protection.

[Justice Souter dissent, Justice Ginsburg joining:]
Public libraries are indeed selective in what they acquire to place in their stacks, as they must be. There is only so much money and so much shelf space, and the necessity to choose some material and reject the rest justifies the effort to be selective with an eye to demand, quality, and the object of maintaining the library as a place of civilized enquiry by widely different sorts of people. Selectivity is thus necessary and complex, and these two characteristics explain why review of a library's selection decisions must be limited: the decisions are made all the time, and only in extreme cases could one expect particular choices to reveal impermissible reasons (reasons even the plurality would consider to be illegitimate), like excluding books because their authors are Democrats or their critiques of organized Christianity are unsympathetic. See Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U. S. 853, 870-871 (1982) (plurality opinion). Review for rational basis is probably the most that any court could conduct, owing to the myriad particular selections that might be attacked by someone, and the difficulty of untangling the play of factors behind a particular decision.

I included that US Supreme Court language so that anyone else who sees it can begin to realize they need to clear their heads of the false claims of book banning and censorship when a library chooses to apply its selection policy. After all, why even have a selection policy if anything goes? Why have material reconsideration policies if anything goes?

I can say so much more, but I'll save it for now.

Given the caving in of the library director in Brevard County, FL, the ACLU/NCAC will use that opportunity to file additional legal threats with other libraries to force them to jettison their own selection policies. You, Mary Hastler, stand out as a bright example to show just how empty are such legal threats. You have to be heard.

Above I linked the article where I learned about your true grit. It is entitled with the word "ban" right in the title even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the story. It is an example of how the media bends stories to the will of others to fool the public into thinking something nefarious has occurred, instead of something actually praised by the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA, etc.

Therefore, I hereby offer you a forum to write freely on the matter, and I stress the importance of doing so to counter the pyrrhic success of the ACLU/NCAC in Brevard County, and the like. People need to hear from you so that the ACLU/NCAC/ALA is not the only voice discussing the issue, and they intentionally mislead people. For example, they did not advise Brevard County of the US v. ALA decision that says the exact opposite of the misinformation they chose to spread. As I am the nation's leading critic of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom negative policies (as opposed to its positive ones), my SafeLibraries blog gets a lot of views and would be an ideal platform to have your say. I hope you will consider guest posting on my blog, as others have: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/p/guest-posts.html Your words will go a long way toward educating other communities when they come under legal threats and heavy pressure from various interest groups and the media. And you can interact with people in the comments section as well.

So brava to you for the excellent work you have done and for your backbone. I hope the Harford County government sees you as the gem I do.

Call any time.

NOTE ADDED 8 JUNE 2012:

Found this from the library director herself:

"Harford County Library Did Not Censor 'Fifty Shades of Grey,'" by Mary Hastler, The Baltimore Sun, 6 June 2012.

And look at one example of how she is attacked by her own profession (a common occurrence), an example the ALA sent around to thousands. See how the ALA is held up as the authoritative voice to follow, even though the US Supreme Court proved the "Library Bill of Rights" to be flawed/overbroad:

"Censoring Books Isn't Part of a Librarian's Job Description," by Anna A. Baker, The Baltimore Sun, 7 June 2012.

That reminds me:

"The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."

And libraries use the same selection policy to censor out any books whatsoever with which they disagree politically, say books about ex-gays:

"How Selection is Used to Censor: The ALA, Conservative Christians, and the Annoyed Librarian's Tour de Force," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 8 October 2008.

NOTE ADDED 11 JUNE 2012:

THIS IS A MUST READ:

"Fifty Shades of Illogical," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 11 June 2012.

NOTE ADDED 13 JUNE 2012:

As the NCAC is now directly attacking the Harford County Public Library and using substantially the same letter as it used in Brevard County, I just published this in support of Harford County:

"NCAC Pushes Porn on Libraries; Fifty Shades of Grey Propaganda: Brevard Buckles, Harford Holds," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 13 June 2012.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Occupy Begins Lawfare Against NYPD with Vexatious Litigation Involving Ersatz OWS Library; I Offer to Assist New York City

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 25 May 2012 11:04:00 +0000

@OWSLibrary on Twitter

The "Occupy" movement has launched its lawfare against New York City and the New York City Police [NYPD]:

"Occupy Wall Street Sues City for Ruining 'People's Library' During Zuccotti Park Raid," by Alexander Nazaryan, New York Daily News, 24 May 2012.
"Occupy Wall Street Sues Bloomberg and New York City Over Library Destruction," by Nick Pinto, The Village Voice, 24 May 2012.
"Occupy Wall Street Sues NYC Over Confiscated Books," by Joseph Ax (Reuters), The Chicago Tribune, 24 May 2012.

I hereby offer assistance as an expert on library propaganda, including that of the ersatz OWS "Library." I will help oppose this lawfare and help prove the vexatious nature of the litigation, thereby entitling the litigation's victims to increased damages. NYC, NYPD, please contact me. My assistance will be based generally on information contained in the following posts I have written, and much more:

"Occupied ALA Ignored Cuban Librarians; OWSLibrary is Not a Real Library and People Knew It Would Be Removed," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 November 2011.
"Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 December 2011.
"Library Propagandizes Children for Occupy Oakland," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 November 2011.

See also:

"What is an American Library?," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 21 November 2011.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Time for Book Ratings on YA Books, Says Dr. Sarah Coyne of Brigham Young University, While ALA Calls it Censorship

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 18 May 2012 23:59:00 +0000

Dr. Sarah Coyne of Brigham Young University has recommended that book ratings be used to help parents make informed decisions. On the other hand, Beth Yoke, Executive Director of the American Library Association's [ALA] Young Adult Library Services Association [YALSA], says book ratings are "censorship":

"Is It Time To Rate Young Adult Books for Mature Content? A New Report Finds that Nearly All Young Adult Bestsellers Contain at Least Some Profanity," by Jason Koebler, U.S. News & World Report, 18 May 2012:
Coyne thinks a ratings system on book jackets would help parents decide what's appropriate for their kids to read. It's a subject many are afraid to touch, with the talk of censorship or restricting books conjuring up images of book burnings and infringing on First Amendment Rights.

"I think we put books on a pedestal compared to other forms of media," Coyne says. "I thought long and hard about whether to do the study in the first place—I think banning books is a terrible idea, but a content warning on the back I think would empower parents."

While books like Gossip Girl or Pretty Little Liars aren't ever going to end up alongside Catcher in the Rye or Huckleberry Finn in American literary canon, those books' messages are still important, experts argue.

"Books can be a safe way for young people to explore edgier, sensitive, or complicated topics, and they provide parents the opportunity to help their teens grow and understand these kinds of sensitive issues," says Beth Yoke, executive director of the Young Adult Library Services Association, an offshoot of the American Library Association. "ALA's interpretation on any rating system for books is that it's censorship."

So ALA's YALSA calls it "censorship" to use book ratings to give people/schools the notice needed to make informed decisions as to what's best for their children. This from the organization that says keeping R-rated movies from children is censorship:

"Keeping R-Rated Films from Children is Censorship, According to the ALA and the Fountaindale Public Library That Blindly Follows the ALA"

and that every single person who ever complains about any book is a "censor":

And the ALA is the organization that intentionally fakes its annual Top 10 List of Challenged Books to inflate the handful of cases into a national tragedy and push political or social buttons to promote its own interests:

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

Naomi Wolf
"Young Adult Fiction: Wild Things"

As you decide whom to believe, Dr. Sarah Coyne/BYU or Beth Yoke/ALA, please consider:

See also:

"Some Teen Books Surprisingly X-Rated, Study Finds"—also involves Dr. Sarah Coyne
"Student Decries School P-rn Pushing Policy and Calls for Book Ratings"
"Most Oppose Explicit Books in Public Schools Says Harris Poll"
"School Removes Squirting Sperm Book After 8-Year-Old Complains To Her Mother"—contains a large list of articles pertaining to schools and books
"TheBookBuzz.org Provides Parent Ratings of Public School Books"
"ALA's Anything Goes at Any Age Policy Criticized by University of Missouri Library Science Student"
"GLSEN Gets It, the ALA Doesn't; ALA Challenged to Provide Notice of Potentially Inappropriate Material in its Book Lists and Awards"
"Know the ALA"

The decision is yours. Is it time for book ratings? Comment below, if you wish.

NOTE ADDED 19 MAY 2012:

Below is the ALA's view on labeling and rating systems—basically, it is censorship. Keep in mind the ALA also said it was censorship to filter computers in public libraries. Its bluff was called on that in US v. ALA where the Court found it is not censorship.

"Labeling and Rating Systems; An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights," by ALA Council, American Library Association, 15 July 2009.

NOTE ADDED 20 MAY 2012:

Thanks to an excellent comment below, I am reminded that book ratings are used successfully in many places without being falsely labeled as censorship. I have previous written about the case in St. Louis, so I'll link those posts now:

See also these posts that illustrate how the ALA works to mislead people on book labeling to try to force its way on communities, such as St. Louis:

"Who's Controlling County Libraries: Taxpayers or the ALA? New Teen Sections at County Libraries Stocked with Sexually Explicit Materials," by Dan Kleinman, St. Louis MetroVoice, 21 August 2008.
"ALA Admits Media Manipulation - Endnote Hyperlinks Provided for St. Louis MetroVoice Cover Story by SafeLibraries"
"Library Propaganda in Media Exposed - Reporter Presents One-Sided Story with No Balance and Sometimes No Truth"
"Speaking With Jason Rich, Author of Growing Up Gay in America"

NOTE ADDED 25 MAY 2012:

Oh read this excellent post on the topic:

"WARNING: On YA, Ratings, and 'Censorship,'" by Rachel Manwill, Book Riot, 25 May 2012.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Open Borders and Illegal Immigration Support is the American Library Association's Latest Non-Library Venture; Welcome to Choose Privacy Week

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:13:00 +0000

Open borders and illegal immigration support is the American Library Association's [ALA] latest non-library venture, thanks to George Soros:

"New Choose Privacy Week Documentary: 'Vanishing Liberties,'" by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 7 May 2012.

I am quoted extensively in this article about the ALA's new venture into illegal alien support:

"Revealed: The Evil Lurking in Libraries; Association Accused of 'Prostituting Itself Out to Issue Propaganda,'" by Dave Tombers, WorldNetDaily, 14 May 2012:

Kleinman asked of the grant from Soros and the video production, "Why is the American Library Association prostituting itself out to the likes of George Soros to issue propaganda for him and his message on topics that are not a library issue?"

He added, "The video is clearly promoting an end to illegal immigration enforcement, to usher in an era of open borders. What do open borders have to do with libraries?"

