Tuesday, January 7, 2014

To Harass and Punish: Library Uses Police Against Megan Fox for Reporting Library Porn

Graphic credit PJ Media.
Elected officials at the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], Orland Park, IL, have called the police so many times on mom Megan Fox who reported library porn and unreported crimes in the library that now the mom feels harassed by the police and elected officials.  Absolutely no one will stand up to help her, likely due to governmental intimidation.  Mind you, this is the library that Saturday Night Live Weekend Update with Seth Meyers mocked for its unlimited porn policy and that the American Library Association [ALA] personally visited to advise people to maintain the porn as a First Amendment right and block out anyone saying otherwise, especially me.  The harassment is so repeated and so outrageous, you'll have to see for yourselves what library media like Library Journal and ALA's own American Libraries will suppress, as is their habit:


By the way, there is no First Amendment right to porn in public libraries, according to the US Supreme Court, local law, common sense, and community values.  As a result, no library has yet been sued for blocking porn on library computers.  ALA lost that US v. ALA case over a decade ago but tries, often successfully, to mislead communities into ignoring the law, effectively nullifying the case it lost.  It is part of the reason Megan Fox is being harassed.  The library knows it has no legal leg to stand on, so it needs to attack the messenger.  Ditto for ALA.  I know because I'm often the messenger ALA maligns.

This OPPL is extremely successful in attacking the messenger, even putting a warning about her on the top of its front page.  If OPPL ultimately maintains the porn, ALA will train libraries nationwide on the tactics OPPL used to silence Megan Fox to keep the porn in place.  If Megan Fox ultimately wins, ALA and library media will remain silent.


On Twitter:  @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @PJMedia_com @VillageOrlandPk

8 comments:

  1. Make a case as to why people shouldn't call police when they feel threatened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make a case where the library felt threatened. There is none because the library admitted there is none. Several times, if I recall. Please read and listen to the evidence that Megan Fox has exposed.

      Delete
  2. They make that case for themselves. She's following people to their houses and disseminating personal information. Its no wonder these older women felt threatened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is 100% false. You have not read the evidence. Assuming you are the same Anonymous from the previous comment, then you have not read the evidence despite my suggestion to do so, yet you come back to make false statements designed to attack the messenger as some kind of kook who "follows people to their houses" to "disseminate personal information." In Internet talk, that kind of behavior where you make things up and attack people is called trolling. You are a troll. Please do not write here further unless you wish to discuss the matter without trolling and without making personal attacks on the person exposing the library for acting in an illegal fashion. As I said and you ignored, "Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed."

      Delete
  3. I'm not wrong. Her actions made the people fearful. They contacted police out od that fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong again, but you are persistent. Legal action may arise out of the elected officials repeated abuse of power and violation of the public trust. An elected official calling the police to file a fake crime report only to admit nothing really happened but you are really only trying to establish a record sounds like an abuse of power and violation of the public trust to me.

      Now you said, "I'm not wrong. Her actions made the people fearful. They contacted police out od that fear." No. 100% false. Listen to the police recording. The library director makes a report then admits nothing really happened, she was merely trying to establish a record. They did not contact the police "out of fear." They contacting the police to censor, to silence, to harass, to besmirch the people teaching the community how the library is violating the law and harming the community. And the efforts to educate the community about the porn have been so successful so far that Saturday Night Live made fun of your community. So extraordinary efforts are being made to attack the messenger, and you, Anonymous, are on that team.

      If they became fearful, that would be the fear they have that their allowing porn despite the law and not reporting crime to the police is being exposed by people who will not shrink in the face of personal attack that even includes being featured right at the top of the front page of the library's web site.

      Your comments as "Anonymous" coincide with visits to my blog from communities in or about Orland Park. Why not reveal who you are?

      Delete
  4. Megan is not a victim, and I myself am afraid of her, which is why I'm not going to give my name here (this is my first comment and I think the others are separate people too). As the person above said, she went to the board member's house. Megan herself recorded the conversation with the police about this (so it's not made up and no one trolling by saying this happened, unless the conversation was with Megan and a friend and Megan lied about this happening--which would be weird because it only makes her look terrible and not the library or the police). She was told she cannot harass people; going to their houses and leaving them notes was something she was told not to do again. Since the cop was not on her side, she said that he was harassing her by... I'm not quite sure... there was no harassment. Again, not a victim at all. Just an aggressor (she even starting harassing the cop a bit). Here's the video of the police interaction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGXHiKBcWoE

    For Megan's other videos and to form your own opinion about what is really going on here and who the victims actually are, I urge people to watch the rest of her videos here: http://www.youtube.com/user/intolerantfox?feature=watch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for publishing those URLs so people can judge for themselves. But set up the story honestly.

      The library had blocked Megan's emails (just like it blocks my ability to leave comments on its Facebook page that I used to leave and to which the library responded). The library director would not forward information from Megan to the library trustees. It was Friday and the library trustee meeting was Monday in a few days. Nancy is the head of the library board. She is an elected official. As such she provided her home address to media. Local media published her home address. Megan obtained her home address from public sources using information the library board president provided. She simply left off info about the issue, not simply personal info as you imply or openly say, relating to the very duties for which Nancy was elected and her address was published. Remember the library had already cut off Megan's access to contact them via email and via the library director. Anyone in the entire world would have been forced under those circumstances to place something for consideration of a public official regarding her public duties in a mailbox that an elected official listed publicly for the purpose of her duties for which she was elected. Besides, using USPS may have gotten the letter there too late.

      Then, having been forced to do that, Megan was accused of harassment. As if the actions of the public officials in acting against the public trust had not previously occurred. It's a classic game. It's like the American Library Association that advises schools to provide "material reconsideration forms." Once you fill them out, you are labeled as a "censor" 100% of the time. 100% So Megan was forced to use the public mail address and when she did she was labeled a harasser.

      All this is done for a reason. The reason is the library has no legal basis for defying local and national law to push porn in the library despite the community as the survey shows being against it by 90 or 95%. As there is no legal basis to stand on, the library strategy is to attack the person complaining. Standard politics of personal destruction, but it is wrong for elected officials to do that, then to get the police to act accordingly. So the library cut off Megan from representation and, when Megan used the only remaining means available, falsely claimed Megan was harassing Nancy.

      Has the library give one iota about former library employee Linda Zec's harassment? No. Megan's? No. Kevin's? No. Etc., etc. Suddenly Nancy is "harassed" by someone she forced into simply leaving a letter in for her publicly listed mail address.

      But go ahead, continue writing here and illustrating your tactics of personal destruction so as to mislead people into overlooking that the library is breaking the law and harming the community and using illegal means to maintain its control despite the law.

      Delete

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