Libraries Allowing Porn Are Wrong; Donna Rice Hughes of Enough Is Enough Explains Why

Donna Rice Hughes

Donna Rices Hughes of Enough Is Enough has been deeply involved with the Internet safety issues vis-à-vis children for a very long time.   She has worked with the Department of Justice on such issues, appeared on national television on shows such as 20/20 and Oprah, been appointed by Senator Trent Lott to serve on the Child Online Protection Act Commission, co-wrote a season finale for Touched By An Angel that brought Internet dangers to the public's attention in a big way, and has many other significant achievements.  Lately, she has produced Internet Safety 101: Empowering Parents Program.

What Donna Rice Hughes has to say about the libraries allowing unfettered pornography, such as in the Brooklyn Public Library, is highly instructive.  New York City public libraries have been successful in propagandizing the public that anything goes in public libraries.

The truth is the opposite—libraries have successfully removed legal porn and exposed American Library Association dogma.  Let's hear what Donna Rice Hughes has to say that sets the library propaganda about the law straight:

"FIRST PERSON (Donna Rice Hughes):  Porn—In Your Public Library?," by Donna Rice Hughes, Baptist Press, 27 May 2011.

RESTON, VA -- An April fistfight between an impatient person and a porn-viewing patron at the Brooklyn Public Library has reignited an old debate regarding whether adults should have free and easy access to hardcore pornography or illegal adult pornography, known under the law as obscenity, at their local public library.  A spokesperson for the library has explained that the library is complying with patrons' First Amendment rights, and thus provides Internet access to pornography to adult patrons.

While libraries do not stock obscene hard core videos, patrons at the New York Public Library have easy access to this hardcore content through taxpayer-funded Internet access.  Why?  Because this particular library doesn't understand the laws pertaining to this issue.

The library spokesperson stated:  "We comply with CIPA [Children's Internet Protection Act] and our policy forbids users to access materials that are legally defined as obscene, as child pornography, or, in the case of persons under 17, as harmful to minors.  The library is committed to creating a positive experience for everyone, and we expect those who use the library to do so with respect to our policies and to others."

As indicated by her statement, the Brooklyn library spokesperson has apparently confused both the definition of CIPA and the legal definitions of obscenity and child pornography covered by CIPA.  Hence, the library's feeble attempt to comply with CIPA has left adult and child library patrons unprotected.

At this point, three lessons are in order, which will hopefully benefit this particular library and others operating under the same misguided misunderstanding of these laws.

— First, a history lesson:  This is déjà vu for Enough Is Enough (EIE).  In the mid-1990s, EIE realized that schools and libraries were not protecting students and library patrons from the deluge of obscenity and child pornography available online.  As an early pioneer of Internet safety efforts since 1994, EIE sprang into action.  I personally prepared a briefing book, containing news stories and pictures of the types of pornography available in both schools and libraries, for Sen. John McCain, then head of the Senate Commerce Committee, and other senators and asked:  Should taxpayers pay for our schools and libraries to be pornography outlets?  Congress didn't think so.  CIPA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton.  The American Library Association (ALA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups immediately launched a legal challenge, questioning the constitutionality of CIPA.  Fortunately for the sake of children and families, with the leadership of EIE and other groups, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of CIPA.  As a result, schools and libraries that implement CIPA as intended by Congress are better able to ensure the Internet is safely accessed.

— Second, a CIPA law lesson:  CIPA requires schools and libraries using federal "e-rate" subsidies to dedicate some of those funds to install software that filters out pornography.  Specifically, child pornography, obscenity and softcore content, legally defined as "harmful to minors," must be filtered for those ages 17 or under.  For adult library users, both child pornography and online obscenity should be filtered, since neither of these is constitutionally protected under current federal statutes.  There exists a common misconception that the only type of illegal pornography for adults is child pornography.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In layman's terms, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity for adults period, whether in the library or anywhere else.  Although CIPA was written to be idiot proof, common misunderstandings emerge from confusion over the legal definitions of pornography, specifically obscenity.

— Hence, the third and final lesson:  Pornography Law 101:  There are three types of pornography legally defined by the Supreme Court, and CIPA refers to all three:

1.  Child pornography -- Child pornography is material that visually depicts children under the age of 18 engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity, including lewd exhibition of the genitals.