....

He added, "The bottom line is this. The ALA has expanded its mission to promote causes that have nothing to do with librarianship – and that's concerning."

The ALA did not respond to a WND request for comment.

See also:

Know the ALA.

If you are a librarian and you are learning for the first time that the ALA is promoting open borders propaganda in exchange for large sums of money, how are you not wondering how the ALA has wandered so far from its mission? Welcome to "Choose Privacy Week."

Here's one way to oppose the ALA on this issue:

Re-elect Sheriff Joe Arpaio (SheriffJoe.org)

Illegal Immigration: "It's a Crime."

Follow @SafeLibraries

Citizens Stand Up to School Board; Attempt to Stop Speaker From Using Words in 'Beloved' Fails Big Time

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:56:00 +0000

Watch this video to see citizens standing up to a school board about inappropriate books for public school children, and watch the reaction when the grandmother is told to stop using the curse words that pervade the books the school is providing the children, in this case Beloved by Toni Morrison:

"Citizen Who Quotes Excerpt from 'Beloved' Asked to Refrain from Using Such Language," by Plymouth Canton Community Schools & Common Sense, Plymouth-Canton School Board Meeting, 24 January 2012.

Note, I have previously written about this community (and apparently the school board ultimately decided to keep the children exposed to the inappropriate material):

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

Also note, this is an example of how people are standing up to the sexualization of children in public schools, for example by schools using the books Waterland and Beloved. But exactly why do they only get three minutes to speak?

Bravo to Plymouth Canton Community Schools & Common Sense (PCCSCommonSense.com). I'm going to add it to my Library Watchdogs page (tinyurl.com/JoinTheWatchdogs). Join us!

Follow @SafeLibraries

Al Qaeda Threatens Timbuktu Library; Expect No Help from the American Library Association

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sun, 06 May 2012 13:20:00 +0000

Al Qaeda-linked terrorists have destroyed a United Nations World Heritage site in Timbuktu, Mali, and are threatening to destroy a library: "Elderly men were keeping watch Saturday over Timbuktu's main library after Islamists burned a tomb listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site."

Religious leader Baba Cheick Sekou said the occupying rebel groups have no respect for Timbuktu's religious and historic importance.

Sekou said he feared for the protection of the prestigious Koranic Sankore University and ancient manuscripts that are kept there, as well as other tombs and mosques of historic significance.

"All Muslims know the tomb is a holy place," he said. "It's not something you attack and destroy. It's anti-Islamic. People in the community are angry."

Source: "Rebels Burn Timbuktu Tomb Listed as U.N. World Heritage Site," by CNN Wire Staff, WPLG Local 10, 5 May 2012. See also, "Islamic Extremists Desecrate Muslim Saint's Timbuktu Tomb," by Agence France-Presse, The Raw Story, 5 May 2012: "It was also a renowned centre of Islamic scholarship, with manuscripts written in Arabic and Fulani by scholars of the ancient Mali empire, covering a range of subjects including Islam, history, astronomy, music, botany, genealogy and anatomy."

Further, it is possible this is in part due to United States policy that has unleashed intolerance throughout the Ummah: "After the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi, armed Tuaregs who had been fighting in Libya streamed back across the border into Mali." "The ancient city in Mali was captured by at least two separatist Tuareg rebel groups—one of which is Ansar Dine"—"a militant group that seeks to impose strict Sharia law" and "who have been linked to al Qaeda."

Nobody should look for help from the American Library Association [ALA] (that otherwise takes action when terrorist libraries are claimed by the terrorists to be threatened, see "Librarians for Terror," by Lee Kaplan, FrontPage Magazine, 17 Aug 2004):

Mind you, this is a "library" association. The "American" Library Association. Right? One should "Know the ALA."

NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

This story has been picked up by other sources, including Education News, Editor and Chief Jimmy Kilpatrick:

"Al Qaeda Threatens Timbuktu Library; Expect No Help from the American Library Association," by Editor's Pick, Society, Education News, 6 May 2012:

Follow @SafeLibraries

School Issued Apple iPads Allow Porn in Manitou Springs School District 14, Memorandum by Morality in Media General Counsel Robert Peters on Unfiltered Internet Access

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:42:00 +0000

Apple iPads provided by MSSD14 allow
children access to unlimited pornography

MEMORANDUM

From: Robert Peters, General Counsel of Morality in Media

To: To Whom It May Concern

Date: March 2012

Re: Manitou Springs (Colorado) School District (District 14) policy regarding student use of school provided Apple iPad2 tablet computers

Introduction

I have been asked to provide an analysis regarding the Manitou Springs School District 14 (“District 14”) policy of providing 5^th thru 8^th grade students with Apple iPad2 tablet computers (“iPad2s”) for educational use both within and away from school grounds. While District 14 filters the wireless signal that emanates from its own school based servers, the iPad2s are not themselves properly equipped with filtering protections and thus allow unrestricted access to the Internet via wireless signals that emanate from other sources. Some of these unfiltered signals can be received while students are on school grounds. Students’ use of the iPad2s for school work away from school grounds is also unmonitored, thus allowing children to browse the Internet with no record of web pages they visit or the search requests they make. The following additional information about the District 14 policy regarding student use of its iPad2s has been provided by a concerned parent.

Manitou Springs School District

Most other Colorado schools (6 out of 7) known to provide students with take home computers protect each computer by only installing Internet browsing software that filters and monitors all online activity at all times, despite the source, location or type of Internet connection (hereinafter, “24/7 protections”). Such filtering/monitoring browsing software is commonly and successfully used in iPad2s by schools in Colorado and nationwide.
Initially, District 14 installed the LightSpeed Mobile Filter browser that provides 24/7 protections but also inadvertently installed additional Internet browsing applications that did not filter or monitor students’ online activities (hereinafter, “unrestricted browsers”).
When District 14 first became aware of its unrestricted browsers problem, it indicated that these unrestricted browsers would be removed from its iPad2s and did in fact begin to remove them. Subsequently, District 14 reversed itself and provided iPad2s with unrestricted browsers (Safari, Wiki, Wikibot, Zite, Smartnote, and perhaps others) because it deemed “the educational value” of these browsers “too great to justify removing them.” [Quoted matter from a statement, ”Blazing new trails in 21st Century Learning,” issued by Chris Burr, Principal, Manitou Springs Middle School.]
To address the problem of children gaining access to harmful Internet content while using school issued iPad2s when away from school, District 14 shifted that responsibility to parents. District 14 Policy Code: JS, entitled “Student Use of the Internet and Electronic Communications” and adopted in December 2011 (available at mssd14.org/boe/section_J_3x.html#JS), states in part: “Parents and/or legal guardians must accept responsibility for the blocking and filtering of obscene, pornographic and harmful information while their students are away from school and using district issued technological devices.”
In order for a child to use a school issued iPad2 while away from school, a parent must sign an iPad User Agreement [available at www.mssd14.org/boe/section_J_3x.html#JSE ] which states in part: “I understand that access to the Internet… is designed for educational purposes and that the school district has taken reasonable steps to block or filter material and information that is…harmful to minors…I also recognize…that it is impossible for the school district to prevent access to all materials or information I might find harmful or controversial and I agree not to hold the district responsible for any such materials and information accessed by my child. Further, I accept full responsibility for supervision if and when my child's Internet or electronic communications use is not in a school setting.”
Because browsers (e.g., Safari) now installed on the iPad2s do not offer parental controls, parents have no means of controlling Internet content beamed from unsecured Wi-Fi signals readily accessible to their children when they are off school grounds. Parents also face burdensome and complex technical measures to place controls upon their own home wireless networks to protect children while their children are at home.
If a parent chooses to “Opt Out” of the school’s recommended “iPad at home” program, the parent must first sign a Technology User Agreement that says in part: “I understand that my child may not have the same learning opportunities as other students who have access to the school-issued iPad beyond normal school hours.”
District 14 Policy Code: JS, entitled “Student Use of the Internet and Electronic Communications” (adopted in December 2011 and available at mssd14.org/boe/section_J_3x.html#JS), states in part: “The Internet and electronic communications (e-mail, chat rooms and other forms of electronic communication) have vast potential to support curriculum and student learning…[O]peration of these tools…outside of the traditional classroom supports the district’s vision of utilizing resources such as time and support (beyond normal hours of operation) to increase individualized learning for students…District computers…and technological devices are owned by the district and…intended for educational purposes at all times.”

The question has arisen as to whether the District 14 policy is in compliance with the Colorado Children’s Internet Protection Act [C.R.S. 87-22-101 et seq.], which states in part in Subsections 101(2) and 104(1) & (2): “It is the intent of the general assembly…that public schools be required to adopt and enforce reasonable policies of internet safety that will protect children from access to harmful material without compromising…use of the internet as an educational resource…[T]he governing body of each [school] district shall adopt and implement a policy of internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure for each computer operated by the district that allows for access to the internet by a minor…After the adoption and implementation of the policy…the governing body of each [school] district shall continue to enforce the policy and the operation of the technology protection measure for each computer operated by the district that allows for access to the internet by a minor.”

The question has also arisen as to whether the District 14 policy is in compliance with the Federal Child Internet Protection Act [47 U.S.C. 254(h)(5)], which states in Subsection 254(h)(5)(B)(i) that in order for a school to qualify to buy Internet access at a discount it must first certify that it is “enforcing a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes monitoring the online activities of minors and the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are …harmful to minors.”

Before addressing these questions, however, there is another question(s) which should be addressed – namely, whether providing children with unrestricted access to the Internet puts them at serious risk for exposure to hardcore adult pornography and whether this exposure can (and often does) lead to serious harm.

