Wednesday, November 27, 2013

ALA Misleads on Internet Pornography in Libraries

Internet pornography in public libraries is a serious problem.  The American Library Association [ALA] misleads media and communities into allowing porn by intentionally ignoring the issue or by saying porn is protected by the First Amendment when that is not true in public libraries.  See US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003).  ALA is attempting to make an end run around the law by not discussing the elephant in the room, namely, pornography.  When ALA does discuss pornography, it is to say it may not be blocked from libraries.  But people are starting to catch on, as we shall see.

ALA Completely Omits Pornography

Watch the top leaders in ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" speak at an Orland Park Public Library [OPPL] library board meeting about the problem of so much unfettered porn that even Saturday Night Live starring Lady Gaga joked about it.  Notice not once is pornography mentioned.  But they repeatedly mention they have attorneys who will assist libraries, and definitely do not take any legal advice from anyone else:

Watch Sexually Harassed OPPL Librarian Emphasize Pornography

Contrast ALA's lack of mentioning pornography with the words of a former OPPL librarian.  Linda Zec reveals the extent of the pornography problem at OPPL, the "creepy" sexual harassment she experienced as a result, and how library management told her she could quit if she wanted because OPPL would continue to make porn available to patrons under the ALA's false claim that it is a First Amendment right:

ALA's Omits Pornography, But Is It Intentional?

The US Supreme Court makes pornography the issue in US v. ALA.  A sexually harassed librarian at OPPL makes porn the issue.  On the other hand, top ALA leadership completely avoids the issue and advises, despite being from the "Office for Intellectual Freedom," not to listen to attorneys who do discuss the issue, as we saw above.  But are ALA's actions in misleading the media and the community intentional?  Yes.


ALA Advises Libraries to Mislead Media and Communities

ALA advises libraries to mislead media and communities by intentionally refusing to answer questions about pornography then reframing them as something else.  When asked a tough question, a librarian, trained by ALA diktat, will change the topic to how wonderful is the library:
  • "Libraries and the Internet Toolkit: Crisis Communications," by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 29 May 2007:
    Reframe a question such as 'Why do you think students should be allowed to view pornography on the Internet?' to 'You're asking me about our Internet policy...'
    ....
    Avoid use of negative or inflammatory words such as "pornography."

No, that's not what media are asking.  That's not what communities are asking.  Obviously a library that answers this way has something to hide, especially where it refuses to discuss the very issue central to US v. ALA and similar cases such as Bradburn v. NCRL that allows libraries to refuse to unblock porn even upon request.


OPPL Obeys ALA Diktat to Mislead Media

But do libraries actually follow ALA diktat to mislead on porn?  Absolutely.  Look at what OPPL was asked on WLS's Bruce and Dan Show, then observe how well the OPPL representative follows ALA diktat to reframe questions to avoid discussing porn and instead promote Internet policy:
Dan Proft: What?  Wait, oh okay.  So why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to?    
Bridget Bittman: Well, let me explain also that on our teen computers, that consist of kids who use it from ages, uh, probably around 12, 13 to the age of 17, those computers are filtered as well.  Because we feel that those safety measures for kids are very important. In addition to parents supervising whatever they look at online.  And we also recommended that parents take a look at what their kids are checking out…  (overtalk)   
So OPPL follows ALA diktat to mislead media to a tee.  Here are sources for the above:






When ALA Does Talk About Pornography, It Is to Say the Exact Opposite of the Holding of US v. ALA, Further Showing ALA Works to Mislead Communities and Push Porn

When ALA does discuss pornography head on, it is to say the exact opposite of the holding of US v. ALA, further showing ALA works to mislead communities and push porn.  You cannot advise the exact opposite of a US Supreme Court case you yourself lost, and advise not to listen to those who cite the case to support filtering out porn, and not be considered as pushing porn.

I am directly responsible for forcing ALA to finally address the issue of pornography in libraries and to make what amounts to admissions against interest.  I was quoted in the Chicago Tribune in the OPPL matter saying no library has even been sued for blocking porn.  As a result, the following was published:
That must have struck a nerve because ALA felt the need to respond to "correct" "several factual inaccuracies," like my assertions as reported by Mr. O'Connor that a lack of filters sometimes results in sexually harassed librarians and resultant lawsuits:
Therein, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the ALA attorney who spoke at OPPL as discussed above, said, "CIPA does not require libraries that accept e-rate discounts to filter 'pornography.'"  "Notably, materials some consider 'pornographic' or 'indecent' do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment. "

So when ALA talks about pornography, finally, thanks to me, it is to say CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act found constitutional in US v. ALA, does not require filtering out porn, which is true, and porn is not obscene so it is protected in libraries by the First Amendment, which is false.

The US Supreme Court case finding CIPA to be constitutional interpreted the law as enabling the blocking of pornography, not just obscenity nor child pornography that the Court had addressed in prior decades.  The Court would not have taken the case in the first place if it was only to repeat what it had decided in the past.  So what ALA is misleading people into thinking is exactly the 100% opposite of what US v. ALA ruled.  It doesn't make sense to have a law and a Supreme Court decision ruling on that law to decide what was already decided about obscenity in a previous Supreme Court case in 1973.  Read US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html ).  Read what the CIPA author said about how ALA misleads people on the lawhttp://tinyurl.com/ErnestIstookInterview ).  Yes, I am named by CIPA's author as a "trusted source" for exposing ALA propaganda, so all inquiries are welcome despite ALA warnings not to speak to other attorneys.