2.  Obscenity -- Obscenity is graphic material that focuses on sex and/or sexual violence.  It includes close-ups of graphic sex acts, lewd exhibition of the genitals and deviant activities such as group sex, bestiality, incest and excretory functions.  For clarification, obscenity is not to be confused with softcore pornography, known under the law as harmful to minors/indecent content.

3.  Harmful to Minors (HTM) material -- Harmful to minors material represents nudity or sex that has prurient appeal for minors, is offensive and unsuitable for minors, and lacks serious value for minors.  There are "harmful to minors" laws in every state.

For libraries attempting to correctly implement CIPA, they must not confuse the laws above, which distinctly refer to different types of content.  Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment for children or adults; however, it is available in abundance, both online and offline.

People often ask:  If it's illegal, why is it everywhere?  Simply put, obscenity laws have not been aggressively enforced, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal obscenity laws.

Additionally, individuals should not equate the widespread availability of illegal adult material with community acceptance of hardcore content.  In October, 2009, a national poll by Harris Interactive found that 76 percent of individuals surveyed "totally disagreed" that viewing hardcore adult pornography on the Internet was morally acceptable.  Likewise, 74 percent "totally disagreed" that viewing hardcore adult pornography on the Internet was generally harmless entertainment.

The New York Public Library seems to have been shaped by the misguided (and radical) position of the ACLU, which we successfully battled in the mid-1990s and early 2000s.  While they may be claiming to uphold CIPA in principle, they are failing to uphold CIPA in practice.  Several patrons have testified that they regularly witness individuals viewing hardcore content.  While computer terminals include privacy extensions, many individuals are not using these screens, and even when individuals do use the screens, patrons have complained they can still hear the audio from the hardcore content.  It is clear that the New York Public Library is not in full compliance with CIPA and, as a result, is not fulfilling its responsibility to protect children and adult library patrons.

As the overwhelming majority of Americans understand, the problem with pornography, as with many things, is that it affects more than those who just look at it.  For some individuals, pornography is progressively addictive in nature.  Research shows that pornography affects attitudes, values and behaviors, and pornography has been linked to sex crimes against women and children, innocent victims who did not view pornography.  A number of federal legal precedents have also found that pornography was used as a tool in sexual harassment, and the New York Library should do more to implement responsible policies to protect themselves and taxpayers from legal liability.

.

Porn Fist Fight in Library; The Brooklyn Public Library May Be At Fault, Perhaps the ALA As Well

Porn—summarizes the Brooklyn
Public Library perfectly, no?

There was a fist fight over porn on the Internet computers in the Brooklyn Public Library [BPL]. Two guys were charged.

The real culprits?  The library itself that allows the porn while violating the law in exchange for millions of dollars fraudulently obtained, and the American Library Association [ALA] that advises libraries including the BPL how to sidestep the law.

It is more than likely the incident would not have occurred if the library actually complied with the law it claimed to follow on paper but not in practice.  And the library knew this was a problem, only making its culpability worse, and right from the start as well.  My guess is this fraud and the attention brought to it is why former BPL Director Dionne Mack-Harvin quit for greener pastures in El Paso, TX.

So one guy punching out another over porn in a library?  This library may be at least partially at fault, and perhaps even the ALA.

I will happily assist legal counsel for both fight participants—a library with millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains sounds like deep pockets to me.

Now here is the news and the ridicule—it seems everyone but the library realizes the library is wrong:

• "Porn Punch-Up in B'klyn Library," by Jamie Schram, New York Post, 20 April 2011.
  

  A man traded blows with a porn-loving patron at the Brooklyn Public Library and was slapped with assault charges -- while the sex addict got off easy, police sources said.

• "Library Porn Lover Punched Out By Vigilante," by Sam Biddle, Gizmodo, 21 April 2011. (Note: photo credit goes to this Gizmodo story—it summarizes the Brooklyn Public Library perfectly.)
  

  Man, sometimes all you want is to just settle in at the library, fire up some internet porn, and have yourself a time.

• "Brooklyn Public Library No Place To Watch Porn...But Great For Fist Fights!," by Ben Yakas, Gothamist, 20 April 2011. (Cites to a story that called me a "library watchdog.")
  