Harm to children from exposure to hardcore adult pornography

Every cloud has a silver lining

There is an old saying, “Every cloud has a silver lining.” If there is a silver lining behind the dark storm cloud of hardcore “adult” pornography that has proliferated online, it is that more and more people are becoming aware that it is not just child pornography that is harmful but also hardcore adult pornography. Over the past decade, there have been numerous reports in the news media about adults becoming “addicted” to hardcore adult pornography and how this has affected their marriages or jobs. The following are examples of the many, many reports:

K.B. Skinner, “Is porn really destroying 500,000 marriages annually? (Opinion),” Psychology Today, 12/12/11, available at www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201112/is-porn-really-destroying-500000-marriages-annually
G. Callaghan, “Lust, caution as addiction to online pornography grows,” The Australian, 9/3/11, available at www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/lust-caution-as-addiction-to-online-pornography-grows/story-e6frg8h6-1226126673876
J.R. Anderson, “Addicted to Online Porn: X-rated Internet explosion wreaks havoc with troops’ careers, lives,” Marine Corps Times, 3/31/10, available at www.marinecorpstimes.com/offduty/health/offduty_porn_033110/
“Grassley launches inquiry into reports alleging Fed computers used to view porn,” www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/grassley-launches-inquiry-reports-alleging-fed-computers-used-view-porn/, 1/28/09.
J.W. Kennedy, “Help for the Sexually Desperate,” Christianity Today, Mar. 2008, available at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/18.28.html
H. Neill, “Male sex addict cases ‘increase,’” BBC Radio, 1/10/08, available at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7180401.stm
L. Michel & D. Herbeck, “Part Four: Confessions of a child porn addict,” Buffalo News, 10/17/07, available at www.buffalonews.com/city/special-reports/article106547.ece
K. Morrison, “Battling Sexual Addiction,” Dateline, 2/24/04, available at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4302347/

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in Graham v. Florida, 130 Sup. Ct. 2011 (2010) that the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause prohibited imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile offender who had committed a non-homicide crime. In so holding the Court again recognized (at p. 2026) that juveniles have a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility” and are “more vulnerable...to negative influences.” [Italics added]

"The availability of pornography
through portable devices
drastically affects a child's
understanding of acceptable
sexual behaviour, according
to experts...."
The Sydney Morning Herald

Can there be any doubt that among these “negative influences” is exposure to hardcore adult pornography which graphically depicts, among other things, bestiality, bondage, excretory activities (urine and feces), gang bangs, group sex, incest, prostitution, rape, rough sex (strangulation, slapping, verbal abuse), teen sex, torture and unsafe sex galore? Common sense should inform us that when children are exposed to such degrading and perverse materials, their perspectives about sex and their sexual desires and behavior can be influenced for the worst. The evidence set forth below (the tip of the iceberg) supports that assessment.

L. Chedekel, “Study targets group sex among teens,” BU Today, 1/17/12, available at www.bu.edu/today/2012/group-sex-among-teens-a-growing-trend/
A. Lowe, “Porn blamed for children’s problem sexual behavior,” The Age, 1/14/12, available at www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=2892005
A. Morris, “They know what the boys want,” New York Magazine, 2/7/11, available at http://nymag.com/news/features/70977/
D. Aitkenhead, “Teenage Kicks: Are they hooked on porn?” www.psychologies.com, 6/8/10, available at www.psychologies.co.uk/articles/are-teenagers-hooked-on-porn/
P. Marshall, “Teenage boys watching hours of internet pornography every week are treating their girlfriends like sex objects,” Daily Mail (UK), 3/8/10, available at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255856/Teenage-boys-watching-hours-internet-pornography-week-treating-girlfriends-like-sex-objects.html
J. Slack, “Web is blamed for 20 per cent leap in sex attacks by children,” Mail Online, 3/2/07, available at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-439746/Web-blamed-20-cent-leap-sex-attacks-children.html
B. English, “The secret life of boys: Pornography is a mouse click away and kids are being exposed to it…,” Boston Globe, 5/12/05, available at: www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/05/12/the_secret_life_of_boys/
R. Jerome, “The cyberporn generation,” People, 4/26/04, available at www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20149941,00.html

And make no mistake about it, large numbers of children are being exposed to hardcore adult pornography online, as the following surveys show.

According to a study published in 2012,^¹ “one-in-five, or 21% of children have accessed inappropriate websites via their mobile phone, rising to a third of 14-15 year-olds…Whether it’s intentionally digging out inappropriate websites, or stumbling across websites or content, many children are seeing, reading and viewing matter that they know is only meant for adults.” The study looked into the mobile web behavior of 8 -15 year-olds in the UK.
According to a study published in 2010,^² 42% of Internet users aged 10 to 17 surveyed said they had seen online pornography in a recent 12-month span. Most kids who reported unwanted exposure were aged 13 to 17. “Still, sizable numbers of 10- and 11-year-olds also had unwanted exposure – 17 percent of boys and 16 percent of girls that age.”
According to a study published in 2007,^³ students aged 13 and 14 from schools in Alberta, Canada, were surveyed about how and how often they accessed sexually explicit media content in various media. “A majority of the students, 74%, reported viewing pornography on the Internet.”
According to a study published in 2006,^⁴ the percentage of Internet users ages 10 to 17 exposed to unwanted pornography in the previous year increased from 25% in 2000 to 34% in 2005, “and these increases were seen across every age group, including preteens (10-12) from 9 to 19% [and] early teens (13-15) from 28% to 35%...”

Despite what pornography defenders may say, exposing children to hardcore adult pornography is not a matter of little or no concern. When children are exposed to materials that depict adulterous, promiscuous, degrading, abusive, violent and illegal sexual behaviors, they can learn wrong things about sex and relationships.^⁵ When children become addicted to this material, their psychological development can be affected.^⁶ Children are also harmed when sexually abused by other children who have imitated sexual behaviors that they viewed in pornography.^⁷

Colorado Children’s Internet Protection Act (CCIPA)

Sign: "Porn puts our children in harms way"

Defenders of the District 14 policy regarding student use of the Internet point to language in Subsection 102(1)(a) & (b) of CCIPA which refers to “use of the internet in the public schools” and to “use internet services in public schools” [italics added], arguing that the Act only applies when children access the Internet while in [the] public schools. If that is the meaning, however, then it would be OK for District 14 school children to use their school issued iPad2s to watch hardcore adult pornography during recess or gym classes (when held outdoors or off school grounds), or while watching school sponsored sporting events (when held outdoors or off school grounds), or while riding to and from school or school sponsored events on buses owned or paid for by District 14 schools. This is hardly what the Colorado legislature had in mind when it enacted the CCIPA.

Furthermore, Section 104 of CCIPA twice refers to the “operation of a technology protection measure for each computer operated by the district that allows for access to the internet by a minor” [italics added], and on its face this section applies regardless of where or when a computer operated by the district is used. Lest anyone think that when a child takes a school issued iPad2 home that computer is no longer “operated by the district,” the following language in District 14 Policy Code: JS (see Introduction above at p.2) ought to dispel that notion:

[O]peration of these tools…outside of the traditional classroom supports the district’s vision of utilizing resources such as time and support (beyond normal hours of operation) to increase individualized learning for students…District computers… are owned by the district and…intended for educational purposes at all times. [Italics added]

Furthermore, Section 105 of CCIPA states, in part:

An administrator, supervisor, or any other person authorized by the district …may temporarily disable the technology protection measure to enable access to the internet on a particular computer by…[a] minor for bona fide research or other lawful purposes where the internet use in connection with the research or other lawful purpose is supervised by an administrator, supervisor, or other person authorized by the district… [Italics added]

When construing language in a criminal statute, any ambiguity is to be construed against the government and in favor of the person who must comply with the law. But CCIPA is not a criminal statute, and to construe this law as allowing schools to provide 5^th grade children with take home computers that provide unrestricted Internet access and browsing applications that are incompatible with protection measures, is ludicrous, particularly when functional filtered browsing applications specifically developed for iPads deployed in “24/7” educational programs (e.g., Lightspeed browser) are readily available and already owned by District 14.

Defenders of District 14’s Internet use policy also point to language in Subsection 102(2) of CCIPA which states that “public schools be required to adopt and enforce reasonable policies of internet safety that will protect children from access to harmful material without compromising…use of the internet as an educational resource…” The argument here is that if children are provided with iPad2s that come equipped with Internet browsing applications that filter online activity “24/7,” their use of internet as an educational resource will be “compromis[ed].”

It ought to go without saying, however, that providing school children with iPad2 browsing applications that offer no technology protection measure – and that cannot be equipped with such a measure – does not comply with CCIPA, which requires a policy of Internet safety that “will protect children from access to harmful content.” Nor does District 14’s misguided attempt to shift the responsibility for protecting children to parents comply with the mandate to adopt a policy that “will protect children from access to harmful content.”

Furthermore, it is hard to imagine what irreplaceable educational benefit(s) will be lost if school children ages 10 to 14 are provided with iPad2s that are equipped with browsers that filter smut. Is there knowledge that 5^th thru 8^th grade children must have access to now that would be forever lost to them if their Internet explorations were subject to reasonable and legally required protection measures? Are there computer skills these school children must learn now, or else? Even assuming that some children would benefit in the long term from having unrestricted access to the Internet at young ages, would it not be reasonable to offer classes which provide such access but under the watchful eye of adults?

It should also be remembered that in businesses and government agencies all across America access to the Internet is restricted and/or monitored.^⁸ This is done to prevent misuse of computers resulting in loss of productivity and liability.^⁹ The wireless portable computers issued to trained Colorado Springs police officers (for use in their patrol vehicles) have only filtered monitored Internet access. Do District 14 school children really need greater access than local police officers?

District 14’s ‘Acceptable Use Agreement’

In order for a child to use a school issued iPad2 while away from school, a parent must sign an Acceptable Use Agreement which states in part:

I understand that access to the Internet… is designed for educational purposes and that the school district has taken reasonable steps to block or filter material and information that is…harmful to minors…I also recognize …that it is impossible for the school district to prevent access to all materials or information I might find harmful or controversial and I agree not to hold the district responsible for any such materials and information accessed by my child. Further, I accept full responsibility for supervision if and when my child's Internet or electronic communications use is not in a school setting. [“Agreement” available at http://www.mssd14.org/boe/section_J_3x.html#JSE ]

The Agreement would make sense if District 14 had done all it could (from a technology protection measure perspective) to restrict children’s access to harmful content on the Internet because no filtering technology is 100% effective or foolproof. But it defies the imagination to understand how District 14 can state that it has taken “reasonable steps to block or filter material and information that is harmful to minors” when the only step it has taken to block or filter such content is to filter the wireless signal that emanates from its own school based server.

This one step does not even provide full protection for children when they are in school because they can get access to wireless signals that emanate from off school grounds and potentially from smartphones within the school. Furthermore, it is District 14 that is encouraging parents to allow children to take their school issued iPad2s home and that has decided to equip those iPad2s with browsers that do not come equipped with parental controls. One is also left to wonder how parents can fulfill their “responsibility for supervision,” given the fact that the iPad2s come with browsers that are not and cannot be equipped with parental controls.

Federal Child Internet Protection Act (FCIPA)

Little girl viewing Apple iPad

If a school district wants to buy Internet access at a discount rate, it must enforce a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes “monitoring the online activities of minors” AND “the operation of a technology measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are ...harmful to minors.” [47 USC 254(h)(5)(B)(i)].

District 14 does have the ability to monitor the online activities of its students when they are in school, but has chosen to allow and encourage use of its iPad2s “for educational purposes” when students are away from school. When children use their iPad2s while away from schools, their use is not monitored.

