Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Flat Out Lying by Caroline Martin, San Jose Public Library Commissioner

San Jose Public Library's commissioner, Caroline Martin, is flat out lying to the public. 100% lying. She is saying, "The fact is, Internet filters are censorship." No. Internet filters are legal and pose no threat of censorship when used properly. See United States v. American Library Association [ALA].

Really, read the case. Then read the propaganda below reprinted from, and remember this propaganda shows Caroline Martin and others are representing the interests of the ALA, those not of San Jose citizens or San Jose State University students.

Either Caroline Martin is completely incompetent or she is flat out lying to the public and the media.

I shall intercalate my comments below:

Books Not Filters
Take Action to Stop Censorship in Your Library
"Libraries are community treasure chests, loaded with a wealth of information available to everyone equally, and the key to that treasure chest is the library card."
– Former First Lady Laura Bush

We agree with Mrs. Bush. [SafeLibraries: True, but the material specifically excludable under US v. ALA is not part of the subset of "information" that should be "available to everyone equally," else why would the US Supreme Court allow for excluding certain material.]

Right now, the San Jose Public Library system is under attack.
[SafeLibraries: False. The library used to comply with community interests. Now it complies with the interests of the ALA, a third party organization that believes it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep any material from children no matter what the US Supreme Court said about this. Community efforts to restore control of the library to local interests is not an "attack." If anything, it's a response to the setting aside of local interests by ALA acolytes following ALA directives.] In the coming weeks, the San Jose City Council will consider a proposal to impose Internet filters in public libraries called the "Internet Pornography Filter Policy." [SafeLibraries: False. To "impose" is to bring about as if by force. Actually, the ALA acolytes imposed the current system on the public, likely by using the same propaganda it's using now. A representative government acts on behalf of its citizens--it does not "impose" anything.] The proposal is an attack on civil liberties and masquerades as child protection. [SafeLibraries: False. I suppose by this reasoning the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA attacked civil liberties and masqueraded as child protection.] The fact is, Internet filters are censorship. [SafeLibraries: False. See US v. ALA. The ALA lost on this very issue. Caroline Martin knows or should know this.] Moreover, filters do not accomplish the job proponents would have us believe. [SafeLibraries: False. Even the ACLU now says filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related web sites. See ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007.]

We are asking you to take action against this proposal.

How big a problem is pornography in our public libraries?
This proposal is a solution in search of problem. The advocates pushing the censorship proposal
[SafeLibraries: False, it's not "censorship."] make the claim that our libraries are a dangerous place for kids because there is pornography coming out of every book and every computer screen. This could not be further from the truth. Last year, in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library there were only ten complaints among 700,000 Internet sessions – or roughly 0.001% of Internet sessions leading to complaints. And, last year, roughly 1,400,000 Internet sessions netted zero complaints in the branch libraries. In fact, over the past decade, the Library administration received an average of 3 complaints per year. [SafeLibraries: False in that it is misleading. Consider the following:

San Francisco Bay Area, CA: "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," KGO, 29 Nov 2006, "[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.'"

Now reread what Caroline Martin said then decide if she is being intentionally misleading.]

"Second-hand porn," as advocates like to call it, is not an issue at any of our libraries.
[SafeLibraries: False, as the above news story proves. I really don't understand how she thinks she can get away with these flat out lies.] We have made it a point to visit our libraries dozens if not hundreds of times going out of our way to look for inappropriate content, and never once have we seen anything objectionable on others' screens. [SafeLibraries: Great, the "avert your eyes" people didn't see anything. They have no credibility in this case.]

Let the City Council know that you don’t believe in solutions in search of problems.

In the midst of the City’s budget crisis, is this the best way to spend limited resources?
[SafeLibraries: Desparation is evident here where this red herring argument is raised, as the first argument to "let the City Council know," no less. Besides, is "limited resources" a reason to leave children exposed to what ABC7 Dan Noyes reported?] At a time when the City Council is considering cutting the most vital City services – this is not the time to waste money to buy expensive, ineffective computer software for the more than 800 library computers. Just this week, the City Council is considering whether to cut millions of dollars from health care education for kids or fund crossing guards. These things are vital for young people’s health and safety. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball and spend our valuable tax dollars where they make a difference. [SafeLibraries: So this entire paragraph of what to tell the City Council relates only to financial concerns.]