  All of the city's libraries, including the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL), have a rich and storied history of creepy dudes checking out porn on their computers.... Obviously, we've been doing something very wrong by masturbating in the comfort, safety and relative anonymity of our own homes.

• "Brooklyn Library Patrons Exchange Blows Over Porn, Library Computer Use," by Jen Doll, The Village Voice, 20 April 2011.
  

  It is apparently 'okay'... to watch porn in the Brooklyn Public Library, on the Brooklyn Library computer. What is not okay is becoming impatient while waiting to use the library computer, probably because you have to update your resume or something actually kind of important, while it is being used by someone who is leisurely just watching porn. What is not okay is then 'becoming irate,' and exchanging 'blows' (the fist kind) with that person.

Please comment below on what you think about my opinions and the sources I have linked.

.

In Defense of Dionne Mack-Harvin; The Brooklyn Public Library Director's Resignation May Be for Laudable Reasons

Dionne Mack-Harvin is resigning as the director of the Brooklyn Public Library.  The media is all aflutter with speculation that she is resigning due to a gaffe that occurred last August.  But there may be another reason, and a laudable one at that.   She may not want to be a part of what may be a continuing conspiracy to commit fraud.

Media Reports Claim Old Flap as Reason for Resignation

These media reports claim the reason for the director's resignation is related to a matter from August 2009:

• "Brooklyn Public Library Big Resigns Over Botched Layoffs Using Real-Life 'Up in the Air' Hatchet Co.," by Elizabeth Hays, Daily News, 9 March 2010.
• "Dionne Mack-Harvin, Resigning Brooklyn Library Boss, Burned by Chatty Downsizers: News," by Roy Edroso, The Village Voice, 9 March 2010.
• "Brooklyn PL Director Mack-Harvin Resigns After Three Years; Interim Director to be Named; Board Meeting Tonight," by Norman Oder, Library Journal, 4 March 2010.

As I read those stories, I see no direct evidence that the August 2009 kerfuffle is the reason for the resignation.  Indeed, "Mack-Harvin insists that her resignation was a personal decision that had nothing to do with the downsizing scandal...."

Might there be something more recent that caused the director to jump?

Recent Criticism of the BPL and a Call for Production of Exculpatory Documents

Recently, I have disclosed what may be fraud perpetrated by the Brooklyn Public Library.  I called on the director to speak with me publicly and to produce copies of certifications filed with the federal government that would prove or disprove possible fraud. Please see:

• "Porn in Brooklyn Public Library; Frustrated Patron Provides Photographic Proof; Library Refuses to Act; Two and a Half Million Dollars in Jeopardy Due to Possible Fraud," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 18 December 2009.
• "Janet Napolitano vs Dionne Mack-Harvin; Open Request for Interview with Brooklyn Public Library Director Regarding CIPA Internet Filters and $2.5M in Undue Federal Funding," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 4 January 2010.
• "Obama Nominee Carla Hayden is Unfit for Administration Post; Dionne Mack-Harvin May Go to Jail for Following Hayden's E-Rate Advice," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 February 2010.

Letter from the Brooklyn Borough President

In response to these blog posts and emails based thereon, I have received from the Brooklyn Borough President the following response:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM, [name, email elided]@brooklynbp.nyc.gov wrote:

To Mr. Kleinman:

The Borough President’s Office has received your issue concerning viewing pornography in Brooklyn Public Library.  In response to your concerns we have contacted the BPL and they have stated that they filter their computers, providing adults the choice to conduct their computer session filtered or unfiltered and children’s computers are automatically filtered.  Further, privacy screens are available for all customers and though the libraries are public spaces library staff is trained to manage customer services issues as they occur.  The BPL states that they ensure that children’s areas are separate from adult areas, and if a customer is viewing controversial material, that the customer use a privacy screen or move to a more secluded location.  Also, the BPL states that an independent audit, conducted two years ago by the international accounting firm KPMG on behalf of the Universal Services Access Corporation (USAC), the organization responsible for dispersing and overseeing E-Rate funds, found that BPL was in compliance with federal E-Rate requirements.

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at the number provided below.

