The National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] is promoting pornography. Literally, promoting porn. Colored ribbons, contacting elected representatives, thanking porn purveyors, sending money to the ACLU, everything. This is the very same organization that writes to communities nationwide to convince them not to legally protect children from inappropriate material, like in Leesburg, FL, or West Bend, WI, etc. It even has a "Book Censorship Toolkit" for public schools and a "First Amendment in Schools: Resource Guide."
"[P]orn is NOT connected with ... child molestation...." And the NCAC wants to be considered a legitimate resource? What a disgrace.
When the NCAC comes into your town to tell your leaders how not to protect your children, you'll know what to do after reading this:
"Plaid Ribbons for Pornography Awareness,"
by National Coalition Against Censorship,
Blogging Censorship,
30 October 2009.
by National Coalition Against Censorship,
Blogging Censorship,
30 October 2009.
Kids' Right to Read Project? Sponsored in part by the NCAC? That must be a joke. As Judith Krug of the American Library Association said, "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
Unless this porn promotion is a joke, the NCAC has clearly lost all credibility.
.
Anybody out there know what the late Ms. Krug's actual words were in the above quotation? Only the words within the inner quotes ('don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore') are Ms. Krug's words, and that is only a sentence fragment.
ReplyDeleteThe words in the outer quote ("Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy") are the words of Focus On Family Citizen magazine, not Ms. Krug. This is quite clear if locate the quote in the source SafeLibries links that quote to.
So what did she really say?
too bad she is no longer with us to defend/clarify her words.
DeleteHeather, thanks for commenting. I agree completely. I was so looking forward to meeting her at Lawyers for Libraries where she was one of the trainers. Unfortunately, the ALA violated PA Court Rules to make up an excuse to keep me from taking the training. So much for equal access and intellectual freedom as practiced by the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, ironically. Her replacements are not nearly so sharp. I am very sorry I missed her.
DeleteWell, that's why I provided the quote accurately and the source material in its entirety, as is my habit, and just for reasons such as the one Non-Censor raises.
ReplyDeleteHere is that source again:
"What Lurks in the Library? - The American Library Association Believes Children Should Have Access to All Material, No Matter How Violent or Obscene," by Scott DeNicola, (Focus on the Family) Citizen, 18 September 1995.
"Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
Dear Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that librarians and municipal government are responsible for raising your children?
Chuck
You did provide the quote, per se, accurately. But the sentence you wrote was not accurate. You wrote:
ReplyDeleteAs Judith Krug of the American Library Association said, "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
Your sentence, as ordered and punctuated puts exact words into the mouth of Ms. Krug, which, in fact, she did not utter.
Hello - and welcome to my pet peeve - faulty logic and "Photoshopped" quotations. There is nothing wrong with taking a stand, but do your cause the service of responsible journalism.
DeleteHello again, Heather. I answered the original question years ago in the comment below. Only a recent Google Blogger upgrade introduced this new method of creating sub-comments. That was not available years ago. So my answer from years ago shown below answers the original eristic charges and your current comments about journalistic integrity.
DeleteI read them, thanks.
DeleteI provided complete punctuation. The double quotes and the single quotes are present and reflect the original. I provided the entire document that was the source of the quote. The quote is obviously not mine, and the portion that is Judith Krug's is obvious as well. I constructed the sentence in the normal manner that anyone would construct such sentences. Anyone can read the source and decide for himself if the author's sentence accurately presents the truth of the matter reported by the author.
ReplyDeleteYet you are saying I'm putting words in someone's mouth.
This is an example of your turning almost every issue into one where I am the target of your attacks. The NCAC literally pushing porn while at the same time advising local communities and school districts about "censorship," that you don't comment about. I suppose that is acceptable to you, but my typical use of punctuation is not.
In this case, you are cleverly accusing me.... No. You are expressly saying "Your sentence, as ordered and punctuated puts exact words into the mouth of Ms. Krug, which, in fact, she did not utter."
I followed all rules humanly possible to follow to ensure the quote was as accurately quoted as possible and the source was as accessible as possible. I wrote it no differently than someone else would have written it under the circumstances.
Yet here you are, Non-Censor, telling me, telling my audience, "Your sentence, as ordered and punctuated puts exact words into the mouth of Ms. Krug, which, in fact, she did not utter." In other words, I'm a liar and can't be trusted. Is there any other interpretation? It is a regular theme of yours in attack after attack.