Send a message to the City Council that you think there are other priorities for the City’s limited budget.

Who is sponsoring the so-called "Internet Pornography Filter Policy"?
The "Internet Pornography Filter Policy" is being sponsored by the Values Advocacy Council.
[SafeLibraries: The second reason to "let the City Council know" is that the people seeking to protect children are from the Values Advocacy Council. In other words, attack the messenger. The messenger of the message is supposedly so far out that we are all supposed to ignore the message in the first place. The use of ad hominem argument is merely a further sign of desperation at not having a legitimate substantive claim to make.] The Values Advocacy Council is using their Council ally, Councilmember Pete Constant, to push this proposal. [SafeLibraries: What a joke. Here's an organization that works tirelessly to gain allies in the government. Entire sections of library associations are devoted to library advocacy. But let Values Advocacy Council get just one ally and that's supposedly another reason to leave children unprotecting by legally available and effective means.] To make their case, the Values Advocacy Council is making the outrageous claim that young people could turn into serial killers if Internet filters are not imposed on library computers. [SafeLibraries: VAC is closer to the truth here than is Caroline Martin who in the midst of another ad hominem argument.] This is a scare tactic plain and simple. [SafeLibraries: And lying to the public isn't?] The Values Advocacy Council and Councilmember Constant are giving the City Council a false choice between kids and pornography. Only you can give the City Council the courage to stand up for what is right.

Tell the City Council that you believe censorship has no place in our libraries.
[SafeLibraries: False, legal filters under US v. ALA are not "censorship," so Pete Constant is not seeking to censor anything. I'll say that again. Pete Constant is not seeking to censor anything.]

The proponents of the “Internet Pornography Filtering Policy” are well-organized and highly motivated.
[SafeLibraries: Perhaps, but so is the library. I learned about this from a very large email distribution list from the ALA itself. Hundreds of ALA members are being urged to respond, indeed anyone nationwide, perhaps thousands: "If you believe that filtering is not in our library's interests, please review the email below, take a look at the Books Not Filters website, and if you feel so inclined, email our council members. .... You can forward this message on to anyone else you know who might be against filters in the San Jose Public Library, or any library for that matter."] We need your help to stand up to this proposal and provide support for our brave City Councilmembers who may oppose this policy. Protect all our kids and grandkids today and tomorrow, let the council know censorship does not belong in our libraries.

Send an email to the Mayor and City Council today. Have your voice heard.
[Safelibraries: False. People are lied to then told to voice a concern, but that voice is really Caroline Martin's. When people learn the truth, like about US v. ALA, when they are truly informed instead of misinformed, then they would instead call to encourage Pete Constant.]

Thank you for your time and for standing up for our libraries.
[SafeLibraries: False. Acting out based on propaganda and flat out lies only means unwittingly standing up for ALA values, not local community interests purposefully left ignorant of US v. ALA.]


Caroline Martin
San Jose Library Commissioner*

Catherine Graham
San Jose Library Commissioner*

Mike Hoa Nguyen
San Jose Library Commissioner*

*Titles listed for identification purposes only. The Commissioners are not speaking on behalf of the Library Commission.
[SafeLibraries: Excuse me? Now you tell us? It's irrelevant anyway as this web site is being broadcast for action by librarians nationwide, and by people acting in their official capacities, like in the ALA.]

Please, ask your friends to take action [SafeLibraries: This is from Caroline Martin to a prominent librarian in this area geographically and topically. Anything to spread the propaganda. One ALA member then retransmitted this to hundreds of ALA members. See how this works? The citizens of San Jose are not this well organized and are about to get crushed ... again.]
This email was sent to by
Email Marketing by

Books Not Filters | 468 S Ninth St | San Jose | CA | 95112

No comments:

Post a Comment

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