Sincerely,
[name elided]

[name elided]
Community Liaison
Brooklyn Borough President
Marty Markowitz
209 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone Number: [elided]
Fax Number:     [elided]

The Brooklyn Borough President has reacted to the resignation by lauding the director most graciously.  See:  "Brooklyn Public Library Chief Resigns," by Rich Calder, New York Post, 4 March 2010.

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

What the above message from the Brooklyn Borough President tells me is that the library misled the President and KPMG, and there may be a conspiracy to commit fraud.  How else does one explain how the library survived the 2007 KMPG audit?  Had the library disclosed that it allows patrons to unfilter the computers for themselves?  There certainly would have been consequences vis-a-vis the E-rate funding received in the past and in the future.  Remember, as I disclosed on my other blog posts, what the library says in writing complies with the law, but differs from what the library allows in practice.

Evidence of Fraud Begins in 2004

Potential evidence of the perpetration of the fraud first appeared in 2004.  That was the first time it was publicly noted that the library may be skirting the relevant law:

• "Norman Oder on Bizarre Library CIPA Implementations," by David Burt, Filtering Facts, 13 May 2008.
• "Project Uncensored; The New Library Internet Filters Solve Nothing. So Why Have Them," by Norman Oder [per above citation], New York Press, 9 November 2004.

By the way, the very means the library uses to defraud the government is the American Library Association's [ALA] recommended means, as discussed in one of my previous posts.  I predict that the ALA will not change its guidance/policy even if violations are eventually proven. 

Mack-Harvin May Have Resigned to Quit Fraudulent Practice

Everything on my blog is my opinion unless backed up with reliable sources.   It is possible that the director resigned to stop playing a role in defrauding the federal government, something that may have been ongoing since at least 2004 and that continues to this day.

It is possible she joined the library when the fraudulent activity was already well underway, and now that I have brought the matter to the public's attention, or now that she has considered what I have said and found it may be valid, she has had the integrity to resign from such an operation.

I could be totally wrong.   I think the August 2009 firings are too remote to cause a resignation now, seven months later and after the matter had quieted down.  And she said they didn't.  On the other hand, I think the Brooklyn Borough President's letter occurring just two weeks before the resignation and all the background that goes with it is coincidentally close, no?

Good Luck to Dionne Mack-Harvin

I wish the director well, no matter what the truth may ultimately be.  But if she resigned to avoid perpetrating a fraud, she will truly be a role model librarian/citizen.  As one commenter ("Concerned Librarian in Brooklyn") on the Library Journal article said:

In the big picture, she did well and is leaving us a better, stronger organization.  Our circulation is the highest it has ever been, many frontline staff are happier than with past administrations, we are more honest and more transparent.  At least for three years it was nice to have one of our own in charge and to see a young, accomplished, African American woman in charge of the fifth largest public library system in the world.  Now we are left to the mercy of the Board of Trustees:  a bunch of clueless, overly political, nasty, corrupt, individuals as only Brooklyn could create.

"Corrupt"!  Coincidence?

What do you think?  Please comment below.

.

Obama Nominee Carla Hayden is Unfit for Administration Post; Dionne Mack-Harvin May Go to Jail for Following Hayden's E-Rate Advice

Dionne Mack-Harvin may be going to jail, along with some members the Brooklyn Public Library Board of Trustees.  Ethics charges may be brought against the attorney members of the board as a result.  Why?  For E-Rate fraud and conspiracy to commit E-Rate fraud.

Dionne Mack-Harvin obviously chooses to allow the matter of a potential $2.5M fraud to drop by ignoring it.  I have asked her for an interview and the production of documents that may reveal the truth, but she has chosen not to respond.

Here is something she cannot ignore:  people who defraud the E-Rate program go to jail.  People who conspire to defraud the E-Rate program also go to jail.  Dionne Mack-Harvin may be guilty of both, in my opinion.

And who may be ultimately responsible?  Carla Hayden, President Obama's choice for the National Museum & Library Services [IMLS] Board, and former American Library Association [ALA] President.   Carla Hayden's ALA recommended, on her orders as ALA President, the very means the Brooklyn Public Library used to defraud the federal government.  And now Carla Hayden is nominated to be a member of the same federal government she advised libraries nationwide to defraud.  To this day the ALA makes the same recommendation.