Where does US v. ALA rule that, as the ALA attorney said, "materials some consider 'pornographic' or 'indecent' do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment"?  Nowhere.  Instead it ruled, with respect to Internet pornography, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."   In public libraries, the First Amendment right to "legal" porn does not apply.  It is perfectly legal to block porn in public libraries and to keep it blocked.  It is no coincidence ALA advises people to speak only to ALA recommended attorneys and no one else.


ALA Claims First Amendment Right to Porn But Does Not Disclose US v. ALA Created an Exception for Public Libraries

Further, the entire US v. ALA case was about porn.  The entire case looked at the history of libraries blocking out porn and found that they always have.  The case said you can legally use filters to block porn without having to make individualized decisions, obviating ALA's "who's to judge what's porn" argument.  The case ruled public libraries are not open public fora so governments have every right to block out porn without violating the First Amendment.  Not just obscenity, not just child pornography, things already made illegal in other cases from the past that ALA cites to mislead.  But the entire category of porn, both "legal" porn and "illegal" obscenity and child pornography.

US v. ALA said, "The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."  It does not say only obscenity.  It does not say only child pornography.  It says pornography.  US v. ALA holds, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  ALA holds "materials some consider 'pornographic' or 'indecent' do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment."  Perhaps generally, but not specifically in a public library, thanks to CIPA and US v. ALA.

By the way, under US v. ALA, libraries may legally filter out porn whether or not they accept federal funding.  That is another point about which ALA misleads.  In reality, every library may use filters to legally block porn.  It is common sense and it is the law.  The case also says "privacy screens" or moving computers do not work to control porn and actually make the problem worse.  So be aware of that when ALA or local acolytes suggest that or other useless options such as so-called Acceptable Use Policies.


Not Everyone Is Fooled by ALA Propaganda

Not everyone is falling for ALA's propaganda.  Megan Fox is an OPPL patron who has been working hard to expose the library's unlimited porn policy and unreported sex crimes.  In her latest post, she called out ALA for "defend[ing] the library's decision to offer unfiltered access while never mentioning the specifics of what that really means: access to bestiality, necrophilia, sex trafficked victims of rape, identity theft, pedophiles accessing children online via chat rooms and much more":

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.
And John Kass of the Chicago Tribune notes families will be shocked in libraries that follow ALA's law-defying policy: "Specifically, sexually excited human animals, predominantly male, operating under the belief they are protected by the First Amendment, watch[] pornography at the Chicago Public Library and other libraries, in full view of patrons."  When ALA says libraries may not block legal porn, he calls out the lie:
  • "Libraries Are For Free Books, Not Free Porn," by John Kass, Chicago Tribune, 5 November 2013:
    Deborah Caldwell Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, said Internet filters are placed on computers used by children.  But with adults, it's different.

    "Libraries can only do so much when accessing content that isn't illegal," Stone said.

    Really?  Then taxpayers should help by doing a bit more, like refusing to allow one cent to go to libraries that don't have any common sense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Internet pornography in public libraries is a serious problem.  ALA intentionally misleads media and communities so porn will not be filtered out despite the law.  But citizens and media sources are no longer falling for the usual ALA misdirection.  Not even on ALA's home turf in Chicago.  It is time for others to take notice as well.  The best antidote is to read US v. ALA, the very case ALA works hard to get people to ignore.  See also Bradburn v. NCRL.  Feel free to contact me despite ALA admonitions to contact only ALA recommended attorneys—besides, I'm recommended by CIPA's author Ernest Istook as a "trusted source" and I will provide better/truthful advice.



On Twitter:  @BruceAndDan @ChicagoTribune @IntolerantFox @Istook @John_Kass @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk @WLSAM890

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Library Porn Results From ALA Minority Silencing Good Librarians; Boy's Death From Auto-Erotic Asphyxiation Results From ALA's 'Freedom of Information' Line; Allowing Porn In Libraries Is a Mistake

Librarian silenced by her leaders pushing "freedom"
I have been watching the recent porn incident at the Orland Park library with great interest.  There have been many similar problems, at many different libraries; and every time I hear of another porn incident,  I wonder “What is wrong with these administrators?”

I think the “freedom of information” line is a lazy argument.  Even if you could argue that we have a constitutional right to access porn under the guise of information, you cannot argue that it is the library’s responsibility to provide that information.  There is a lot of “information” we don’t provide to people.   We don’t provide conspiracy theory information; we resist pointing people to information on how to kill themselves; we don’t allow viewing of child pornography in the library.  We don’t allow political solicitations or protesting.  Like all freedoms, there are limits to what the library has to provide to people.

