Saturday, October 10, 2009

ALA is Duplicitous and Fraudulent, Censors Whomever It Wants, Suppresses Intellectual Freedom, and Joins the Jihad

The title of this blog post is strongly worded. Not a single one of those descriptions is made up. They come directly from the American Library Association's [ALA] latest censorship victim or his attorney. It's unbelievable how the ALA gets away with this given it is the nation's self-arrogated "censorship" police.

Is the ALA trying to convince your community to sidestep legal means to protect children, like in Owosso, MI? Is the ALA telling your community not to "censor"? Is "Banned Books Week" promoted heavily? Do you think the ALA is authoritative? Then you need to know exactly how two-faced is the ALA.

Fully read the following from the attorney for the latest of the ALA's censorship victims—your eyes will pop out:

And hear directly from the victim of the ALA's scorn:

See also my previous blog post on this topic when it first occurred, and also the comments where I link to the ALA making more excuses, and I renew my call for the ALA to include the speaker it censored at the next opportunity:

Hey, ALA! You read my blog posts, do you have anything to say about this? Deborah-Caldwell Stone, you decry "censorship" to convince communities to leave children unprotected by legal means available to protect them, can you please comment on this ALA censorship matter? The ALA looks really bad right now; somebody better say something to explain or correct the ALA's "suppression of intellectual freedom."



  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. You say "Not a single one of those descriptions is made up", but then say "They come directly from the American Library Association's [ALA] latest censorship victim or his attorney."

    So, how do you know that what the "victim" or "his attorney" claim is actually true?

    That's like if I say "Dan Kleinman is a zoophile", and claim that its not made up, simply because someone else claims that it is a fact.

    Just because person X says a is true doesn't make a true, especially if person x is suing the subject of claim a.

  3. Dan,

    Would you say that this is a comedy blog or would you characterize it more as performance art?


  4. you really think the ALA has joined a jihad? This blog has gone way over the deep end...

  5. This blog is the truth. Stop mocking it and respect it. You don't want your ideas mocked, so what gives you the right to put theirs down? And no it is NOT over the deep end.

    I think there's usually a lot more backing up the claims than just what someone says, too.

  6. Thank you, Melinda. All these months later the ALA has still not invited Robert Spencer back.

  7. Yes, the ALA should absolutely invite someone who calls them duplicitous, fraudulent, jihadists to their meetings. Because not ushering you to podium I am paying for is clearly the dictionary definition of censorship. Yeah, uh-huh, absolutely.

  8. Nice try, Mikemonaco. They said that AFTER the ALA censored them out, etc. Further, the right thing to do is invite him back, if only to show he is wrong. And the censorship to which they are referring is the censorship to which the ALA has admitted, so that is not in question.

    But Robert Spencer is not the only one the ALA won't invite. How about anyone who is conservative. See "The Conservatives Among Us, by Will Manley, American Libraries, 30 September 2010.


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