In 1997, a publisher was held liable for a crime committed by someone who read a book it published on how to commit crime then who followed that advice and killed three people.  Similarly, Carla Hayden published advice on how to circumvent the E-Rate law, libraries follow that advice, and some may now face criminal charges.

I do not blame the Obama administration one iota for nominating Carla Hayden.  I am hoping, however, that people will consider the evidence I am bringing to the fore, connecting the dots as it were, about the unfitness of Carla Hayden to serve in the post for which she was nominated.  I hope Carla Hayden withdraws from the offer or is otherwise prevented from forcing her past actions and inactions on the entire nation.

What is E-Rate?

What is the E-Rate program?  Please read "Overview of the E-Rate Program" in the "Information" filing in U.S. v. Rowner, Case No. 08 CR-20047-01-02 CM/JPO (D. Kan. 23 April 2008).

US v. Rowner E-Rate Fraud

US v. Rowner.  What is that?  That is the case where people were found guilty of defrauding and conspiring to defraud the E-Rate program.  That is the case that supports my speculation that Dionne Mack-Harvin and members of the board of trustees may go to jail.  Here are media clips on the matter:

• "NJ Businessmen Sentenced to Jail for E-Rate Fraud," by Grant Gross, IDG News Service, 5 February 2010.
• "Two New Jersey Executives Each Sentenced to 27 Months in Jail for Roles in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the Federal E-Rate Program," by US DOJ, US Department of Justice, 4 February 2010.
• "Two More Indicted on E-Rate Fraud Charges; Six People and 12 Companies Have Now Pleaded or Been Found Guilty in the DOJ's Ongoing Investigation Into Fraud at the E-Rate Program," by Grant Gross,  IDG News Service, 25 April 2008.

Look at the specific offenses committed:  please read "Plea Agreement Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B) [Benjamin Rowner] (07/10/2008)" from U.S. v. Rowner,

Public Libraries May Be Committing E-Rate Fraud

Bearing that in mind, consider how public library directors and public library boards of trustees may be acting in substantially the same manner so as to obtain substantially the same goal.  Consider $2.5M may have been fraudulently obtained by the Brooklyn Public Library.  Consider $0.5M may have been fraudulently obtained by the Brownsville Public Library.  Consider they are the tip of the iceberg.

The American Library Association Aids and Abets E-Rate Fraud

Consider further the role of the American Library Association [ALA] in this fraud.  The ALA actually recommends taking action that it is aware may be illegal, but couches that action with language about checking with local attorneys:

Again, we must caution, however, that the options described above are untested in the courts and in the FCC, and there is no guarantee that they necessarily would be deemed legally sufficient.  Libraries considering these or other options, therefore, must consult their own legal counsel for an analysis of any specific policy. 

See:  "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Legal FAQ," American Library Association, 20 October 2009, emphasis in original.  

What makes this really bad is the ALA took on itself the responsibility of guiding libraries on the proper response to US v. ALA, and that response is to violate the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law, then tell libraries to get their own legal advice.  

ALA President Carla Hayden

Who initially made this recommendation at the ALA?  Former ALA President Carla Hayden.  She was the ALA President when US v. ALA was decided.  She promised the ALA would guide libraries on how to respond to the law:

In the wake of the CIPA decision, the priorities of the association are to:

• Provide libraries with authoritative information regarding their choices and CIPA requirements, as they evaluate options and make decisions regarding the new legal requirements.  ....

In order to accomplish these goals, a variety of long and short-term efforts will be pursued by ALA, its committees, divisions and offices. These activities include:

• Providing information on options available to libraries, including the choice of either applying or not applying for federal funds subject to CIPA provisions....

See : "CIPA Decision Response: A Statement from ALA President Carla D. Hayden and the ALA Executive Board," by Carla D. Hayden, American Library Association, 25 July 2003.

She later restated her responsibility: "'The ALA is committed to providing practical, real-life assistance to our members, as well as developing best practices and ideals for the profession,' said ALA President Carla Hayden."

