Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Library Violates Rights of Chinese American; Women Beaten, Warned Not to Call Police Without Permission, and Banned for Using Husband's Library Card

A library may have violated the rights of a Chinese American, according to Chin-Li Mou v. City of San Jose and San Jose Public Library Education Park Branch. Chin-Li Mou was banned for six months for using her husband's library card to obtain access to the Internet. She asked some children to simmer down given library policy on that issue. The library ordered her not to disturb the children despite their violating library policy. One of the children causing the disturbance followed her outside after the library kicked her out for trying to get the library to follow its own policy. Then the child beat her mercilessly. Unbelievably, when police arrived at the woman's call to 911, the assailant's school security intervened and prevented the police from speaking with the woman!

When the woman called the police another day after seeing the assailant in the library, this time the library staff intervened. Likely as a result of that intervention, the police were "rude and disrespectful" toward her. The police said the children "were born in this country and since [she] was not fortunate enough to be born here [her] rights were subordinated to their rights." She became an American eleven years ago. The police then warned her she would be arrested if she "so much as talked to the Independent high school students."

Did the library defend her freedom of speech? No. Did the library decry the police's unequal treatment based on her national origin? No. Has the American Library Association [ALA] taken any action? No. Instead, the library warned her to get permission before calling the police. Imagine--this is the same library that opposes asking librarians for permission to disable Internet filters and is recommending no filters at all.

Calling the police to prevent assault and battery? Get permission. Viewing child p()rn? No permission is needed. Freedom of speech for Chinese Americans? No. Freedom of speech for child p()rnographers? What do you think--has the Lindsay, CA, library employee fired for calling police on someone viewing child p()rn been rehired yet? No, and don't hold your breath.

This is in the same library that is misleading the public regarding San Jose Councilman Pete Constant's efforts to rid the library of the ALA's influence. See "Demonstration Proves Library Filters Work; San Jose Councilman Pete Constant Counters Library Director's False Claims."

This is the same library where the chief librarian, Jane Light, was caught by the media flat out lying. See "P()rn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," KGO, 29 Nov 2006.

You have to read the complaint itself to believe this. Here's the complaint, and I found it easiest to click the "Download PDF" link at the bottom:


  1. So what does this have to do with internet port? Or, maybe you just don't like kid's using the public library? They ARE such pests! Lets not just get rid of the internet, lets get rid of kids, too!

  2. Good questions, Alan. Thank you for writing.

    The case in and of itself has nothing to do with Internet porn. However, this occurred in the very same library system that is now saying filters are not needed because policies will adequately control the situation.

    If the facts as presenting in Ms. Mou's lawsuit are true, library policies are selectively enforced by the library, not consistently enforced.

    Relying on librarians who already do not enforce policies regarding unruly behavior to enforce an Internet policy would be silly, don't you think? Especially in light of the flat out lying done by the library, such as exposed in Dan Noyes investigative report where the chief librarian Jane Light claimed "privacy filters" protect people but the camera clearly showed the filters were worthless, then Jane Light made light of that finding saying just "avert your eyes." Well if the policy is to avert your eyes, why have "privacy screens" in the first place and why claim they are effective?

  3. Further, the claimed problem with filters is that they may violate the First Amendment. Nevermind US v. ALA found this false.

    In the Mou case, it seems it is alleged the library violated her First Amendment rights, among other things. So to stop filters the library claims First Amendments rights, but drops any interest in the same rights when it comes to Ms. Mou.

    To me, that shows how false the library's claim of defending First Amendment rights is. And it evidences that there is another motive being hidden.

  4. I read her complaint, and the library's response. This is a cranky old lady that doesn't like being around kids. They bother her. She gets pissed off and makes a scean. So what? Her 1st amendment rights were not violated, and she is going to go nowhere with her crank lawsuit.

    Librarys DO care about real1st amendment rights and they do a good job of protecting them. Library patrons should be able to use the facilities without having big brother look over their shoulder. That includes electronic content censorship.

    By the way, this is why the libraries have an interest in the FISA court issues. Since their patrons use the internet, and since it often routes through out-of-country servers, they would be exposed to warrentless snooping. The libraries would eventually be required to help spy on their patrons, as happened with at least one of the warentless "national security letters".

    I think you should relax and just get used to the fact that we are going to have a few kids looking at dirty pictures on the internet. Big deal. It won't be the end of the world.


Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.