I’ve always thought that the “freedom to view porn” librarians were wrong, but a recent tragedy in our area has underlined that belief and confirmed it for me.  I am a director of a library in a poor, rural area.  We have a large population of home-school families.  Many of these families do not own computers or have access to the Internet, so they come to the library on a regular basis to allow their children to do research, and do their studying.  One such family, the Smiths (not their real name) came in all the time, and their small children would use our children’s computers, their older kids would use the adult computers.  The Smiths were a deeply religious family, and some of the nicest people you would ever meet.  The children were well-behaved, the parents nice and thoughtful.  These parents were very involved in their children’s lives and we were always happy to see them in the library.

Our library does filter all our computers, so that we can receive e-rate funds.  We would not be able to afford Internet access if we didn’t.  Our children’s computers are very heavily filtered, while the adult computers are less so.  We primarily filter porn sites, but as everyone knows, filters aren’t perfect, and every now and then, we see someone viewing porn and ask them to stop.  If they don’t stop, we cut off their computer privileges and ask them to leave.  I don’t think it is fair to other patrons to have to accidentally see something so inappropriate.

Returning to the Smith’s story, one of their children, we’ll call him Mike, was 12, which is old enough to use the adult computers.  The Smiths knew we filtered, and they did keep an eye on him, but didn’t sit with him every minute he was on the computer.  Mike somehow developed an interest in auto-erotic asphyxiation, and used the computer to learn more.  Unfortunately, he tried it, and ended up killing himself.  In hindsight, his parents were able to figure out how he had gotten the information; and were able to easily find it themselves on our filtered computers.  While they did not blame the library for the tragedy, they did acknowledge that children are not safe on the Internet, even with filters.  And now a 12-year-old with a bright future ahead of him is dead.

This is a real-world example of why allowing porn in libraries is a mistake.  You never hear complaints from people “I went to the library and they wouldn’t let me look at porn.”  Why in the world would these libraries choose the porn enthusiast over everyone else?  Why would they put children at risk of viewing inappropriate things?  We all know parents are responsible for what their children see, but why do some  libraries think that is an excuse to allow a free-for-all on their public computers?  Some things are not appropriate in public places, and pornography is one of them.

Unfortunately, the American Library Association has chosen the side of porn enthusiasts.  They do not speak for most library workers, but it seems that many library administrators feel they must fall in line. Most library workers do not want porn in their libraries, because they know it’s inappropriate and don’t wish to be subjected to seeing it, or to deal with the inappropriate behaviors associated with porn-viewing (patrons exposing themselves, masturbating, etc.)  They certainly don’t want to deal with the complaints from parents and other patrons who don’t wish to be subjected to pornographic images.  We all want our libraries to be pleasant, comfortable places for ALL our patrons, not just the porn enthusiasts.

I’m writing this article anonymously, because I like my job, and don’t wish to hurt my chances for future employment by speaking out against the ALA.  The ALA unfairly charges those of us who refuse to provide access to porn as “censors.”  We are not trying to ban pornography everywhere, just in our libraries.  Just in places where the public comes to read, study, play on the computer, and relax.  Porn has no place in that.

I'm glad [that SafeLibraries provides free speech for silenced librarians], and can only hope it makes some difference to someone.  This is a subject that bothers me greatly, but in libraryland, you have to be careful about what you say.  Sometimes I feel like there are probably more of us who fight against porn in the libraries, than those who fight to allow it.  But they've made us defensive by calling us censors.  They've controlled the argument for a long time, it seems.

### 30 ###

The above is from an anonymous library director who asked me to publish it.  SafeLibraries started from day one over a decade ago in part because I noticed my own public library made ALA's recommended auto-erotic asphyxiation web site available to my child:
  • "Porn and Sex Abuse In Our Public Libraries: Public Library Porn Harms Children, Patrons, Librarians, and Porn Industry Actors," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 24 July 2011 (hyperlink omitted):
    So I investigated my local public library and found it had a page called "Fun Sites for Kids and Teens."  On that page was an ALA-recommended web site about bestiality and how to have a better orgasm by strangling yourself, and so on.  The library director agreed the link was inappropriate and agreed to remove it, but it was never removed.

    I went to the library board meeting and was told citizens are not sophisticated enough to make decisions—that why libraries have boards.  So I started a web site to get people in the town organized.  I suppose I'm a community organizer.  Anyway, that led to my being noticed nationally.

Come to find ALA may have been involved in the equation that lead to the death of a boy, according to what the anonymous library director just revealed.  "Mike somehow developed an interest in auto-erotic asphyxiation"?  In my library that "somehow" was the ALA.  As ALA said about what it recommended that described auto-erotic asphyxiation, "The friendly, anonymous format is probably quite appealing to young adults."  I apologize I could did not put a stop to this in time to prevent what happened to "Mike" though I tried.  But I'm one person against over four decades of ALA propaganda that began with an Illinois ACLU board member joining ALA and changing it from within to promote porn and silence opposition.

I need more anonymous librarians to contact me and to speak out to stop this craziness.

The image at the top of the page comes from the following, and note the quote and the need for a pseudonym:

"Freedom," by CCL, Concerned Librarians of British Columbia, 1 June 2012:
librarians themselves have no protection against those would would silence and censor an opinion that is different from opinions held by those in positions of authority and power.