District 14 does filter the wireless signal that emanates from its own school based server, and this might fulfill the requirement of a technology measure that protects against access to harmful content, if students used the iPad2s only when they were in school. But again, District 14 permits and encourages use of its iPad2s for educational purposes when students are away from school; and when used away from school, there is no technology measure, on unrestricted browsers, that protects against access to harmful content.

There is no language in the FCIPA that can be construed as allowing District 14 to ignore its requirements when students use iPad2s away from school or as allowing District 14 to shift to parents the responsibility for complying with the FCIPA. Furthermore, even if the FCIPA did permit District 14 to shift the burden to parents, its iPad2s are not equipped with technology protection measures on the several unrestricted browsing applications provided to students nor can they be.

The District 14 policy is therefore not in compliance with the FCIPA.

Addendum

(On a personal note)

Robert W. Peters, Esq.,
Morality in Media

Like many others who played high school football, I have often wondered what I might have done differently to be a better player. While it wasn’t a circumstance under my control, I have often thought that I might have been a better player had I been raised in a community that offered organized tackle “youth football.”

I didn’t start playing organized tackle football until I got to high school, where I quickly discovered that there is a big difference between sandlot and high school football. For one thing, you have to be in shape to play high school football, and I was not in shape when I showed up for the first practice in the fall of 1963. Not only did I “die” during freshman year practices, I got whipped during games too!

But I wanted to play football real bad, and I didn’t quit. I also worked hard in the off season; and as a result of that desire, perseverance and hard work, I was named a co-captain of my high school sophomore football team. Towards the end of my sophomore year, there was even talk about bringing me up to the varsity team.

Today, I am glad that I didn’t have the opportunity to play organized tackle “youth football.” I say this because I know from personal experience that the more organized tackle football a person plays the more injuries he is likely to have, and injuries often have adverse later-in-life effects. Had I gotten as involved in “youth football” as many youth do today, my academic progress might also have suffered; and I might not have had an opportunity to play on a great Ivy League football team. I would also have missed out on many great sandlot sport experiences.

What does playing “youth football” have to do with providing 5^th thru 8^th graders with iPad2s? For one thing, while starting early can have benefits for some, desire, perseverance, and hard work can usually more than compensate for any lack of longevity. For another, there can be negative effects associated with starting some things too young and doing them too often, like playing tackle football, watching TV and spending time on the Internet.^¹⁰

I would add one more thing. It is no secret that many parents do not take advantage of the technology protection measures available to them; and this is unfortunate. But parental failures do not provide District 14 with an excuse to say in so many words, “Because many parents do not use technology protection measures on computers under their control, we won’t use these measures either.” The Colorado General Assembly enacted CCIPA to protect children from pornography on the Internet, and the District 14 student-use-of-the-Internet policy needs to be in compliance with that Act. While there are differences between a school Internet use policy and a school lunch program, few would defend a school that attempted to justify serving a steady diet of nutritional garbage to students on the grounds that nutritional garbage is what is what many of them eat at home.

Endnotes

1 “Smartphones exposing children to pornography and violence as 1.2m youngsters admit to logging on,” Education News, 1/30/12, available at educationviews.org/2012/01/30/smartphones-exposing-children-to-pornography-and-violence-as-1-2m-youngsters-admit-to-logging-on/

2 “Study: Children bombarded with online porn,” www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-2431433.html, 3/11/10.

3 Bev Betkowski, “Rural teen boys most likely to access pornography, study shows,” Faculty News, University of Alberta, Feb. 23, 2007, available at www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uoa-oit022307.php

4 J. Wolak, et al., “Online victimization of youth: Five years later,” National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), pages 8 & 51 (2006). [ www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2529 ]

5 See, e.g., Hearing on The Science Behind Pornography Addiction, Before U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 2004 (testimony of Mary Anne Layden, Ph.D.), (“Pornography, by its very nature, is an equal opportunity toxin…It is toxic mis-education about sex and relationships. It is more toxic the more you consume, the ‘harder’ variety you consume, and the younger and more vulnerable the consumer.”), available at commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=e8088f9f-d8d2-4e82-b012-46337c6f9456&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&YearDisplay=2004

6 See, e.g., S. Gilbert, “A conversation with Lynn Ponton: An expert’s eye on teenage sex, risk & abuse,” N.Y. Times, 01/15/02 (“I see boys who are addicted to sex sites on the Internet that show sadistic behavior toward women. It affects those boys' sexual lives…”), available at query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E6D61438F936A25752C0A9649C8B63

7 See generally, R. Peters, “Harm to children from online exposure to hardcore adult pornography,” Morality in Media, 2011, available at moralityinmedia.org/images/pdf/MIM_Peters_Children.pdf

8 See, e.g., “The latest on workplace monitoring and surveillance,” American Management Association, 3/13/08, available at www.amanet.org/training/articles/The-Latest-on-Workplace-Monitoring-and-Surveillance.aspx

9 See, e.g., “Increased visits to porn sites at work,” Industry News, Wavecrest Computing, 2/24/09, available at www.wavecrest.net/editorial/issues.html#pr27

10 See, e.g., B. Spengler, “How America made its children crazy,” Asia Times, 1/31/12, available at www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NA31Dj01.html; M. Ritchel, “Grading the digital school: In classroom of the future, stagnant scores,” N.Y. Times, 9/3/11, available at www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all; “Excessive Internet use,” Be Web Aware, available at www.bewebaware.ca/english/compulsive_use.html

-- ---- --

Note: All graphics, captions, and hyperlinks in captions have been added by SafeLibraries.

This story provides background for this memorandum:

"School District's iPad Policy Raises Concerns of Web Safety," by Andy Koen, KOAA - Colorado Springs & Pueblo, 23 January 2012.

For a general overview of Manitou Springs D-14 Internet safety problem, an article by the Independence Institute's Senior Education Policy Analyst, Ben DeGrow, is linked here:

"Digital Dilemma: Why Can’t All Districts Filter Internet Device Access from Home?," by Eddie/Ben DeGrow, Independence Institute, 20 February 2012.

This story gives a quick example of the harms of pornography on children, particularly the "availability of pornography through portable devices":

"Porn Blamed for Children's Problem Sexual Behaviour," by Adrian Lowe, The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 January 2012.

Here are convenience URLs for remembering the URL of this page. Any one will do:

NOTE ADDED 12 MAY 2012:

Unbelievable! Some of the same school board people who allow unlimited porn on student school-supplied iPads are spraying Lysol® on students to stop them from dirty dancing! I kid you not:

"Prom Chaperones Cited for Harassment," by KKTV 11 News, 11 KKTV, 9 May 2012.
"Colorado Prom Chaperones Sprayed Lysol on Dirty Dancers, Teens Say," by Christina Ng, ABC News, Good Morning America, 11 May 2012.
"Colo. Police Investigate 'Dirty Dancers' Complaint," by TheDenverChannel.com, Officer.com, 12 May 2012.

NOTE ADDED 13 MAY 2012:

"Too bad for the children, they are what they see." Famed Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh said that in his new song, the title track of his new album, "Analog Man." Listen here:

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Sexual Harassment Law Suit Settles

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:23:00 +0000

Days away from trial, another library sexual harassment suit has been settled:

"Birmingham and Library Board Settle Sexually Hostile Workplace Lawsuit," by Kent Faulk, The Birmingham News, 19 April 2012, reprinted under Fair Use provisions:

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by a former librarian who claimed Birmingham's downtown public library was a sexually hostile place to work, with some patrons openly viewing pornography on computers, groping her and performing lewd acts in front of staff or other patrons, including children.

The trial in the federal lawsuit filed by Barbara Ann Wilson in September 2010 was to have begun on Monday before U.S. District Court Judge Karon O. Bowdre.

Bowdre, at 12:33 p.m. today issued a brief order dismissing the case after learning of a settlement.

But Adam Morel, the attorney for Wilson, said today that a settlement had been reached in the case. He declined to discuss details and whether the settlement included any money.

Officials and lawyers for Birmingham have not yet responded to questions posed by The Birmingham News.

But the city and library have denied the allegations.

Wilson, who began work with the library in 2002, claimed in the lawsuit that the City of Birmingham and the Birmingham Library Board had not done enough to protect her from a hostile work environment. Since November 2010 she is no longer employed by the library.

Among her claims, Wilson stated that she had been subjected to sexually aggressive comments, inappropriate touching and other sexual conduct by certain library patrons. She claimed that a number of times when she tried to confront patrons looking at obscene material they became belligerent.

A jury trial, however, remains set for Feb. 11, 2013, before U.S. District Court Judge Scott Coogler in a similar federal lawsuit filed by another library employee in July 2011.

In that lawsuit, Karen Jackson, a supervisor at the library, claims she has been ''subjected to severe and pervasive sexually charged conduct by both library patrons and certain members of the library's male staff, including security staff.''

Among her claims are that library patrons are ''routinely'' allowed to view pornographic images in library computers, often in the presence of children. Patrons also perform lewd acts, including in the youth department, and in one case a patron made advances on her and grabbed her arm, according to the lawsuit.

---30---

In my opinion, the suit settled because the library knew it would lose, having made statements like, "If you don't like it, leave." If a librarian doesn't like being sexually harassed by people acting under an unlimited porn policy, she should leave? Just like in another case:

"Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library"

I had previously written about or mentioned the Birmingham case often:

Lastly, let me say that at no time did the American Library Association [ALA] ever support any of the victims. I surmise this is because it is the ALA anything-goes policy that contributed to the harassment in the first place.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Fed Court Proves Not Censorship to Block Porn from Public Library Computers; Dean Marney and North Central Regional Library Prove ACLU Wrong in Bradburn v. NCRL

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:58:00 +0000

Dean Marney
tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins

The jig is up for American Library Association [ALA]/American Civil Libraries Union [ACLU] excuses allowing pornography on public library computers. You simply do not have the civil liberty nor the First Amendment right to view pornography on public library computers:

"Order Granting NCRL's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Closing File," Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District, No. CV-06-0327-EFS, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 10 April 2012 (URL= http://tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins).
"RURAL LIBRARY WINS PORN BATTLE AGAINST SEATTLE ACLU," NCRL Webmaster, North Central Regional Library, 11 April 2012. (Based on "RURAL LIBRARY WINS PORN BATTLE AGAINST SEATTLE ACLU," News Release, North Central Regional Library, 10 April 2012.)
"Eastern Wash. Library Wins Porn Battle Against Seattle ACLU," by KING 5 News, KING 5 News, 10 April 2012, hyperlinks in original:

A federal judge has ruled that an Eastern Washington library system is not violating the state constitution by using filters to block internet porn on library computers.