But guidance was never delivered.  Instead, recommendations were made to skirt the law with the "caveat" to hire lawyers in case the ALA recommendations are wrong.   The ALA recommended the very means the Brooklyn Public Library used to skirt the law:  "The Internet terminals could then offer adult patrons the option of Internet access with the filter enabled or disabled.  ....  Upon the patron's assent, the terminal could provide unfiltered Internet access."  When I called the FCC, I was specifically told allowing patrons to unfilter computers for themselves violates the law.  In seven years since 2003 when US v. ALA was decided the ALA cannot call and make the same determination?  The Brooklyn Public Library uses this ALA means to evade the law.  It knows it is wrong as it says in writing something different that it allows in practice:  "adults may request that the filtering technology be disabled, and they need not explain the reason for the request."  Requesting unfiltered access is legal; clicking an on screen button to obviate the requirement to request access violates the law.

In addition, notice Carla Hayden gets top billing from the White House as a "veteran of the Chicago public library system."  As CBS 2 Investigator Dave Savini exposed:

Online pornography is so clear and evident at Chicago libraries that we could actually see a patron looking at porn simply by standing on a city street and looking through the window. ....  [T]here are no guidelines against viewing pornography at Chicago libraries.  Even convicted sex offenders can use those computers to access sexually graphic images.

Worse, the Chicago public library system actively covers up crimes by not calling the police.  Oh yes, they have a policy to call the police, but the practice is otherwise:

The 2 Investigators obtained three years of internal incident reports from Chicago public libraries.

They reveal sex crimes ranging from flashers to inappropriate touching, and sex acts in bathrooms and men viewing child pornography online.

One-third of the offenses involve people masturbating while at computers.

Other reports include a registered sex offender caught masturbating, another sex offender and his friend trying to take a boy's picture and a man looking at porn while carrying a knife and handcuffs.

"A lot of parents let their children go to the library and do their homework and they have no idea what is going on up there," Hanson said.

Police are called in some cases, but not others.

A couple disrobing in a locked bathroom stall was arrested, but some men caught masturbating in plain sight were simply asked to leave for the day.

"Maybe some people make light of things, but what happens when a child gets abducted and gets killed?" Hanson asked.

Now here comes the stiff arm, the same stiff arm I expect from Carla Hayden:

We repeatedly tried to get an interview with Chicago Public Library officials. Instead, a spokesperson gave us a statement saying the library policy "... Is to call the Chicago Police Department when anything criminal happens."

Also, when staff members fail to properly handle incidents and don't call Chicago Police, they are retrained.

CBS 2 Investigators talked to registered sex offender Michael Connelly about viewing pornography in a Chicago library.  He says what he did was legal.

The source of the above quotations is "How Safe Are Our Kids In Public Libraries?  Convicted Sex Offenders Have Free And Legal Access To Pornography At Chicago Libraries," by Dave Savini, CBS, 21 December 2006, now available in archived format.

What could be worse than not calling the police?  How about thwarting the police, by covering up for a registered sex offender, no less:

The officer then stated he is a registered child sex offender. I had seen this man many times before in the library but had no clue. [Connelly] was later released and not charged with anything because [I was told that] although viewing obscene material in public is against the law, it is perfectly legal in a library -- in plain view of children and adult patrons.

The police were not allowed to retrieve the sites [Connelly] was looking at due to privacy issues with the library, so there was no way to prove that the images were of minors. ....

There are multiple reports of people fondling themselves, [of fondling] children, and even child abductions by these predators in our libraries. There are laws already in place to prevent these things from happening but are not being enforced inside of a library because of the first amendment right of "free speech."

Source:  "IFI's Smith Interviewed for Chicago's CBS Investigative Report on Criminal Activity in Neighborhood Public Libraries, by Illinois Family Institute, 21 December 2006, emphasis added.

Besides all that, Carla Hayden has been a fierce critic of the USA PATRIOT Act:

Hayden was so vocal in her fight against this part of the Patriot Act that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft personally telephoned her and promised to declassify reports related to FBI surveillance. Undaunted, Hayden was instrumental in leading the ALA to team with the American Booksellers Association for a signature drive and petition to Congress to revise this section of the Patriot Act. For this effort, Ms. Magazine named her one of its ten Women of the Year for 2003.

Source:  "Carla D. Hayden," by Carol Brennan, Answers.com, undated.