See also:
  • "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 March 2010, citing the great Will Manley:
    Why is there such a disconnect between our profession and everyone else on this particular issue?  More specifically, how could we have allowed ourselves to be put in such a publicly disadvantageous position as defending the right of children to access pornography?  The answer is simple and ironic.  Our profession preaches intellectual freedom but does not tolerate its practice within our own ranks.  Librarians imbued with common sense and good political judgment are afraid to espouse even a moderate position that advocates the limited use of filters.  There is a great fear within librarianship of being branded a censor.  No librarian wants to be wounded by that bullet.  That's why we can never really initiate an open and honest dialogue among ourselves on issues involving even the most obvious need for limitations of intellectual freedom.  As a result, the extremists always dominate, and we end up with an "anything goes" official policy that distances the library profession from mainstream America.

"If you don't like it, leave,"
from Wilson v. Birmingham
While it is extremely rare for librarians to speak out, one librarian retired from the Orland Park Public Library mentioned by Anonymous did finally speak out against the library's porn pushing.  And note she was basically told if you don't like it then leave:


NOTE ADDED 23 NOVEMBER 2013:

This post has been cited by Megan Fox here:

On Twitter:  @LindaZec @OrlandPkLibrary @OIF @VillageOrlandPk

Friday, November 15, 2013

Library Uses Police to Censor and Intimidate Mom for Advising Librarians to File EEOC Complaints for Unfiltered Porn Resulting in Sexual Harassment

A public library director and board of trustees is using local police to censor and intimidate a mom who reported unlimited porn viewing and unreported sex crimes, and advised librarians to file EEOC complaints for sexual harassment arising from the library's policy of allowing Internet pornography despite the law.  When libraries talk about "free speech," opposition to "censorship," and "patron privacy," just keep in mind they only mean their own free speech and privacy; their own censorship is okay.  Fortunately, mom Megan Fox is not intimidated by the Orland Park Public Library, Orland Park, IL:



On Twitter:  @IntolerantFox @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Libraries Harm Sex Trafficking Victims If They Allow Porn Viewing; Megan Fox Outs Orland Park Public Library

Libraries harm sex trafficking victims if they allow porn viewing.  They flout women's rights since digitalized torture makes up a significant percentage of the porn being displayed.  Few speak out about this, until now.  Megan Fox has exposed a public library for harming women in this fashion.  So now that the library and the local government is aware of the harm, let's see if they continue to allow porn viewing.  If they do, it is the War On Women on steroids.

Here is what Megan Fox said on WLS AM 890 with John Kass and Lauren Cohn:
And I also want to say that right now on an unfiltered computer you can access any kind of illegal porn that supports sex traffickers and the rape of women.  And there's no way to tell what kind of pornography you're watching.  Why should the public have to pay for that?  Why should we support these criminals?


She was talking about the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], Orland Park, IL.  It is proud to make pornography available to its patrons.  So proud that it went on a local radio broadcast to proclaim its vaunted respect for the First Amendment, called the police to silence Megan Fox, and investigate a three year old YouTube song she wrote about Second Amendment gun rights.

Here is a recording of OPPL's Bridget Bittman speaking with Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft on 89 WLS AM, followed by a transcript:





Think about it.  Library filtering opponents scream bloody murder if anyone tries to expose libraries for violating the law, but they could care less about the sex crimes they enable against mainly women.  They care not about the free speech rights of crime victims not to have their crime displayed in public libraries.

I too have exposed the harms some libraries are doing to rape victims, one victim being thrilled that I spoke out on this:

Regarding the American Library Association [ALA], it has praised OPPL and whitewashed rape, and it works actively to facilitate sex traffickers:

The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] has been advised of the sex trafficking issue and ALA's involvement:
  • "In the Matter of Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 16 September 2013:
    Jacqueline S. Homan: It is NOT a "1st amendment right" to view the violation of someone else's privacy.  Many women in porn are TRAFFICKED, and are FORCED.  When I was "broken in" by my traffickers, it was with a brutal gang rape.  I was 14 years old.  My gang rape was captured on film/pictures to satiate others' sadistic voyeurism AGAINST my will.  As a trafficked girl, where was MY right to privacy?  What about MY 1st amendment right to have my "free speech" (my language of "NO!") protected?  The ALA is full of ca-ca.  And I will tell them so!  And I dare them, no I DOUBLE DARE them, to defend that bs to me!  You may quote me, Dan Kleinman.
When libraries falsely claim the First Amendment right of displaying "constitutionally protected material" meaning porn, do they show one iota of concern for the rights of the victims whose forced involvement in sex crimes is displayed in those libraries?  Public libraries?

So, Village of Orland Park, are you going to allow your library to continue to flout the law, further harm rape victims, and continue to enable sex trafficking?  Libraries across the nation, will you too continue to accept this?  And in case you didn't know:



On Twitter:  @CohnTV @IntolerantFox @JacquelineHoman @John_Kass @KassCohn @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @StopPornCultur1 @VillageOrlandPk @WLSAM890

Sunday, November 10, 2013

ALA Admits Libraries Have Never Been Sued for Blocking Porn

The American Library Association [ALA] has tacitly admitted that no library has been sued for blocking pornography despite its past warnings, thereby clearing the way for libraries to freely block pornography at will.  I am the catalyst in forcing ALA to make this admission, so my analysis of the issue will be key to many communities and libraries considering blocking Internet porn.


