Tuesday, February 11, 2025

ALA Loses in Louisiana US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Parr v Cougle

American Library Association has lost another case in the courts, this time in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
Yes, ALA was not directly involved.  But the local group that sued or was supporting the plaintiffs was stood up by ALA, something I've proven and reported, and ALA created hundreds of local groups to sue in this fashion:
Here are choice quotes from the Parr v. Cougle case:
Their substantive-due-process claim is based upon alleged reputational injuries they suffered because of “false  charges” that “they are liberal, activist, members of a political conspiracy to s[*]xualize children.”  But Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are insufficient to establish standing because (A) their speech-related injuries are not particularized and (B) their reputational injuries are neither fairly traceable to Defendants’ conduct nor redressable by a favorable decision. 
.... 
Plaintiffs attempt to draw a distinction, arguing that they suffered these injuries in their personal capacities, not as Board members.  But any distinction here is too faint to make a difference.  Indeed, the Article III question whether Plaintiffs have suffered a “particularized” injury necessarily precedes any First Amendment issue raised by Plaintiffs.  

....

At its core, this case is not about viewpoint discrimination, free speech, retaliation, or substantive due process.  Plaintiffs lost their Board positions and thereby lost the power to wield the levers of influence over St. Tammany’s libraries—and they want that control back.  But rather than pursue that aim through the political process, they have “dragged that fight into federal court by tricking it out in [constitutional] colors.”  Jones, 121 F.4th at 537 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 
Here's my take.  People who follow ALA advice and create a local group to say and do what ALA wants get burned in the end, so why expose yourselves to this?  ALA's biggest loss was United States v. American Library Association that allowed libraries to use Internet filtering software.  ALA sought to allow children unfettered access.  ALA lost $1.5M in that fruitless effort.  

ALA lost against me when it had some library employee sue me for defamation ten years ago and lost, twice.  She ultimately lost her beloved job at her library since they lost confidence in her, besides her homophobia that ALA funded and promoted.  ALA even helped fund raise for her.  Meanwhile, she was photographed vacationing in Florida with her family at a beach, so she clearly didn't need the funding.  See her vacationing here:

Now in this St. Tammany Library Alliance case they got told by the 5th Circuit:
Plaintiffs lost their Board positions and thereby lost the power to wield the levers of influence over St. Tammany's libraries—and they want that control back.  But rather than pursue that aim through the political process, they have "dragged that fight into federal court by tricking it out in [constitutional] colors."

That's brutal.

Don't let ALA convince you to file losing lawsuits that trick out minor cases in constitutional colors.

And, to show how devoted this ALA-created local group is to ALA goals, even in the face of a brutal loss, they lie about it, using language that could have come straight from ALA:
February 11, 2025

Joint statement of Anthony Parr, Rebeca Taylor, and Bill McHugh:

We are disappointed that the appeals court ordered our case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and did not resolve the claims of legislative privilege raised by defendants.  Defendants asserted legislative privilege in this case to hide evidence that demonstrates the merits of plaintiff's case.  Plaintiffs lost their positions on the St. Tammany Parish Library Board because members of the Parish Council disfavored their views on certain library materials.

This outcome is a loss for libraries and the communities they serve.  Library board members must be allowed to perform their roles without fear of retaliation and discrimination for defending the public's right to read and access information.
You see, these people have completely lost the plot.  The Courts of Appeals spoke directly against what they are saying here, but they are so blinded by ALA-colored glasses that that can't see what they said is completely false.  Instead, they decry the loss of the "public's right to read and access information."  That has absolutely zero to do with this case.  The Court said, "At its core, this case is not about viewpoint discrimination, free speech, retaliation, or substantive due process."  "But rather than pursue that aim through the political process, they have 'dragged that fight into federal court by tricking it out in [constitutional] colors.'"

People, don't listen to ALA.  ALA gives bad advice.  ALA gives loser advice that leads to losing.  Groups ALA starts don't even see it because they completely believe the ALA propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

By the way, now that US Department of Education has exposed ALA's "book ban" hoax, these ALA-engendered cases are only going to become faster losers than they would have been initially.  My advice is to stay away from ALA's advice.  Your pocketbook and your brain will thank you.


NOTE ADDED 12 FEBRUARY 2025:

Others have written about this matter and the excuses of those pushing the ALA agenda:




In light of the total loss by the ALA astroturfers, it's interesting to look back at their claims and how media portrayed them essentially uncritically and with loaded language:



—
URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Location: St Tammany Parish, LA, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)