Judge Edward F. Shea, Eastern Washington Federal District Court, ruled in favor of the North Central Regional Library. The case was brought against the rural eastern Washington library district by the ACLU of Seattle. The ACLU accused the library district of having an overly broad filtering policy.

The ruling followed a decision handed down from the Washington State Supreme Court in May, 2010. The Supreme Court found that the North Central Regional Library, the largest library district in the State of Washington, did not violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution with its policy of filtering the internet.

"Taxpayers are the winners in this case," said Library Director Dean Marney. "Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child pornography or to become illegal casinos. Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages."

The NCRL, which represents 28 libraries in the central part of the state, has admitted the filtering policy puts them in the minority. Other libraries have taken the stance of non-censorship, citing First Amendment rights.

Hey, it's legal! Media, stop calling it "censorship." It's not censorship. The jig is up. There is no First Amendment right to porn in public libraries. Libraries know this, especially now, let alone since US v. ALA in 2003, so saying otherwise is simply and intentionally false.

Recall my previous writing on this topic:

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

Wanna join people stopping libraries from misleading their communities on porn in public libraries, etc.? Join the Watchdogs! Join the winners.

NOTE ADDED 11 APRIL 2012:

Excellent historical information on the Bradburn case from David Burt:

"Federal Judge Upholds Libary Filtering Policy in Bradburn Case," by David Burt, David Burt, 10 April 2012.

And some historical information from the ACLU of Washington State:

"Lawsuit Seeks Access to Information on Internet for Adult Library Patrons," by ACLU of Washington State, ACLU of Washington State, 24 October 2011.

Another story on the current matter:

"E. Washington Library Wins Suit; It Can Filter Porn," by Lynn Thompson, The Seattle Times, 10 April 2012.

NOTE ADDED 14 APRIL 2012:

In the article above, I have added an updated link for the NCRL News Release.

Let me add that the case makes clear:

A library may review a request for web access to ensure compliance with library policy,
A library may legally deny access to constitutionally protected material if said material does not fall within library policy,
It is not censorship to comply with the court's ruling and block constitutionally protected material from public libraries,
Porn and gambling do not fall within library policy (at least at this particular group of libraries),
Other categories of constitutionally protected material may be legally blocked depending on the circumstances as the court did not restrict itself to only porn and gambling, and
Any library or library association saying filtering porn violates the First Amendment or the Freedom of Speech is factually and legally incorrect(, and that library may be acting outside the law, and that library's town government has a duty to require a library to act within the law or it may be held legally responsible otherwise for harm caused by a failure to comply with the law).

NOTE ADDED 15 APRIL 2012:

Another interesting historical look at this case:

"SAF Sues Library System Over Internet Censorship of Gun Websites," by News Release, Second Amendment Foundation, 16 November 2006.

NOTE ADDED 16 APRIL 2012:

I HAVE BREAKING NEWS I AM BREAKING HERE AND NOW. SAF AND ITS RELATED WEB SITES ARE NOT BEING BLOCKED BY NCRL! SEE MY COMMENT BELOW OF EVEN DATE FOR DETAILS, EVIDENCE, RELIABLE SOURCES.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Arizona 'Computer Access by Minors' Passes 89 to Zilch

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:07:00 +0000

Steve Court, Sponsor of HB 2712

Arizona state CIPA legislation HB 2712 "Computer Access by Minors" has now become law. It significantly strengthens existing laws that direct public libraries and public school libraries to protect Arizona children from pornography. It passed the House 58 - 0 - 2, the Senate 30 - 0 - 0, and was signed by Governor Jan Brewer on 3 April 2012. So I count the vote as 89 to zilch in favor of protecting children from porn in Arizona libraries and schools. See for yourself, click on "Bill Overview":

http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=2712&Session_Id=107

89 to nothing. Keep that in mind when the American Library Association [ALA] misleads communities into thinking otherwise:

"CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected"

For background on this major Arizona success, see:

"HB2712 – Protecting Children from Pornography in Public Libraries," by Cathi Herrod, Center for Arizona Policy, January 2012.

And keep in mind Arizona children (and public school children everywhere) may still be exposed to harm caused by library association policy:

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

Hat tip: Safe Schools, Safe Library Project on Twitter @porn_harms (and include the underscore).

Follow @SafeLibraries

UNC Davis Library of Gay Cruising

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:56:00 +0000

About the UNC University Libraries

Having written before of "Gay Cruising in Public Library Bathrooms," I now write on gay cruising in a public school library's bathrooms and stacks, featuring the University of North Carolina's Davis Library. Quoting:

Besides the posts, library employees cite graphic evidence, including semen-filled condoms draped over chairs and stuck to the walls.
....
The Craigslist posts are evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior witnessed by employees, including public masturbation and viewing pornography.
....
Brady said they are generally classified as "men seeking men," and she has never seen a post by a man looking for a woman, or by a woman seeking a woman or a man.

Notice how "Student Attorney General Amanda Claire Grayson" says it could be a violation, but who cares? "It's something that could be considered a violation, but I'm not sure the Honor Court has a reason to adjudicate that."

The Daily Tar Heel article is so packed with eye-popping information, I'll just reprint it here for you to make up your own minds, thanks to Copyright Fair Use provisions, and perhaps comment below:

"Craigslist Thread Reveals Subculture of Sexual Activity in UNC's Davis Library," by Josie Hollingsworth, The Daily Tar Heel, 9 April 2012:

For some students, study breaks in the library come in all shapes — and sizes.

As students begin to fill up the libraries in preparation for final exams, an active thread on the online classifieds website Craigslist reveals a subculture of illicit sexual activity specific to Davis Library, the University's largest.

A search for "Davis Library" on the personals section of the Raleigh Craigslist turns up a series of requests for sexual favors, posts that have caught the attention of some library employees.

Besides the posts, library employees cite graphic evidence, including semen-filled condoms draped over chairs and stuck to the walls.

"Out of curiosity one day, we were all in the library because, you know, there's all kinds of weird shenanigans. We decided to look in personals and there it was," said Davis Library employee and student Matthiew Morel, referring to the Craigslist posts.

Morel said he has only seen evidence on the seventh and eighth floors.

"The higher you go up, the more likely you are to encounter it," Morel said.

"On campus for a marathon study day," reads one Craigslist post published April 1. "Would be interested in a study break at Davis Library if you're interested."

Others include post titles "UNC student seeks BJ" and "studying in library — help me relieve some stress."

The body of each post typically describes the author's physical appearance, including height, weight, race, penis size and whether or not he is circumcised.

Abbreviations like "DDF" — drug and disease-free — and "HMU" — hit me up — are commonly used.

Morel said he has seen the most action on the site during exams.

"The most postings were four to five in one day during finals," he said. "Stress breeds romance, I guess."

The Craigslist posts are evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior witnessed by employees, including public masturbation and viewing pornography.

But whether asking for sex in Davis Library is a violation of the Honor Code is another matter.

Student Attorney General Amanda Claire Grayson said she has never heard of the Honor Court dealing with inappropriate behavior in Davis Library in her three years dealing with cases.

"It's something that could be considered a violation, but I'm not sure the Honor Court has a reason to adjudicate that," she said.

Kori Brady, another Davis Library employee, said the posts on Craigslist often fit a distinctive mold.

Brady said they are generally classified as "men seeking men," and she has never seen a post by a man looking for a woman, or by a woman seeking a woman or a man.

And the posts come primarily from undergraduates, she said.

A recent post suggested exceptions, though, when the poster identified himself as a male graduate student looking for an attractive young woman.

"I know of more stories of sex in the library," Brady said. "But I don't know necessarily if they were connected to Craigslist."

Davis Library policy prohibits "behavior that interferes with the appropriate use of the library," including "inappropriate sexual behavior" and "viewing sexually explicit material on a computer."

University librarian Sarah Michalak declined to comment on the issue Sunday, adding that she wanted to be better informed on the issue.

Contact the University Editor at university@dailytarheel.com.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Avert Your Eyes Jane Light Got $220,983 to Sexualize San Jose Children for the American Library Association

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:53:00 +0000

San Jose City Librarian Jane Light is retiring from her $220,983/year job at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library:

"Internal Affairs: The Campaign Donation is Mightier Than the Sword," by the Mercury News, San Jose Mercury News, 31 March 2012.

The American Library Association [ALA] misleads a third of American communities into leaving their children exposed to the very harm the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] was designed to prevent. How do we know? Ernest Istook, the CIPA author, said so a month ago. And no library media has reported on this story, obviously having something to hide:

"CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 February 2012.

Congressman Istook did not say, but he was likely referencing Judith Krug, the ALA's de facto leader, who was the ACLU's three year Illinois state ACLU leader who came to the ALA and created the change within librarianship that no longer would librarians keep children from inappropriate material. (I'm gathering people together to reverse this.)

For example, Judith Krug said: "I have a real problem when people say, 'Well I walked by and you should have seen what was on the computer screen.' Well, don't look, sweetie. It's none of your business. Avert your eyes."

Avert your eyes, says the ALA.

For $220,983/year, Jane Light has allowed the San Jose community to be one of those under the ALA's sway that keeps children exposed to harm despite the availability of CIPA:

The SJPL and SJSU Libraries adopt as policy the following: American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights .... V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of ... age ....

[T]he Library does not monitor and has no control over the information accessed through the Internet and assumes no responsibility for its content.

What drew my attention to this particularly library is that Jane Light is unique. She is unique because she is not unique. When it comes to using Internet filters to protect children from harm, in addition to using ALA policy as shown above, she herself echoed the exact "avert your eyes" words of the ALA's ACLU leader:

[T]he Martin Luther King Library has a problem with pornography. They have no rule against viewing photographs or full-screen sex videos from Internet sites, even with children nearby. Chief librarian Jane Light says it's a matter of free speech. .... ABC7's Dan Noyes: "I've seen the [privacy] screens and I see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind. You can see everything." Jane Light...: "So you can avert your eyes." .... San Jose's police blotter over the past year lists several arrests for child porn at the library, at least ten cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right at the terminal. .... Sgt. John Laws, San Jose library police: "It showed him sitting at the computer terminal and ... masturbating." .... Marcia Stacke, Child Quest International: "You know, sometimes I wonder if we're just too afraid to be, I don't know, sued in this country. We've got to step out and protect our kids. Enough is enough."

Source: "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," by Dan Noyes, KGO-TV San Francisco, CA, 29 November 2006, emphasis mine.

Apparently "averting your eyes" did not work to protect the "ten cases of child molestation" from the harm CIPA compliance might have prevented. Judith Krug, Jane Light, is there a difference to the library crime victims or the children sexualized by the $220,983/year Jane Light? $220,983 to tell people to "avert your eyes," and the policy did not even work.