Legal Background

The Children's Internet Protection Act was authored by Ernest Istook.  It requires libraries accepting certain federal funding to block certain material from public library computers.  It was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000.  ALA and the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] brought suit to prevent the use of Internet filters in public libraries.  Initially, they won.  But in US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003), the US Supreme Court ruled that libraries are not open public fora so they have the right to limit content, libraries have traditionally blocked pornography with book selection policies so using an Internet filter to accomplish the same goal is perfectly legal, the use of Internet filters does not violate First Amendment rights, using filters obviates the need for librarians to make individualized decisions, and, based on all that, the Court found CIPA to be constitutional.  In 2013, the Federal Communications Commission sought comments on the entire program and I submitted a comment mainly detailing significant fraud by libraries illegally obtaining CIPA funding that comes from the Universal Service Charge on our telephone utility bills.


Bridling at Losing US v. ALA, ALA Misleads People to Get the Ultimate Win

Bridling at the loss in US v. ALA, ALA has to this day worked to mislead people about CIPA so that they think they are doing the right thing by setting aside CIPA's benefits and instead allowing unlimited pornography in libraries.  This is essentially what the CIPA author himself said:




One Means ALA Misleads is to Claim Lawsuit If Libraries Filter Porn

One of the many means by which ALA misleads is to advise that if libraries choose to filter porn, they may be sued in court.  That has never happened, and ALA has finally admitted as much in response to what was reported about me in the Chicago Tribune:

ALA directly responded to my statement that libraries have never been sued for blocking porn:
  • "ALA Reply to ‘ALA Supports Orland Park Public Library Stance on Viewing Porn," by Sean O'Connor, Chicago Libraries Examiner, 7 November 2013, reprinting in its entirety a response the author received from ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., the Deputy Director and former Acting Director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF], italics in original:
    Notably, materials some consider "pornographic" or "indecent" do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment.
    .... 
    You further quote the article written by Chicago Tribune reporter Taylor Anderson as stating that "No library has ever been sued because someone said 'you blocked my pornography.'"  But schools and libraries have been sued for employing filters to block access to what some deem "pornography," on the grounds that the filters block materials that are not obscene and are constitutionally protected.

    For example, the plaintiffs in PFLAG, Inc. v. Camdenton R-III School District sued their school district because the filters used by the school library unconstitutionally blocked access to web content that promoted gay rights and affirmed gay identity that was not sexually explicit, while allowing access to sites that opposed civil rights for LGBT persons and promoted "ex-gay" ministries.  The school district argued that it had an obligation to protect students from "inappropriate" and "pornographic" material and had broad discretion to choose which materials students may access in the school library.  The court ruled that the school district's use of the discriminatory "sexuality" filter in its library violated the students' First Amendment rights to access information.  The school district agreed to entry of a judgment that required it to stop blocking LGBT websites, submit to monitoring for 18 months and pay $125,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.

    You also say that the article written by Mr. Anderson states that "[t]he ALA's position is that a public library that does not allow an adult visitor to view pornographic photographic stills or videos on a public computer risks being sued."

    This is inaccurate.  In fact, Mr. Anderson stated that "the association says that libraries that restrict the ability to view certain images or videos online put themselves at risk of lawsuits."  Mr. Anderson does not mention pornography, and as the PFLAG v Camdenton case demonstrates, libraries have been sued for blocking access to constitutionally protected materials published online.


ALA Tacitly Admits Libraries Will Not Be Sued For Filtering Out Porn

In responding as she did, ALA OIF Deputy Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone tacitly admitted I was right while tripping over herself to make it appear otherwise.  I will explain below in detail, but basically PLAG v. Camdenton R-III School District stands for the exact opposite of how ALA misrepresents it–in reality, the case was not about filtering out pornography and indeed permits doing so.  ALA also exposes how it will completely misrepresent legal holdings as a means of misleading people into making harmful decisions.  It is an excellent example of how ALA intentionally misleads people on the law.


ALA Needs to Change Your Thinking So You'll Do What It Wants

ALA does not have the power to act in the stead of local interests, so instead it misleads people into thinking whatever it takes to get them to voluntarily sidestep CIPA and US v. ALA.  None other than the CIPA author detailed exactly how and why ALA misleads people.  Definitely read what he said.  In short, "they couch it in different language so you don't fully understand what they truly mean":

In this case ALA wants people to think libraries will get sued if they use Internet filters in libraries to block porn.  The truth is that has never happened and it basically never will.


