Thursday, December 29, 2011

LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries

It appears a Los Angeles Times editorial supports filtering pornography out of public library computers!  Based in part on the recent masturbation incident in Laguna Beach about which I wrote, it is clear the LA Times is becoming frustrated with the usual American Library Association [ALA] misinformation.  It even senses the censorship claim is false where librarians use selection everyday, but for them it is called selection, not censorship.  And, to be clear, porn in public libraries may be easily and legally blocked.  See if you get the same read I did:

Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency
Editorial by Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, December 29, 2011

The Times' editorial board has been pondering the availability of pornography in the library, an issue that catches the public's eye every few months when one of the porn viewers misbehaves, or parents find it's hard for their children to browse the stacks without catching on eyeful.  Most recently, it was the November arrest of a homeless man in the Laguna Beach library for allegedly fonding [sic] himself while viewing porn, with a crowd of seven other men around him.  It's the advent of the Internet, of course, that creates this new scene in the library.  Some parents in the town are now calling for the porn sites to be blocked.

Editorial writers and editors were as bothered as anyone else by the thought that an institution we revere as much as the public library—remember that most journalists grew up with their noses in books—was being used to view lurid photos.  It was pointed out that, although librarians hotly defend against censorship of any kind, nonetheless they make value judgments all the time about what sort of materials should be available in libraries, by purchasing news and home magazines rather than nudie publications.  On the Internet, though, porn is, like most things, free.  Keeping it away from patrons involves an active step, just as it takes an active—and costly—step of purchasing pornography in print to make it available.

"Lady Chatterley's Lover" was once considered pornography, not just unsuitable for a library but illegal to sell in some countries a little more than half a century ago.  Banning materials from the library because the majority of people find them distasteful is a dicey step.  What might the majority find unsuitable next?  Something that you want to read, perhaps?  Yet all patrons to the library should be able to search for books and videos without patently offensive material shining across the room at them.

Whose rights matter more?

This is the first major paper of which I am aware expressing frustration over unfiltered porn in public libraries.  Hopefully there will be many more.  The fear of the ALA is obviously beginning to melt away.

Bravo, Los Angeles Times!  Hey, it's not "banning" to block from the library what US v. ALA says is legal to block.  So no worries about being "dicey."


It appears the @LATimesOpinion approves of what I have had to say:

@LATimesOpinion retweets my tweet to 3,188 followers!

And now, @_ViceReport:

@_ViceReport retweets another of my tweets to 1,144 followers!


Another retweet, this time by @ImDanielleEGray, who later thanked me for my work for children:

@ImDanielleEGray retweets yet another of my tweets to 1,169 followers!


The LA Times has now devoted a second editorial to the issue, and has come out four square in favor of filtering out porn from public libraries!

Here is the comment I left there:
SafeLibraries at 8:44 AM January 3, 2012

It appears my comments on the LA Times Editorial of only days ago have struck home, and the LA Times has openly come out four square in favor of filtering the Internet in public libraries!  While it doesn't get things 100% correct, it comes really close.  It is fantastic to see such a major media source exposing the library propaganda to fresh air.

See LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries

Improvements could be that the US v. ALA case applies whether or not the library gets funding since the relevant issue was decided first, only then was it applied to libraries getting funding.  Also, privacy screens are a complete failure and everyone knows it.  Anyone remember the Dan Noyes KABC report catching library director Jean Light in a lie, showing the screens do not work right on TV?  And porn may be simply excluded--no need for a special area for adult viewing.

But the LA Times on the whole is outstanding!  Really, I am very happy to read it, and to see that the editorial board really gave it a lot of thought and saw through the false information that has become an ALA standard.

Bravo, LA Times!  May other media sources loss their fear of the ALA and also call for filtering porn out of public libraries.  