By the way, for following ALA policy and not using CIPA filters, $220,983/year Jane Light quietly forced the San Jose government to give up approximately $207,825.60 during her tenure. In 2003, the library got $25,978.20 from the federal government under the CIPA program for "Internet access." Then CIPA was found constitutional in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003). (Imagine that, the ALA and the ACLU suing to stop CIPA, and losing big.) As a result, CIPA funding for Internet access was lost since 2004. 2004 to 2011 at about $25,978.20/year comes to about $207,825.60. So thanks to Jane Light, San Jose lost almost a quarter million dollars. And I have concerns CIPA funding for "Telcomm" services may have been artificially inflated to make up the difference, but I am not looking into that Light-fingered aspect of the matter. After all, numerous libraries commit CIPA fraud.

Do you want this ALA "avert your eyes" policy in your own community? Will you avert your eyes from who's controlling your own local public library? You better Know the ALA.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Crime Spree Prompts Filtering Consideration for Library Computers

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:53:00 +0000

The Monroe County Public Library, Bloomington, IN, ~~Bloomington Public Library, Bloomington, IL,~~ has been suffering a crime spree so bad that it is finally considering using Internet filters to block out the porn.

And notice the "intellectual freedom" excuse for not filtering porn, as if viewing porn in a public library was intellectual or compliant with local library law. CIPA author Ernest Istook was right to reveal last month that the American Library Association [ALA] misleads a third of American communities into ignoring the benefits of CIPA, thereby allowing the harm to children it was intended to stop to continue unabated, like in Bloomington.

~~Any why does the library director say they are "considering" using Internet filters when the library's online policy already says it does?~~

Because Bloomington Public Library receives federal funds for Internet access, federal law requires that all Bloomington Public Library computers have blocking or filtering software installed. While we are mandated to filter graphic material that is obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors, filtering technology is imperfect and the library cannot guarantee 100% accurate filtering. Sometimes material that does not meet the above criteria is filtered, and sometimes, the filter will not block material that should be blocked.

Do a search for CIPA funding received by the library and you will find that funding stopped in 2004 after US v. ALA held CIPA constitutional in 2003.

Search results for CIPA funding for
Monroe County Public Library.

So, given the library's web site says one thing and the library's director says another, and given the crime spree that brought this story to light and the library's reaction to the crime spree, questions are raised:

Has the library been misleading the public all this time?

Is the library responsible in part for the crime wave by not filtering all the while it said it was, particularly where it now states the use of Internet filters may ameliorate the situation?

Is the addition of filters now a tacit admission that its apparent adherence to American Library Association policy not to filter has been a disaster?

Is the addition of filters now a tacit admission that it is responsible in part for the crime wave?

What financial losses have occurred as a result of not receiving federal funding under CIPA after 2003?

What are the consequences of public employees acting in a manner harmful to the pecuniary interests of the government?

What are the consequences of public employees acting in a manner harmful to the citizenry?

~~Will there be any consequences for anything, or will malfeasance by library employees be excused or simply go over the heads of the local government in the first place?~~

By the way, "mov[ing] computers to highly public areas" instead of using Internet filters only covers up the problem, as the US Supreme Court has revealed. It appears Bloomington may have learned its lesson the hard way (and may ~~still~~ be misleading the public).

Now here's the Bloomington story:

"Bloomington Library Battles Rising Crime Rate," by Associated Press, The Journal Gazette, 25 March 2012, emphasis added:

BLOOMINGTON — A southern Indiana library is taking steps to restrict computer use and reduce clashes in response to rising numbers of altercations that have required calling police.

Arrests at the Monroe County Public Library in downtown Bloomington have tripled in the past six years, as have the number of reported assaults, The Herald-Times reported. The number of people considered "trespassers" rose from one in 2006 to 14 in the last year, according to Bloomington Police Department data.

Library director Sara Laughlin said the library tries to be a safe and welcoming place for everyone who ends up there — including the smokers, the drinkers and the enraged.

But increased reports of drunkenness and other issues have forced some changes in the library's environment and policies.

New white tile and additional lighting have been installed in the men's restroom to reduce vandalism. A tobacco-free policy that was enforced March 1 has helped improve the atmosphere near the Kirkwood and parking lot entrances.

More changes are coming. Landscaping crews will work to reduce large seating areas where groups gather and to add interactive and educational pieces. Staff also plan to review the library's Internet policy and consider filtering computers to reduce inappropriate websites, mainly in response to the handful of complaints each year about Internet pornography.

"We have avoided filtering in the past, because we believe in intellectual freedom," Laughlin said. Instead, the library has chosen in recent years to move computers to highly public areas.

....

© Copyright 2012 ASSOCIATED PRESS. Reprinted under Copyright Fair Use provisions.

NOTE ADDED 28 MAR 9:29 EST:

I HAVE ACCIDENTALLY CONFUSED BLOOMINGTON ILLINOIS WITH BLOOMINGTON INDIANA. I HAVE CHANGED THIS POST ACCORDINGLY USING ~~STRIKEOUT AND SMALL TEXT~~ TO SHOW THE MATERIAL THAT NO LONGER APPLIES AFTER CORRECTING MY ERROR.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Salt Lake Library Votes to Filter All Computers For Adults; Computers For Children Had Already Been Filtered; Public and Librarians Pleased; Pornography Put Librarians In an Uncomfortable Position

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:08:00 +0000

The title says it all, and notice the harried librarians love this as well. Bravo, Salt Lake City Public Library, for installing Internet filters on all computers to block pornography and for exposing how to overcome the false fear of "accusations of censorship"!

Clearly this is not one of the one third of American libraries Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] author Ernest Istook says is controlled by the American Library Association [ALA]. And, as we know, it is perfectly legal to use Internet filters to block legal pornography from public libraries, and even the ALA now says filters work:

"Salt Lake Library Board Votes to Filter Public Internet Access; Internet » Officials Worried About Censorship Charges, But the Plan Brought No Public Comment," by Ben Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, 22 March 2012, reprinted under Copyright Fair Use provisions, emphasis added:

Wary of accusations of censorship inside institutions founded on principles of intellectual freedom, many library administrators for years relied on staff and patrons to ferret out unsavory elements who might abuse public Internet access for unsavory aims and images.

The Salt Lake City Main Library and its five branches have long filtered Internet access to computers in their children's sections. During a Thursday evening meeting of the library system's board, members voted unanimously to extend those same filtering capabilities to the entire network of computers available for adult use.

Advance notice of the impending decision generated no public comment, in person or otherwise, during the public meeting held on the Main Library's fifth floor.

"Frankly, I was a little surprised," said Kevin Werner, board president. "I was expecting to hear something."

In fact, the procedure was greeted as little less than a speed bump on the way to items the board greeted with far more interest, including next year's budget and plans to build two new branches in the Glendale and Marmalade neighborhoods.

The decision to filter Internet access harbored far more than the urge to protect children and other patrons. In exchange for its compliance under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), the government will reimburse the Salt Lake City library system 80 percent of its costs for telephone and Internet services. The library also becomes eligible for state funds in grant form, specific to technology projects, administered by the Utah State Library.

At a time when circulation numbers for physical materials — books, DVDs and periodicals — are flat, but demand for Internet access, e-books and other downloadable content has soared, that savings is nothing to sniff at. It is money the library system can use to reinvest in the future, said library spokeswoman Julianne Hancock.

"This year, our federal discounts on telecommunications services will result in about $80,000 in savings for telecommunications services," Hancock said. "In future years, we will apply to be considered for additional discounts, but this gets us well on our way."

The downtown library has had intermittent reports of people using library computers to access pornography and other material harmful to minors. The problem has never become chronic or unmanageable, but the responsibility of often monitoring patrons diverted staff time from other work. "It always put everyone in an uncomfortable position," Hancock said.

Deadline for installment is June next year, but it's estimated the filter will be installed by the end of this summer, she said.

For public libraries everywhere, Werner said, the struggle to keep current in the new digital world is a more significant concern than the occasional nuisance of patrons surfing the Web for obscene and offensive material.

"The filtering issue, while important," he said, "is really an issue outside the greater trend of how libraries are being transformed."

[NOTE BY SAFELIBRARIES, THE FOLLOWING COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE APPEARS TO COME FROM THE LIBRARY SPOKESWOMAN, AND IT IS SPOT ON:]

Hi! It's Julianne from the Library. The updated policy allows us to install a filter to block access to "visual depictions that are child pornography or obscene as defined by state and federal statues." Additionally, adult patrons may request unfiltered internet sessions, as long as their internet use does not violate Library policies or federal or state statues. We will be posting the policy the Library Board passed tonight soon on the City Library's website.

Follow @SafeLibraries

ALA's Anything Goes at Any Age Policy Criticized by University of Missouri Library Science Student

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:08:00 +0000

The American Library Association's anything goes at any age policy has been criticized by a University of Missouri School of Information Science & Learning Technologies student. It is outstanding:

"American Libraries and Young Patrons," by Garren Hochstetler, Words, Ideas, and Things, 18 March 2012.

It is republished below (emphasis/hyperlinks in original, graphics added) with permission of the author, who adds in an email to me:

[T]he assignment was to articulate the ALA's position on children and intellectual freedom, then respectfully present opposing viewpoints. The class is teaching us to be critical, not dogmatic.

What an excellent class, obviously with an excellent professor. Teaching students to think past the ALA "dogma"—that is true intellectual freedom. I'm going to ask this student to join the library watchdogs. Anyone else interested?

American Libraries and Young Patrons

[A paper for my Intellectual Freedom class.]

According to the American Library Association's (the ALA's) Library Bill of Rights, "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views [emphasis added]" (1996). This policy of age non-discrimination has several controversial consequences: minors may view any materials adults may access, parents must take full responsibility for restricting their own children, and librarians may not hesitate to select materials they personally consider inappropriate for minors or adults.

Full Access for Minors

"Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them. Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected." (ALA, 2008)

Library Bill of Rights, 1948,
before "age" was added in 1967.

Before examining what counts and what doesn't count as "constitutionally protected speech," it's important to notice the uniqueness of the ALA's position: libraries may not restrict materials for minors unless that material is constitutionally unprotected. Movie theaters routinely deny unaccompanied minors admission to R-rated films even though these films are constitutionally protected speech. Same goes for selling M-rated video games to minors. These industries voluntarily restrict direct access by minors to keep the public from demanding that all films and video games be "content appropriate" for minors (Scales, 2009). The American library industry — so to speak — has deliberately decided not to apply such a policy.