Non-Censor, your comments are largely ad hominem in nature, have been made over a long period of time, and serve only to detract from the issue at hand. I have worked with you to change that, and for a blog post or two, you actually truly contributed for the first time, and I even pointed that out to you, even getting positive attention from the ALA. I thanked you for that.
However, given the above and even despite my removing your persistent personal attacks from my previous blog post, you come back here and claim I am making things up despite my accurate and proper use of punctuation and link to a reliable source, and my sentence structure that anyone would have used without being accused of intentionally lying.
At some point one has to give up on a lost cause. Getting you to address issues instead of attacking me personally with falsity like illustrated by your current comments has been sincerely attempted by me, but I have obviously failed.
Sadly, I do not have the time to evaluate and respond to your persistent, personal attacks any longer. Please do not further write on my blog posts. If you do, I will remove your comments ASAP given the above circumstances and the obviousness that your attacks will never end no matter what I do, sad as that truly makes me. Do not write on my blog posts any further.
You do yourself a disservice when you immediately label dissent as a "personal attack." I know you believe in what you are fighting for - but don't assassinate your own credibility by using sketchy tactics. You are better than that.
DeleteHeather, thanks for commenting. Non-Censor is basically the one and only heckler I have, switching between looking like asking legitimate questions, then turning on a dime and attacking. It's rare on my blog here but it does happen, especially in this three year old post. His comments are often eristic, let alone ad hominem in nature. I do no "disservice" by standing up to his behavior. Many blog owners do the same. Calling out someone for using ad hominem argument is not a "sketchy tactic." The use of ad hominem argument in the first place is what's sketchy, not calling it out.
Deleteit is the straw-man fallacy I was referring to. And now I am REALLY going to pack. :-) Good night!
DeleteGood night. Have fun at ALA 2012.
DeleteWell, first of all, the link you provided is actually promoting pornography awareness rather than simply promoting porn. True, the awareness that is being promoted is not particularly critical, but I think it is important to make the distinction between promoting discussions and openness about porn and actually promoting porn. For instance saying, "people that use porn should be open about their use of it," is not the same as saying, "people should use porn." You may feel that one inevitably leads to the other, but it seems an important distinction.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it should also be pointed out, just for sake of completeness, that the blog was actually written by Marty Klein as a guest blogger for the site.
Finally, not to be pedantic, but Non-Censor's point is salient: You said "As Judith Krug of the American Library Association said, 'Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy "don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore."'" That is incorrect. Judith Krug did not say that, Scott DeNicola said that using a quote of Judith Krug within that statement. At the very least the way you phrased it implies that Judith Krug said the entire statement and was quoting the phrase, "don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore," from another source. That is wrong as the phrase itself was Judith Krug's. But the real problem is that you're saying that Judith Krug used the words "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy" which she almost certainly did not (otherwise why would Mr. DeNicola not include those words in a quote?). The distinction between the two parts of the quote needs to be made because we're not actually sure what context lead DeNicola to paraphrase Krug as such.
Loki Motive, thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteDirecting people to "use some" is promoting porn, not just porn awareness. The NCAC advises people on its blog to "use porn." Unbelievable, isn't it?
SafeLibraries takes no position regarding legal pornography or its use. Further, issues SafeLibraries addresses involve "inappropriate material for children" as used in US v. ALA, which is not the same thing as porn. I do, however, oppose things that are illegal, including illegal pornography. You would agree this is a reasonable stance, yes?
Dr. Marty Klein is a very interesting character. I know, I have spoken with him once or twice. You see, he gave a talk at one of the big ALA meetings about, among other things, groups like mine that supposedly oppose porn. The ALA first pegged me, incorrectly, as "anti-porn," for example. Regarding Dr. Klein's appearance at the ALA meeting, see "Libraries, Librarians, and America's War on Sex," by Jen Hammond, OIF Blog, 1 July 2009: "Come hear how to respond to the 'protecting the children' arguments and how to protect everyone's access to sexuality-related material." See also my own blog on this, "ALA Mocks 'Protecting the Children'" dated 1 July 2009.
You can even see Dr. Klein give his ALA speech!