I just remembered I wrote this:

I am now in the media due to my comments on the LA Times's first editorial:


New Jersey ACLU attorney Grayson Barber has written a substantially false and misleading piece on LibraryLaw Blog apparently intended to convince the Los Angeles Times Editorial staff to reverse its position favoring Internet filters.  I will be writing soon exactly how and why she is so wrong and intentionally so (hint: US v. ALA).  Here is the materially false information for your own review before I publish mine (assuming it has not yet been changed):

By the way, I made a courtesy call to Grayson Barber, Esq., to advise her that her article was substantially misleading and to give her the opportunity to consider changing it on her own before I  responded substantively.  I got a call back from the ACLU-NJ communications manager.  I provided an example of the false information (US v. ALA says the exact opposite of what Ms. Grayson recommended) and, when asked, said my goal was that people should be given accurate information.  I suggested Ms. Barber could change the article before I wrote about it.  She said she would let Ms. Barber know.  Good.  I tipped my hand because I believe in fairness.  I hope she does change the article.


Los Angeles Public Library gets investigated by Inside Edition, and it looks quite embarrassing for the library.  How long will the library drag its feet after the LA Times has called for Internet filters?

  • "Inside Edition Investigates: Who's Lurking In Your Library?," by Paul Boyd, Inside Edition, 22 February 2012:
    INSIDE EDITION found men watching hardcore pornography–not it in the privacy of their homes or some sleazy adult store–they were doing it in a public library.  And library patrons were shocked.

    "That is completely absurd.  Nobody should be doing that in public," said one man.   Another woman–who happens to be librarian said, "It offends everyone.  And it's something that should not be done in public."

    But believe it or not, it's perfectly legal and even permitted in many libraries across the country.


    We found another guy at the Los Angeles Library's downtown branch in Chinatown watching porn–right next to two young children.

    When we asked him, "Do you realize there were children right next to you while you were watching the adult videos?"

    All he said was, "No...No...No...No," and walked away.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

School Superintendents May Remove Explicit Books Immediately; Waterland by Graham Swift Removed from Salem High School, Canton, MI

Cover of Waterland
What a pleasure to see a school superintendent using common sense by immediately removing inappropriate material from children.  See, for example, "School District Bans Swift Novel," by Brad KadrichObserver, 25 December 2011, if you can wade through the media spin, right down to the word "ban" in the title.  It's not book "banning" to keep inappropriate material from school children.  Besides, most people support keeping explicit material from children in public schools.  Bravo to Superintendent Dr. Jeremy Hughes:

Hughes said he asked the book's use to be discontinued after reading a passage that contains a particularly explicit depiction of a sexual act.

He made the decision without following the district's usual process, and admittedly without knowing there was such a process.  He has since learned the process includes the complaining parent filling out a form documenting their objections, which is then reviewed by a committee before a decision is made.

Hughes said he "jumped over that process for a couple of reasons.  He thought the material was too graphic for high school students, and he felt whatever process was in place would take too long and a decision 'needed to be made' on the material.

"I read passages from the book and I was personally shocked and offended," Hughes said.  "I decided the presentation of the material was so graphically sexual that I just felt it was not something high school students should be reading."

Even better, he does so despite the American Library Association [ALA] making up the rule that you can only remove such books after a long "materials reconsideration" process.  "A hearing on challenged material is serious and often lengthy."  "Be clear that materials under reconsideration will not be removed from use, or have access restricted, pending completion of the reconsideration process."

Other school superintendents have reacted similarly.  The squirting sperm book was immediately removed from a school in Arizona, for example, despite the false cries of censorship from the ALA acolytes.

School superintendents should know they can immediately pull inappropriate books and not have to comply with some rule made up by some organization from out of town.

Whom should the community trust with their children?  Their own superintendent who has a long history of dedication to education of community children, or the American Library Association who allowed an ACLU state leader to change the way librarians would approach children by enforcing the ACLU's anything-goes policy on the ALA and thereby local communities.

Dr. Hughes, don't give up, and you didn't "ban" the book:

But with social media and other websites blowing up with criticism, mostly of his unilateral decision to ban the book, Hughes admits that idea backfired.

"Most of the criticism has been over the lack of the process as opposed to the content of the book itself," Hughes said.  "There are many people who believe had the process been used, the book would have been exonerated.  I'm not sure that it would have.