What counts as constitutionally protected speech? That's a complicated issue. The First Amendment itself does not mention exceptions, but there is a long history of Supreme Court cases deciding what counts as speech (more than verbal expression!) and what counts as protected speech: most things except obscenity, libel, fighting words, and incitement to immediate crime (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). Unprotected speech isn't necessarily illegal speech; it's just that the Constitution isn't interpreted as stopping legislatures from passing laws against unprotected speech, so legislatures usually do.

There is one more major complication: the same materials can be classified as protected, non-obscene speech for adults but unprotected, obscene speech for minors. In a late 60's Supreme Court case, it was decided that pornographic magazines could be denied by law to minors while allowed by law to adults (Ginsberg v. New York, 1968). However, as seen in the long quote above, the ALA insists on waiting for a court of law to classify materials as "obscene" — for everyone — before libraries may deny access to minors.

Criticism of Full Access for Minors

US Supreme Court, 2003, US v.
American Library Association

Do libraries have a legal obligation to offer minors access to all materials which are constitutionally protected for adults? Despite the ALA's age-agnostic presentation of the issue, the answer appears to be: no, libraries are not legally obligated to provide full access to minors:

"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. Given this interest, and the failure to show that adult library users' access to the material is burdened in any significant degree, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face." (United States v. American Library Association, 2003)

This does leave open the question of whether libraries may restrict materials more narrowly than local legislative limits, but the simplistic principle of equal access does not stand up to scrutiny.

All Responsibility on Parents

"Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's—and only their children’s—access to library resources." (ALA, 2008)

To use a film example again, it's common for video rental stores to deny R-rated rentals to minors by default, unless a parent adds an authorization to the family account to permit a particular child to rent R movies on his or her own. Librarians following the ALA's code will allow minors to check out any materials from the library by default. Can parents ask the library to not allow their own children to check out R-rated movies? The ALA says "no." Or put more positively, "Visit the library with your children. If that’s not possible, ask to see the materials your children bring home. Set aside a special shelf for library materials. If there are materials on it you don’t approve of, talk with your children about why you would rather they not read or view them" (ALA, 1999).

Criticism of All Responsibility on Parents

Some parents consider the ALA's stance too "retroactive" to give parents informed control over their own children's library access. Relying on children to hand over all materials to their parents for approval is, well, unrealistic. Parents Against Bad Books in Schools (PABBIS) proposes a system of "Upfront-Informed Parental Consent" for assigned readings as well as school library collections. In this system, parents would be given a write-up describing the content and justification for using each book, along with possible alternatives. Parents would need to sign off on the book or pick an alternative for their own children (PABBIS, n.d.).

While this may work for assigned classroom readings, it's unclear how such a system would work for a library as a whole. Perhaps parents could give blanket pre-approval for their children to read materials with certain ratings, but require specific consent on anything beyond those ratings. It would be interesting to know the degree to which librarian opposition to such a scheme is a matter of convenience versus a matter of principle.

Unrestricted Selection

"Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users." (ALA, 2008)

What's @ your library?

Given the policy of full access to library resources for minors, it might be tempting to limit minors by limiting the entire library. It would be like allowing minors to rent any movie at a video store without parental permission, while simply not carrying anything rated higher than PG-13. Some parents would no doubt appreciate the existence of such a video store, but our society would be poorer if every video store were of this kind.

Internet access really brings the question of restrictions to the forefront. While it's possible to subtly limit local resources out of a consideration for minors, the full diversity of the Internet comes as a single package unless librarians take the additional step of applying a filter. The ALA opposes such filtering:

"So, just as librarians do not monitor the books or periodicals people bring into or check out of the library, allowing people to decide for themselves what they wish to read and study, the Internet empowers users to choose for themselves the information they wish to view. Librarians can—and do—help guide searches, but they do not advocate limiting access to legal speech, because blocking access to constitutionally protected speech is unconstitutional." (ALA, 2003)

The ALA's position has been that public libraries, as public organizations, are bound by the First Amendment in ways that private organizations — like video stores — are not.

Criticism of Unrestricted Selection

Once again there is an absolutist legal question to clear up before discussing matters of degree. Can libraries self-impose content restrictions on constitutionally protected materials for adults? A judgment by Washington state's Supreme Court touched on this in the context of Internet filtering for adults:

"The principle that a library has no obligation to provide universal coverage of all constitutionally protected speech applies to Internet access just as it does to the printed word in books, periodicals, and other material physically collected and made available to patrons." (Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District, 2010)

It remains to be seen whether a higher court will affirm or overturn this decision. A strong answer either way would be helpful because the ALA insists that restrictions on protected speech are unconstitutional, while the ALA's critics want local communities to have a say in where to draw the line for public libraries.

Conclusion

Extremes are easy. Conservative patrons worry about a policy of "anything goes." The ALA worries about a policy of "anything someone doesn't like goes away." It can seem like the only way to avoid one extreme is to embrace the other. This makes the status quo unstable and contentious. Sacrificing the principle of absolute age equality may be a necessary step toward keeping libraries free for adults and as open for children as their parents want it to be.

References

American Library Association. (1996). Library bill of rights. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

American Library Association. (1999). Strategies and tips for dealing with challenges to library materials. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/challengeslibrarymaterials/copingwithchallenges/strategiestips

American Library Association. (2003). Libraries and the Internet toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/iftoolkits/litoolkit/sampleanswers

American Library Association. (2008). Free access to libraries for minors. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/freeaccesslibraries

Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District, No. 82200-0 D. Washington. (2010). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1523482.html

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

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

Parents Against Bad Books in Schools. (n.d.) Upfront-informed parental consent. Retrieved from: http://www.pabbis.com/upfront.html

Scales, P.R. (2009). Protecting intellectual freedom in your school library: Scenarios from the front lines. Chicago, IL: ALA Publishing.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Patron Cries Out for Justice and Library Filters Due to Pron in Lincoln City Libraries; Deep Library Love Turns to Fear

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:51:00 +0000

Likely in response to my recent call for people seeking to protect children in libraries, one library patron has provided me with the below for republication. It is her letter to the Lincoln City Libraries in Lincoln, NE. The city was named after President Abraham Lincoln. I am certain President Lincoln would feel deeply ashamed to learn of library policy in Lincoln and how patrons are mistreated, especially children.

And, as we recently learned from the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, a third of American libraries follow American Library Association [ALA] anything-goes policy instead of local laws and interests. It appears Lincoln City Libraries suffers from that fate, or rather its patrons and employees do.

Now read the letter from a library lover who now fears the library, and in no small way this is a direct result of ALA control of the libraries at issue:

Patron Letter to Lincoln City Libraries

by Anonymous Patron

Thank you for your time in reading this long email. Pornography in Lincoln City Libraries is a topic I have become passionate about, as I have been exposed to porn on two separate occasions in a LCL. The words in this letter speak from my heart, expressing my personal and community concerns. I will also share (some copied and pasted) articles with the permission of the authors.

I was raised amidst lifestyles of drugs and abuse; attending a total of 9 different schools between Kindergarten and graduating from high school. When I was 10, I discovered the nearest public library and within those walls found a safe escape from my home. Soon thereafter i began spending most of my daylight hours there.

I have one good childhood memory-my best friend and I riding our bikes to the library and heading to the park to read for countless hours. I considered both Nancy Drew and Laura Ingalls, my friends. The homes I lived in did not have shelves of books-except my bedroom. Next to my bed I had a bookshelf that I kept full of books; all of which were checked out from the library.

My life as a 40 something wife and mother reflects my values and interests. I have two children; each of them received their very own library card when they turned one month old. For both of them, It was their first official "outing." My first two jobs as a mother were to instill good manners and a love of reading. Our children are 10 and 15, the manners are still works in progress. However, both children love to read and our home has hundreds—if not thousands—of books.

A love of books, combined with my love for the educational philosophies of Maria Montessori and Charlotte Mason, led me to home educate our children. My fond memories of comfort and growth and enrichment experienced at LCLs now had an added virtue – the library became an essential ingredient in educating our children. At times, I had 80-some materials checked out simultaneously.

Since the traumatic incident with a viewer of porn at Gere library, my use of the library is limited to ordering materials online and picking them up at one location.

I felt, and continue to feel, a great loss. I feel my longtime friend has been taken away from me. My husband, [name elided], gave me a Nook Color for Mother's Day, 2011. While most people would be thrilled, I felt indifferent. He was trying to replace my loss. Unfortunately, that loss can't be replaced.

I want to enter my library and feel safe. I want to let my son enter the mens bathroom there and not worry. Currently, I cannot do either of those things.

I don't frequent Adult Bookstores, nor do I take our children into an Adult Bookstore. The Lincoln City Libraries have become Adult Bookstores, surrounded by shelves of books from many genres. I know that children and women—especially female librarians—are assaulted in libraries by men fresh off of viewing porn. I have been married over 21 years. I asked my husband if it's possible for men to view porn and not have the desire to please themselves. His response was no. I had many of my friends ask their husbands and boyfriends the same question. Each responded no.

I am not a radical conservative. I am not in favor of banning books. The problem I have is when other's actions violate my safety or the safety of my children. Twice in LCLs I have experienced this violation.

Your current policy on filtering (or, lack thereof) the internet does not make a safe environment. Let's look at possible scenarios. A man or older teenager is viewing porn at the library during story time for pre-schoolers. Regardless of the type of porn—legal or not—the male patron is viewing it. He heads to the bathroom to masturbate. Just feet away, a little boy around the age of 4 is also in the mens bathroom with his teacher waiting outside the door. Using common sense, who would feel comfortable knowing this child is in that situation? Would you? What about your popular summer program which relies on 5th-12th graders to volunteer their time in the library. A young girl is done with her shift and starts walking home. A man fresh off of viewing porn at the library decides he would rather not masturbate, sees this vulnerable young girl alone and acts on his desires. Has this happened here in Lincoln? Possibly. However, it has happened in many libraries across the country. Children, teens, women and female librarians have been assaulted and raped by men who were just viewing porn on a library computer. These incidents take place in library bathrooms, dark corners of the libraries and the parking lots.

Once people became aware of our situation at Gere library, I received many emails and phone calls. Here are just a few I will share.