In the Past, ALA Described Camdenton Differently Than Now and 
Warned of Possible Lawsuit If Libraries Filter Out Porn

For example, a previous time ALA responded within hours to what I exposed about it was when my work was used as support for listing ALA as one of the nation's leading facilitators of pornography:

Within days ALA responded with this which describes the Camdenton case:
  • "Filtering and the First Amendment," by Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., American Libraries, 2 April 2013, hyperlink in original (and corrected):
    Recent court filings, news reports [NOTE: that would be international news that ALA was a leading porn facilitator thanks to my research], and online posts, however, have begun to shine a spotlight on libraries’ filtering policies and practices.  According to legal complaints, some libraries are denying users access to websites that discuss Wicca and Native American spirituality; blacklisting websites that affirm the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities while whitelisting sites that advocate against gay rights and promote "ex-gay" ministries; and refusing to unblock webpages that deal with youth tobacco use, art galleries, blogs, and firearms.  School librarians, teachers, and even Department of Education officials are openly complaining that the overzealous blocking of online information in schools is impairing the educational process.
    ....
    Theresa Chmara, general counsel for ALA's Freedom to Read Foundation, has explained why librarians and trustees should not rely on the Bradburn decision for guidance in crafting their internet policies.
And that in turn links to another ALA attorney, Theresa Chmara, who again describes the Camdenton case and who threatens the possibility of lawsuit for blocking porn or, as ALA calls it, "constitutionally protected material."  Notice too how she defines CIPA to exclude obscenity and child pornography but not pornography:
  • "Blocking Access to Protected Speech Can Lead to Litigation and Legal Fees," by Theresa Chmara, Esq., American Libraries, 24 July 2012:
    In another recent case involving a school library, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ... held on February 15 that the school district in Camdenton, Missouri, had unconstitutionally blocked websites that support or advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people while permitting students access to websites that condemn homosexuality or oppose legal protections for LGBT people.

    The district court held that the library's use of an "anonymous" system for requesting that sites be unblocked was stigmatizing and ineffective if students did not know what had been blocked.  After the court's finding of unconstitutionality, the school district agreed to stop blocking LGBT websites, submit to monitoring for 18 months, and pay $125,000 in attorneys' fees.

    Libraries should continue to be wary of using internet filtering systems that block constitutionally protected material for adults or minors.  CIPA only requires filters that block access to visual images of obscenity, child pornography, and, for minors, material deemed harmful to minors.  If libraries use filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, those libraries may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses.


ALA Creates New Theory On Blocking What Is "Deemed" To Be Pornography

With that history in mind, let's turn back to the recent ALA response.  ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone cites that Camdenton case where material about homosexuality and/or gay rights was filtered out in a school.  She argues the people merely "deemed" that they were blocking porn:
You further quote the article written by Chicago Tribune reporter Taylor Anderson as stating that "No library has ever been sued because someone said 'you blocked my pornography.'"  But schools and libraries have been sued for employing filters to block access to what some deem "pornography," on the grounds that the filters block materials that are not obscene and are constitutionally protected.
For example, the plaintiffs in PFLAG, Inc. v. Camdenton R-III School District sued their school district because the filters used by the school library unconstitutionally blocked access to web content that promoted gay rights and affirmed gay identity that was not sexually explicit, while allowing access to sites that opposed civil rights for LGBT persons and promoted 'ex-gay' ministries.
But that is a case about blocking, as she admits, "gay rights and affirmed gay identity that was not sexually explicit," not about blocking pornography!  And filtering manufacturers claiming gay rights sites were pornographic as a means to discriminate does not make them pornographic.


ALA Claims Libraries Sued For What Is "Deemed" To Be Pornography; Cites Camdenton

Notice how she now claims "schools and libraries have been sued for employing filters to block access to what some deem 'pornography'" using Camdenton as the example when she needs to mislead people about my saying libraries are never sued for blocking porn.


ALA's Previous Statements on Camdenton Made No Such Claim of Anything "Deemed" Pornography

Contrast that with her own previous writing on Camdenton where pornography is not the issue; instead the issue is described by her as "blacklisting websites that affirm the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities while whitelisting sites that advocate against gay rights and promote 'ex-gay' ministries."

Confirming this is the description of Camdenton she links to fellow attorney Theresa Chmara.  Again, pornography is not the issue.  Instead it is "websites that support or advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people."


"Years of Litigation and Significant Legal Expenses"

Chmara defines CIPA to exclude protection from pornography then goes on to threaten suit for blocking porn: "If libraries use filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, those libraries may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses."  And she says more than just open the door to litigation.  No, she uses scare tactics, "years of litigation and significant legal expenses," for nonexistent legal cases.  She completely leaves out that libraries that do not filter really do face years of litigation and significant legal expenses for librarians who are sexually harassed as a result of unfettered porn viewing occasioned by library policy direct from the ALA.  I'll be addressing that issue in a separate post.


The Height of Deception

Deborah Caldwell-Stone knows the true issue in Camdenton is blocking LGBT sites because she said so in the past.  She can produce no other case to support her view that libraries have been sued for blocking porn.  So she suddenly recasts Camdenton as a suit against blocking pornography and claims "schools and libraries have been sued for employing filters to block access to what some deem 'pornography.'"  Is this the height of deception or what?  This in response to my accurately reporting that no library has been sued for blocking porn.