"I don't know if this could have been avoided if I had used the process, but there are many who think so," Hughes added.  "Certainly in the future, I intend to make sure the process is used."


The school superintendent has decided to do exactly what I recommended or would have recommended, namely, keep the book from the children while the review process takes place.  He has not caved in and he has not followed ALA guidance to do the exact opposite:

"Statement Regarding the Book, Waterland, by Graham Swift," by Jeremy M. Hughes, Ph.D.Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, 29 December 2011:
Over the past several weeks there has been a flurry of comment regarding my earlier decision to withdraw the Graham Swift book, Waterland, from the Advanced Placement Literature curriculum at the Park.

I had originally explained that passages from the book that had been submitted to me in a parent complaint were shocking in their graphic explicitness and, in my judgment, not suitable for a high school English class. As a former high school English and Latin teacher, I am certainly aware that much of modern literature contains sexual material. It was my judgment, however, that the passages I read from Waterland had crossed the line in terms of graphic portrayal of sexual activity.

Although it has been argued that I took action solely on the complaint of one parent, it was my judgment at the time that the majority of parents in Plymouth-Canton would have a similar objection if they read what I read.

As it turns out, from the comments I have received from parents, community members, students, and media commentators, what HAS become overwhelmingly objectionable to the community is my decision to remove the book without instituting the complaint and review processes provided for in our district’s Administrative Guidelines.

Respecting what I now perceive to be the wishes of the community at large, I am modifying the earlier decision I made regarding the book and will be putting the book through the review processes outlined in the Administrative Guidelines. Until that process is finished, I will ask that the book still not be used in class.

The process requires the creation of a committee of teachers, parents, administrators, literary experts, and community members who will be invited to read the book, consider arguments for and against its use, and in the end, develop a recommendation to the administration. It will be my intention to accept the recommendation of the review committee.

Jeremy M. Hughes, Ph.D.
Plymouth-Canton Community Schools
December 29, 2011


Res ipsa loquitur:

This poll from the CantonPatch shows, like the Harris Poll, most
want the explicit books removed from the public school.
Res ipsa loquitur.


Please visit a new parent group opposing explicit books in local public schools that started as a direct result of the few falsely shouting "censorship":

And see the story about them:


Yesterday I noticed that the poll I pictured above showing most people wanted the books removed was substantially similar in percentages to yesterday's percentages.  Both those numbers from my first publication and from yesterday are remarkably close to the majority determined in the Harris Poll who also oppose explicit books in public schools.

Today is different.  A massive shift has occurred.  The poll has been inverted.  In a single day.  Statistically, that is impossible, particularly many days after the initial publication of the article in which the poll appears when less visits could be expected on the page.  Therefore, I conclude that someone has launched an effort to intentionally skew the poll.  Let's sit back and see who uses that poll to promote the way it has now been skewed.  That would indicate the likely deceptive party.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Library Safety for Librarians from the Black Belt Librarian Warren Graham

CHICAGO —"The Black Belt Librarian: Real-World Safety & Security," published by ALA Editions, arms librarians with the confidence and know-how they need to maintain a comfortable, productive and safe environment for everyone in the library.  Sharing expertise gleaned from more than two decades as a library security manager, author Warren Graham demonstrates that libraries can maintain their best traditions of openness and public access by creating an unobtrusive yet effective security plan.  In straightforward language, Graham:

  • Shows how to easily set clear expectations for visitors' behavior;
  • Presents guidelines for when and how to intervene when someone violates the code of conduct, including tips for approaching an unruly person;
  • Offers instruction on keeping persistent troublemakers under control or permanently barred from the library;
  • Gives library staff tools for communicating effectively with its security professionals, including examples of basic documentation.

A security professional for more than 25 years, including 17 years as the security manager of the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, N. C., Graham left the library in 2006 to establish Warren Davis Graham Training and Consulting.  He has made numerous presentations and is a leading speaker internationally on practical day-to-day library security procedures.


### 30 ###

Source:  Press release entitled, "Effective Security Plans and the Black Belt Librarian," by Jill DavisAmerican Libraries, 9 December 2011.  Click for a sample of the book.