At Walt library a teenage boy was witnessed viewing porn on a "filtered" computer-out in the "open." This was observed by a young family.
At Walt library, a teenage girl was forced to use a computer inside the un-filtered computer room, as the other computers were being used. She had homework to finish and the use of that computer was her only choice. She was forced to sit between two men viewing porn, which was in her view. She was terrified and felt helpless. When asked why she didn't just leave, she said she had no other choice as her grade was on the line. Her friend later said that they have said something to librarians, but they do nothing.
At South branch library, a man was looking at books and heard strange sounds behind him. He turned to see a man viewing porn and masturbating. This man's 7 year old daughter was just feet away. He said the librarian must have heard as she was just feet away.
At Eiseley(sp?) Branch, a teenager was forced to sit by a man viewing porn. This was a boy, next to a man. Again, the boy needed the computer to finish homework. This boy told an older brother that anyone can access porn on a library computer. He said most of his friends do so on a regular basis. Concerned about his brother, the older boy told his parents in confidentiality.
Several families contacted me, saying they also had been exposed to porn with their children while simply walking through Gere Branch. One man told me he would never allow his kids out of his sight in the library due to what he's seen.

Obviously there are legal considerations when exposing a minor to pornography—purposefully or not—and there are consequences for a library in the above situations , which, is exactly what happened in the above situations here in Lincoln.

Pat [Leach], in your interview on KOLN, you mention that it is a balancing act to meet the needs of patrons. I agree, and understand the complexity this presents. The "balance" however needs to skew toward the physical and emotional safety of the majority of your patrons. The Library is a community—a public—institution not a private enterprise. Your job is to serve the people of Lincoln, Nebraska. The patronage of the clientele you are going to not "serve" by taking steps to eliminate access to porn will not break a public institution. Adult bookstores have parking lots and entrances behind the building. Who wants to be identified as viewing porn? Such behavior is private and has no business in a public library.

Common sense would dictate that the majority of people would find the use of internet pornography wrong in our libraries. Would our community favor our tax dollars supporting porn on the library's computer? Would our community think it okay to send their child into a library bathroom where a man just viewing porn is heading? I ask each of you, are you serving Lincoln-or not?

_________________

From what I understand, this is known as "data collection" which is based on criteria and monies available. The internet is no different. Your current internet policy allows for patrons to attend a buffet of porn- feet away from other patrons-including minors. I have spoken with Dean Marney of Washington State several times. He is a library director who chooses to walk his talk-he serves the people of his community. He has given me permission to use anything he has said or written. Attached are two must read articles he has written.

__________________

It is my opinion that the current internet policy is dangerous and puts minors, our most vulnerable population, at risk. Specifically at risk are children from under-privileged homes without computers. Homes similar to those from my childhood.

As I see it, you all have an opportunity to provide a family and children friendly library. Please use the integrity that Dean has-do the right thing. The right thing would mean intelligent filtering. Common sense filtering.

Regards,
[Name elided]

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

Follow @SafeLibraries

Teen Sodomized in Public Library Bathroom

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:23:00 +0000

The public library bathroom is the locus of sexual crime against children, again, this time in Tustin, CA, at the Orange County Public Library, and once again a LIBRARY WAS NOT EVEN AWARE OR CARED LESS—the 13 year old reported the crime himself:

"School Boy Allegedly Sodomized Inside a Tustin Public Library," by R. Scott Moxley, OC Weekly, 10 March 2012.

A 13-year-old boy had gone to the library after school to study, but ended up a rape victim.

Police say Robert Howard Claudio sodomized the unidentified kid inside a library bathroom located at 345 E. Main Street.

Tustin PD Lt. Pat Welch said in a prepared statement that the boy managed to free himself, run for help and underwent medical treatment.
"Tustin Boy Sexually Attacked in Library; Suspect Arrested," by Carol J. Williams, The Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2012.

A 23-year-old Anaheim man with a juvenile history of sex offenses was arrested Friday afternoon after a 13-year-old boy reported being sodomized in the men's bathroom of the Orange County Public Library in Tustin, police said.

The boy fled the library to a police station across the street and reported the attack, said Lt. Pat Welch of the Tustin Police Department. He was taken to a hospital for treatment and was home with his family later in the evening, Welch said.
"Sex Offender Arrested in Tustin Library Assault of 13-Year-Old Boy; Robert Howard Claudio Allegedly Attacked the Victim at a Library About 3:30 P.M. Friday," by City News Service, NBC Los Angeles, 10 March 2012.

The boy left the library and told a security guard what happened, Welch said.

Claudio also approached the guard, Welch said.

"The suspect actually approached the civilian officer and identified himself as a registered sex offender and said that something had just occurred in the library and that he may be involved in it," Welch told KCAL9.
"Sex Offender Arrested After Assault on Teen," by Erika I. Ritchie, The Orange County Register, 10 March 2012.
The teen told police at the front desk that he had been studying after school in the Orange County Public Library at 345 E. Main St., when he was approached by a man. He said he and the man began talking and the two ended up in the restroom where he was sodomized, Welch said.

The teen said he immediately left the library and came to the police department just a few hundred feet away.

While the teen was telling his story to police, a man left the library and saw a civilian police service officer driving nearby. He stopped the officer at El Camino and Main Street and told him that he was a registered sex offender and had been involved in something at the library, Welch said.

At that point the department's communication center put the two incidents together and immediately dispatched police to the where the man was being detained.

While he was detained, police officers drove the teen by to see if the man was the same one who he accused of assaulting him, Welch said.

He positively identified the man, Welch said. Police have identified the man as Robert Howard Claudio, 24, of Anaheim.

Claudio admitted the sexual assault, Welch said, and was arrested on suspicion of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14 and sodomy of a minor. Claudio was booked into Orange County Jail and has a bail of $2 million.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Hidden Library Crime: Security Guard Reveals Libraries Want Door Greeters, Not Security Guards; Case Evidences Harm of American Library Association Control Over Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (SafeLibraries) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:11:00 +0000

A library security guard quit his position after learning firsthand that libraries want door greeters, not security guards. He reveals shocking details about public library security. FoxNews investigates and finds defensive and deflective library management who will not answer simple questions. See this for yourselves:

"Phoenix Library Crime a Well-Kept Secret?," by Fox News 10 Phoenix, Fox News 10 Phoenix, 7 March 2012, reprinted under Fair Use provisions:

Phoenix Library Crime a Well-Kept Secret?: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

This is no surprise to me, especially knowing the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act revealed that the American Library Association [ALA] has effective control of one third of American libraries, and it is harming American children. Still, it is shocking how easily libraries fool local governments into not taking action to ensure libraries are not acting outside the law.

Phoenix Police, contact me as I have solutions for stopping your public library from violating the law, and it is, despite claims it is not. Do not believe a single thing the library director says without first checking into it yourselves; the ALA trains library directors how to mislead people and deflect probing questions. Notice how the ALA spin training has been put to effective use by Rita Hamilton.

Fox News 10 Phoenix, contact me.

Phoenix Library Crime a Well-Kept Secret?

Updated: Wednesday, 07 Mar 2012, 9:56 PM MST

Published : Wednesday, 07 Mar 2012, 9:56 PM MST

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/only_on_fox/phoenix-library-crime-3-7-2012

PHOENIX - We learned last week of a convicted sex offender roaming inside this Phoenix library, in search of his next victims.

And he found at least two.

Last week's arrest was shocking to most -- but sadly -- not to us. Our FOX investigation a few months ago uncovered hundreds of disturbing incidents at Phoenix libraries.

Reports include: a man touching a toddler in the kids section who got away before police arrive -- people looking at porn -- a man getting hostile pushing a guard – a customer threatening to cut another mans throat.

So why is this happening at a place most parents consider safe? This man says he knows why.

He doesn't want to show his face, but he wants to share his story, because he says people need to know about the dangers at the library.

He's worked security his entire adult life, and he worked at that library branch -- but resigned. He felt the library wanted a door greeter, rather than a security guard who would enforce the rules.

"Larry" told us the library should be a safe place, but it's not.

"The library has become a home to vagrants to the homeless, to the drug users…you name it I've seen it all.

"Soliciting for sex in the parking lot, I actually caught them before they… I’ve seen people from the streets, I’ve seen people who just got released from prison, drug addicts, prostitutes, alcohol users," says Larry.

Larry has worked full time security for more than two decades at businesses that are serious about safety.

He took an additional part time job at the library three days a week, but left in November.

"I resigned over frustration over not being able to enforce a lot of rules and regulations," he says.

Larry says the branch manager didn't want him to wear a security uniform, telling him to wear a blazer instead.

"[She thought that] I was being too official looking, too intimidating."

And the two way radios, so security could warn of trouble and ask for help?

"They didn't want the radio on because it was making too much noise for them, so the radios were taken away," says Larry. "She thought I was running people away from there and that there wasn't anyone left."

According to Larry, his manager scolded him for calling the police after a homeless man threatened to kill him.

"She said, I recalled this very clearly, why didn’t you just wake him up and tell him that the rules are you can't sleep here? I said I did do that and he told me to get the f*** out of his face and that point I thought we don't need to be listening to that type of language…he started threatening me."

The top manager for Phoenix libraries is Rita Hamilton.

"We're very concerned, deeply concerned, very sad. We are certainly looking into the Saguaro Library and if there are any security measures we can revise and improve," says Hamilton.

"It’s not really safe and they just don't want it to get out to the public,” counters Larry.

"There's one individual I used to watch because his actions. I used to warn him to stay out the children's area… why are we allowing adults that are not here with children in the children's section?"

Considering the fact that a pedophile on lifetime probation was able to get access to two kids in the children's section of the library -- we posed that question to Hamilton.

"Do you have any restrictions on who can get into the children's section?" we asked.

"No we don't, it's a public building, it's not something we can enforce."

This wasn't the first time that's happened. Security documents show a man tried to lure a child away from the kids section at the Yucca branch.

"They should have someone in that children's section watching that area at all times," says Larry.

And most disturbing -- the sex offenders and parolees he had to help log on to computers to conduct job searches.

"Recent prison releasees come in to use the computers, convicted felons and sex offenders use the computers on a regular basis to apply for work, computers that are feet away from the children's section. Does that concern you?" we asked Hamilton.

"I'm definitely concerned if there's an issue. But we don't have any knowledge of the percentage in those categories," she responded.

Larry says the motto seemed to be -- wait till there's trouble -- then address it.

"Basically you have to wait until something happens before you can take action."

"Well obviously you've got a huge problem with the number of customers who are homeless, mentally ill, drug/alcohol users and generally troublemakers. Why does the library continue to act like that's not an issue and not inform the public of what they're walking into?" we asked.

Hamilton said: "We have 4.3 million visitors per year. To single out that particular segment and say that's the majority is not correct."

But the former security guard says she's wrong.

"I'd say about 60 percent…who come here are bad people."

The library says they are working with Phoenix police to determine if there are ways to make the libraries safer, but unless there is a change in the laws they have to let everyone in.

Larry's suggestion for making it safer starting today -- strictly enforce every library rule so that troublemakers know there's no tolerance for bad behavior.

Follow @SafeLibraries