I explained to Dr. Klein my concerns had to do with inappropriate material for children, not pornography. Dr. Klein actually appreciated the difference and appreciated hearing from me. Later, he discovered that I opposed illegal pornography, so he provided this flowery comment: "I see you have signed on to the hysterical, scurrilous, and dishonest ADF letter to AG Holder," then he swore I lied originally and he would never talk to me again. He hasn't. To me, that's an interesting character!
Illegal pornography is illegal, and I oppose anything that is illegal. Legal pornography is legal, and SafeLibraries takes no position on legal pornography, other than when SafeLibraries started when my late partner said, quite reasonably, "Pornography and children don’t mix. This is not my opinion; it is fact." That's not anti-pornography. However, the town mayor put it best:
The Oak Lawn (Ill.) Village Board announced at an October 25 meeting that it was writing to city library trustees to request that they revisit their June decision to retain Playboy magazine over the objections of an area resident. “There is a difference between censorship and sponsorship,” Oak Lawn Mayor and Board President David Heilmann remarked, according to the October 26 Chicago Daily Southtown. “If someone wants the magazine, that’s fine. They can buy it at a store.”
Source: "Town Leaders Reopen Playboy Decision," by the ALA, American Libraries, 28 October 2005.
[More....]
[...Continuing]
ReplyDeleteYou are correct the blog text was actually written by Dr. Klein, but the NCAC republished it, on its own blog, 5 days later, saying, square brackets in original, "[Dr. Marty Klein ... is our guest blogger today! We post from his great blog, Sexual Intelligence, from October 25.]" So yes, the blog was actually written by Dr. Klein, but the NCAC fully supported that "great blog" and reposted it. Furthermore, I wrote directly to the NCAC and asked, "NCAC, Tell me you are joking, yes?" I have received no response. The NCAC is not joking. Dr. Klein's "great blog" is now the NCAC's "great blog."
And, by the way, Dr. Klein writing that is not an issue at all. The problem is the NCAC telling people to use porn. Could you imagine if the ALA told people to use porn? Imagine if SafeLibraries told people to use porn. Dr. Klein is an expert whose opinion is porn is not only harmless, it is helpful. The NCAC is an organization advising communities about public schools challenges related to inappropriate material. The NCAC should not be advising people to use porn. The NCAC has destroyed its credibility, unless it does something to withdraw its direction to use porn, at a minimum.
Lastly, as to that Krug quote, notice you added bolding to the word "said" that I did not add. Yet I'm not complaining you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not focusing on that to avoid your main point.
As to the Krug quote, the full sentence was needed for context, the very context from the source itself, else the sentence would have said, "As Judith Krug of the American Library Association said, 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'" Not only is that grammatically wrong, but that would give a 100% opposite view of the truth.
Further, Non-Censor has repeatedly made personal attacks against me, each apparently designed to detract from the issues raised. This has gone on for months without end. Long, boring diatribes no one wants to read. I just decided I had had enough, and my readers would likely benefit as well.
I think sometimes he does not even realize what he was saying was a personal attack. For example, he said "So what is this legal basis for restricting access to this book that you imagine (and I mean IMAGINE) exists?" and did not realize I did not appreciate his screaming to my readers--that's what caps are for on blogs--that I was IMAGING something on an issue that had little to do with the issues I raised in my blog. I even specifically disclaimed that issue.
Next came the Krug quote where he said I was putting words in her mouth.
I'm IMAGING things? I'm putting words into people's mouths? These are not personal attacks going directly to my mental acuity and innate honesty? Do you want me to scream on your blog that you are stupid and dishonest? And he made these types of comments for months on end. Actually, it is his style, as I am not his only victim. I think he has even gone after some of the guests who comment on my blog posts. I know he's been banned elsewhere for substantially similar reasons.
Well, I just grew tired of his persistent, non-issue personal attacks and my need to respond to correct the record. It has been a big relief off my shoulders. There would be times I would dread seeing how the guy attacked me now. He's called me a censor of the worst order, profoundly ignorant, on and on.
Think I'm making any of this up? Look at his blog. The last 5 posts are about me, for example. Look at the West Bend, WI, web site he started. He specifically says his opposition to me is his motivation. At least he also states he has no real experience in library matters, though his wielding of inapposite cases might make you think otherwise.
Loki Motive, exactly how much abuse do you think it is appropriate for me to take?