See also:

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Fire NYPL President Marx for Drunk Driving; Library Allows Unlimited Pornography So Needs a New Leader Anyway

NYPL's drunk driver Anthony
who should be fired.
Only in America can you have the president of the largest lending library, the New York Public Library with the famous lions, drive his public library-owned 2009 Audi A4 while drunk, get in an accident, plead guilty to a DUI/DWI misdemeanor, then have the library keep him as president.  FIRE HIM!

Is there a single person in the world who gets to drive the company car while more than twice the legal alcohol limit (0.19 BAC), smash it, plead guilty to DUI, then have your employer defend you?  Talk about the 1%!  This guy is in the 0.19%!  Just look at how the library reacted to the privileged Dr. Anthony W. Marx who obviously could afford an attorney who helped him turn a crime into a misdemeanor:

In a written statement, the library said it was "satisfied that the incident has been resolved and looks forward to the important work ahead for Dr. Marx and the library."

And this is a library that allows nearly unlimited access to pornography, falsely claiming that under "long-standing library policy" the First Amendment requires the library must allow it:

Brooklyn Public Library porn.
"A lot of the times, I see people watching pornography and stuff like that. The man right next to me today was watching naked women," Julio Sosa, 14, said at the Jerome Branch in the Bronx. 
Library officials defend their policy of allowing easy access to porn as a free speech issue, claiming that only five percent of web traffic on public library computers is to porn sites. 
"Our staff carefully monitors use of computers in adult areas.  It is long-standing library policy - here and across the nation - to abide by the First Amendment," said New York Public Library spokeswoman Angela Montefinise.

Well gee, the library allows unfettered porn despite the means that allow any library to keep it out, and now the library allows a drunk driving president to keep his job.  No wonder the library allows porn—it's anything goes—as this recent drunk driving debacle shows.

In reality, even the first sentence of US v. ALA says, "1. [P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  Does not violate the First Amendment.  Someone needs to change that "long-standing library policy."  Further, other library directors, who are not drunk drivers by the way, talk about the "dogma" the American Library Association [ALA] and its acolytes use to claim libraries must allow porn.  Now the New York Public Library has drunken dogma.

Sign at parking space for
NYPL President Marx?
What a disgrace.  This guy makes over half a million dollars a year with terrific perks, his library is filled with porn, he gets drunk and smashes the library's car, and that's okay with the library.  Tell me, are there any limits at all in this library?  Talk about privileged!  This guy should be tossed out of this public institution immediately.  It's a public institution after all.  Members of the public do not get to keep their jobs after smashing the company car, and neither should privileged Marx.  I demand that someone look into this matter, toss out the drunken president, and get someone who will follow the law and insist on blocking porn in the library.  Is there no respect for public institutions anymore?  Is there no respect for the porn actors victimized by big porn who get victimized again with each viewing, including in public libraries?

Are any politicians still pursuing legislation to reign in the libraries in New York City?  Contact me again.  I will help you more.  Your previous ideas were too timid anyway and were aimed at getting around the dogma.  Enough is enough, is it not?

"But will the children forgive Mr. Marx?"  Why are we even asking—get rid of him already.  It's time to move on.

Exactly what is it about a librarian that causes people to fall for dogma and gives librarians a free pass no one else would get?

Library-owned 2009 Audi A4 that NYPL President
Anthony Marx smashed while driving with 0.19 BAC.
Then he got to keep his job in that public library.


This "Tony Marx" is the embodiment of the double standard.  Get a load of this and you'll see exactly what I mean:
Anthony Marx, former president of Amherst College and current president of the New York Public Library, offers a different perspective.  He insists that elite higher education has a "responsibility…to hold up public service, and examples of public service, as life paths that we value and need as a society."  Universities and colleges should be concerned with the career paths of their graduates, particularly those in the public realm.  According to Marx, "To the degree that the graduates of top universities are not going into public service, into teaching, and into all kind of arenas that require talent for us to have the kind of society that we want that is something we should worry about."
Source: "Public Service of the Future," by ImeIme Umana and Beatrice Walton, Harvard Political Review, 10 December 2011.