Past Camdenton Media Reports Show Exactly the Opposite of What ALA Is Now Claiming

Here is some press on the matter.  Notice ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone is dead wrong.  Pornography was not the issue, in fact blocking "explicit material" and "pornography"was perfectly acceptable, even to the ACLU:
  • "School District Told to Replace Web Filter Blocking Pro-Gay Sites," by Michael Winerip, The New York Times, 26 March 2012:
    this particular filter, which along with blocking obscenity also discriminates against content supportive of gay people....
  • "Camdenton School District Required to Remove LGBT Web Filters," by Rachel Lichtman, PFLAG, 13 April 2012:
    The lawsuit was filed after multiple warnings that the district's website filtering software discriminated against LGBT content, including the websites of the plaintiffs.  If a student tried to access a site related to LGBT support such as gay-straight alliances or local PFLAG chapters, they were treated as if they were attempting to access explicit material.  However, anti-LGBT sites such as the National Organization for Marriage were allowed to be viewed.
  • "Court Orders Missouri School District to Stop Censoring LGBT Websites," by media@aclu.org, American Civil Liberties Union, 15 February 2012:
    A federal district court ruled today that the Camdenton R-III School District must stop censoring web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities through discriminatory filtering software. The ruling orders the district to not block content based on the viewpoints expressed by the website.
    ....
    “The court correctly recognized the constitutional rights of all students to viewpoint-neutral access to information,” said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “It is absolutely possible to protect children from sexually explicit content while also protecting their First Amendment rights. Like thousands of other school districts across the country, Camdenton R-III will now begin using a filtering system that blocks pornography without discriminating against LGBT-related content.”
In a case ALA cites to counter my statement in the Chicago Tribune that no library has ever been sued for blocking porn, ACLU LGBT Project's attorney said, "It is absolutely possible to protect children from sexually explicit content while also protecting their First Amendment rights."  The exact opposite of what ALA falsely argues.  As the ACLU put it, "Like thousands of other school districts across the country, Camdenton R-III will now begin using a filtering system that blocks pornography without discriminating against LGBT-related content."  So in a case ALA cites to say blocking pornography resulted in a legal suit, the ACLU attorney says blocking pornography is perfectly acceptable as long as non-pornographic LGBT-related content is not blocked.

Camdenton does not support the ALA's argument that I was wrong and that libraries have been sued for blocking porn.  Rather, it is the opposite.  It evidences the accurate information I provided that no library has been sued for blocking porn nor is it likely to.  Such suits are extremely unlikely given legal precedent and common sense.


If Inapposite Camdenton Is ALA's Only Case to Show For Its Lawsuit Claim, Then It Has Tacitly Admitted No Library Has Yet Been Sued For Blocking Pornography

So if Camdenton is the only evidence ALA can produce to try to support its false claim that libraries might be sued for blocking porn, and if it supports that assertion by deceptively rewriting history including its own, then it has just tacitly admitted no library had yet been sued for blocking porn.  So let's say loud and proud what ALA does not want people to know, namely, LIBRARIES HAVE NEVER BEEN SUED FOR BLOCKING PORN.  BLOCK PORN AND HISTORY SHOWS YOU WILL NEVER BE SUED DESPITE ALA OR ACLU CLAIMS OR THREATS OTHERWISE.


Effect of ALA Propaganda on Local Libraries

The effect of ALA propaganda is evident in the damage it is causing in local libraries and resultant harm being done in local communities.  Take Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], for example, right in the shadow of Chicago-based ALA.  As revealed by Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan, the library refuses to block porn claiming there's a First Amendment right to view porn on library computers, as if US v. ALA didn't exist.

And, right in line with Deborah Caldwell-Stone trying to counteract what I said in the Chicago Tribune with her newly made up and knowingly false legal analysis of the Camdenton decision, the library believed it would be sued if it blocked porn with filters.

"She said that they could get sued like other libraries that had been sued in the past and lost."  Who said that?  Let's look at one OPPL employee/whistleblower's statement and detailed description of the unfettered porn in the OPPL, the false claim that the library would be sued if it blocked porn, and her own investigation finding out that was completely false.  Here's just her realization she's been lied to about lawsuits for blocking porn, but take the time to read her entire post–it is sadly enlightening:
  • "Liars and Tigers and Porn... Oh My!," by Linda Zec, Life According to Linda, 9 November 2013, emphasis and hyperlink in original:
    The next time I was there early enough I went in to talk to Director Wsol, and I remember sitting in her office.  I told her about what I had seen, she told me there was nothing that could be done.  Regardless of our thoughts of these individuals, Freedom of Speech prevails.  I told her they should put a filter on the computers in the Adult area, but she explained they could not.  She said that they could get sued like other libraries that had been sued in the past and lost.  She was nice about it, but said that that was how it was going to have to stay...unfiltered.  If I felt uncomfortable, my only other option was to quit, but she said it nicely.  I was dumbfounded, but walked out believing her about the legality of porn in the library.  (Now to this day, I am unsure if Director Wsol actually believed that there were actual cases of libraries being sued, or just used that line to shut me up and make me go away.)

    This is from one of the Birmingham Public Library
    librarian sexual harassment cases but it's similar
    to what is being revealed about OPPL.
    I went home and began to internet research about porn and the legality of it on the library computers.  Keeping in mind that this online research was almost 10 yrs. ago, I found no lawsuits regarding freedom of speech and not allowing a patron to watch porn on the library premises.  Granted, the internet was not as filled with information as it is now, but still after all of my online hunting I found nothing online that said libraries had been sued.  I went to talk to Mary Weimar (whom I tried so hard to be friendly with, but I was told by other co-workers "watch your back, Linda").