Drinking and driving and getting in an accident on the public's dime in the public's car, and the public library approves by not firing him.  Some public responsibility, some talent, some public service of the future!  With unlimited porn, no less.  And the Harvard story is in defense of the "Occupy" movement, yet Dr. Marx is part of the 0.19%!  You can't make this stuff up.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Laguna Beach Pubic Library

KTLA 5 news story entitled,
"Library Porn."
Laguna Beach Public Library.  Eight homeless guys watch pornography on one of the public library's Internet computers, one is masturbating, and children are nearby.  The library's reaction?  It is their First Amendment right!  It might as well be called the Laguna Beach Pubic Library.  See for yourself:

Since when is pornography "information"?

Did you see how the library said pornography (excuse me, "information") in public libraries was legal and cannot be controlled?  That is false.  Yes, it is legal, but no, libraries are not obligated under the First Amendment to provide porn and it can be controlled with Internet filters (privacy screens and acceptable use policies do almost nothing).  See, for example, Library Porn Removal Roadmap.  As it stands now, porn is freely available at the Laguna Beach Public Library.  Why not just advertise that if it is a First Amendment right?

KTLA 5 poll showing
most people want
Internet filters.
But what the library said is more than false.  Over eight years after US v. ALA approved blocking porn in public libraries, in part for the very common sense reason the attorney said in the KTLA News report, it is simply a lie.  The library knows or should have known it is lying to the community.  It can block porn, legally, it just simply refuses to do so.

The question is, will the community/government allow the library to continue to get away with this lying?  At right is a graphic of a KTLA News poll showing most people want filters on public library computers.  It is what the people want.  Should the community have an anything-goes library policy enforced by lying librarians or should citizens insist on compliance with the law and the installation of filters on all computers, not just anything less that 100%?  Will the government act to legally protect the people or will the librarians lobbying quiesce the politicians?

And let me remind the government that where your library acts outside the law, and it is doing just that by defying US v. ALA and perhaps by defying local law, you have the right to require the library to comply with the law without worrying about piercing the library's veil of autonomy.  The library may not act autonomously to violate the law.  The government must act in such a case.

Will the library continue to endanger more children, patrons, and library employees?  We shall see.  Let me know if anyone would like my assistance in ridding that community of this particular danger.  And it is a danger, let alone a cause for potential legal liability.

By the way, it was purely concern over legal liability that led a library to finally kick out an "Occupy" trespassers encampment.  See Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment.  Maybe the issue of potential legal liability will lead the government to require the library comport with the law—especially where I will be sending this post to the local and county governments so they are put on notice of potential harm.  Prior notice may affect any damages awarded.  If the government does nothing and the library is allowed to continue to serve pornography and a resultant crime leads to legal redress, the government's damages will likely be established and/or increased, and I will provide expert testimony.


Based in part on this incident in Laguna Beach, it now appears an LA TIMES EDITORIAL SUPPORTS REASONABLE MEANS TO FILTER OUT PORNOGRAPHY!

Friday, December 2, 2011

Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment

Bangor Public Library logo.
While the American Library Association [ALA] is supporting the so-called Occupy Wall Street Library, the Bangor Public Library (@BangorLibrary) has had the good sense to finally kick out the Occupy Bangor trespassers from library property:

Poll results showing people support
kicking out the library trespassers
who are part of Occupy Bangor.
The Bangor Public Library gets it.  The ALA does not.  As an illustration of why the ALA should not support the so-called "Occupy" movement, consider the following:

Bangor Public Library Director Barbara McDade said, "We certainly will allow them to use the property to protest, but we don't want them staying on the property 24 hours a day."  For that, the United Nations might put a target on her head:

Congratulations to the Bangor Public Library for making the right decision, no matter how reluctantly.  And to emphasize it made the right decision, poll results on the Bangor Daily News site, displayed above right, show the vast majority support the library in expelling the trespassers.  Yes, free speech will not be suppressed, but, as is clearly seen in Bangor, trespassing is not free speech.