    I appealed to Mary about what I had seen and told her that I found nothing on the internet about libraries being sued.  She said the same as Sharon (I am convinced that the two had talked about this and me possibly being a problem), and she assured me it was out there, and if I was uncomfortable with it, I could leave my position. (She did not tell me to quit directly, but nicely suggested that there would not be any hard feelings, and don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya, basically.)  I told her that I did not think that taxpayers were aware of what they were paying for, that the public had no idea and that they should know.  She "in her nice way" basically told me to leave it alone.  I got up and returned to the computer area once again feeling defeated.  But if libraries had been sued as she and Sharon told me, then it MUST be true??  (According to Safelibraries.org, I found out with this current media fodder that NO library has ever been sued, period.  Never.  Not once.  So now I think: Was I intentionally lied to by Director Sharon Wsol and Asst Director Mary Weimar to just shut me up and make me (and the porn issued) go away??)


Challenge to Debate ALA's Caldwell-Stone or Chmara

Any Chicago media want me to debate ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone or Theresa Chmara directly on live media?  I'm game.  And I'm the perfect person to do it–the CIPA author called me a "trusted source" on exposing ALA propaganda.  There's a lot of propaganda to expose.  I'll be writing many more posts about OPPL and ALA's recent false statements.  Please follow along on any of my social media sites for the latest revelations and follow Megan Fox @IntolerantFox.


NOTE ADDED 11 NOVEMBER 2013:

Minor update to account for recent name change by someone named in my post.


NOTE ADDED 12 NOVEMBER 2013:

Picture removed in respect of first comment.



On Twitter:  @ACLU @ACLULGBT @FTRF @IntolerantFox @Istook @LindaZec @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @PFLAG @Porn_Harms @TaylorWAnderson

Friday, November 1, 2013

Political Deception Enables Illegality in Libraries; Palm Beach County Attorney Denise Nieman of Bush v Gore 2004 Fame

School teacher Jill Sheffield describing what
her students saw on a class trip
to the public library.
There have been numerous undercover reports of library crime over the years.  Never have any been so significant as this one that rises above the level of the library to expose political deception that facilitates illegality in public libraries, in this case by Bush v Gore 2004 Palm Beach County Attorney Denise Nieman.  Watch this CBS 12 News report:

Listen carefully to that report as both the County Attorney and the library's director John Callahan refuse to go on camera in a case involving elementary school children on a class trip to the library seeing inappropriate material and the library telling school teacher Jill Sheffield the First Amendment allows that.  Both say the issues are just too complicated for the public to understand.

Or just look at this still from the CBS 12 News report where the County Attorney is saying people are too stupid to understand why porn should be allowed in public libraries: "Nothing good can come from appearing on air because this is a complicated subject and needs more that the typical few edited seconds allowed."  Remember, this is a public servant supposedly saying it is a "complicated subject" and refusing to go on air to explain her legal opinion that goes against the law and may be unethical:


Here is County Attorney Denise Nieman ducking having to answer to the public.

How complicated can it be?  Anyone can read and understand the very case Denise Nieman completely left out of her legal opinion because it opposed her diktat and because it found the exact opposite of what she recommended, such as with regard to "privacy screens":

And the library is violating the law and defrauding the federal government of millions under CIPA.  By $2.3M dollars.  Who signed those false certifications to the federal government that resulted in that ill-gotten windfall?  That also violates federal law, does it not?  The False Claims Act perhaps?

I look forward to more reporting on this from Michael Buczyner and CBS 12 News.  I especially look forward to this story setting an example for media to investigate the political control that keeps the illegality flowing in public libraries and keeps the public in the dark, as Denise Nieman illustrates.

For what its worth, here I am in that report, and thank you Michael Buczyner for your work in this regard, and thank you Denise Nieman for illustrating exactly how political leaders/attorneys mislead entire communities into accepting that which is perfectly legal to exclude and may actually be excluded by law:

Here I am on CBS 12 News exposing the harm done by Denise Nieman.
If anyone is interested in seeing letters I have sent to Palm Beach County advising of the potential for liability if it continues to allow the library to act outside the law, and in seeing the unprofessional response of Denise Nieman, including her attacking the school teacher for mistaking "a music video ... that showed scantily-clad women dancing in the background" for what the teacher and her students actually saw, see:

Learn from the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act author how communities are being misled by the likes of Denise Nieman and what can be done to stop it, including passing state and local laws modeled on the federal CIPA law, and see what he says about me:


By the way, even the American Library Association now admits library Internet filters work, work well, no longer block health-related information, and blocking breast cancer is an old excuse:


My greatest thanks go to Jill Sheffield, the teacher who stood up for her school children in the first place, who picketed in front of the library, and to her school for supporting her.  I encourage other school teachers to speak out as well when they see something wrong.

Speaking of school teachers seeing something wrong, the American Library Association is in schools trying to stop them from filtering the Internet even there, calling it "Banned Website Awareness Day":





On Twitter: @PBClibrary @PBCgov @CBS12 @MichaelBCBS12 @SafeLibraries @Istook @Porn_Harms #library #CIPA