Be that as it may, her opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act is shared by a variety of organizations.  So that does not concern me as much as her activities for which the ALA is the lead organization, such as in advising on filtering public libraries.

Liberty Counsel Missed One

Liberty Counsel published a report "document[ing] the beliefs, words and actions of more than 100 radicals that Obama has hand-picked to 'change' our nation."  See "Liberty Counsel Report Documents Obama’s Radical Nominees and Appointments," by Liberty Counsel, LC.org, 27 January 2010.

I read the report only so much as to see if Carla Hayden is in it, and I take no stand on it otherwise.  Hayden is not in the report.  Liberty Counsel missed one!  See, "Obama's Appointees and Nominees," by Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, undated (circa 27 January 2010).  This report has 72 pages and 862 footnotes—and I thought I heavily linked my research!  I urge Liberty Counsel to consider investigating what I have reported, then add Carla Hayden to its list.

Carla Hayden in the IMLS:  The Fox Minding the Henhouse

This same Carla Hayden has just been nominated by President Barack Obama to have a big say over what goes on in American libraries.  Now the ALA solution of do nothing and skirting the law is coming to the United States government.  Now the Chicago Public Library anything-goes policy is coming to the United States government.  It is like the fox minding the henhouse.

As library law expert Mary Minow has noted, "[U]nder ... the Children's Internet Protection Act, ... the library and IMLS may come to an agreement to bring the library into compliance."

Under Carla Hayden, the IMLS will never bring any library into any compliance.  She was the ALA President at the time the ALA lost US v. ALA and she promised to provide guidance to libraries.  Not only did she not do that, but she advised libraries how to skirt the law.  She then used CYA language to protect the ALA.  Carla Hayden will never bring any library to comply with any filtering law.  She must not be allowed to join the IMLS.

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors is a book that advises how to be a hit man.  Someone read the book then murdered three people.  Paladin Press, the publisher of the book, was sued for "aiding and abetting" the murderer.  Rice v. Paladin Enterprises held the publisher liable for the triple murder.

On the night of March 3, 1993, readied by these instructions and steeled by these seductive adjurations from Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors , a copy of which was subsequently found in his apartment, James Perry brutally murdered Mildred Horn, her eight-year-old quadriplegic son Trevor, and Trevor's nurse, Janice Saunders, by shooting Mildred Horn and Saunders through the eyes and by strangling Trevor Horn.

Libraries are readied by Carla Hayden's instructions and steeled by her ALA's seductive adjurations from "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Legal FAQ," the substance of which is reprinted on many library web sites.  As a result, children remain exposed to the very harms the law was enacted to stop.

As I read through the case, I found further similarities, and I urge others to take a look as well.  For example, see this:

However, while even speech advocating lawlessness has long enjoyed protections under the First Amendment, it is equally well established that speech, which, in its effect, is tantamount to legitimately proscribable nonexpressive conduct, may itself be legitimately proscribed, punished, or regulated incidentally to the constitutional enforcement of generally applicable statutes. 

[T]he First Amendment does not necessarily pose a bar to liability for aiding and abetting a crime, even when such aiding and abetting takes the form of the spoken or written word.

....

The cloak of the First Amendment envelops critical, but abstract, discussions of existing laws, but lends no protection to speech which urges the listeners to commit violations of current law.  ....  It was no theoretical discussion of non-compliance with laws; action was urged; the advice was heeded, and false forms were filed.

In this E-Rate matter, the false forms filed would be any of these.  "Action was urged; the advice was heeded, and false forms were filed."  This is the very documentation I have asked the Brooklyn Public Library to produce but it has remained silent.

Also, like Paladin Enterprises, Carla Hayden and the ALA intended to assist libraries in skirting the law.  Oh you just have to read the Rice case for yourselves.  The similarities are striking.

Conclusion

Carla Hayden is unfit for the post to which she was nominated.  She promised to guide libraries on following E-Rate law.  Instead, she recommended skirting the law (by advising libraries to allow adults to unfilter computers for themselves) while advising libraries to get their own attorneys.  As a result, some libraries have been skirting the law as the ALA recommends.  Some libraries go further than the ALA recommends, like the Brownsville Public Library which illegally obtains E-Rate funding for Internet access but does not filter "adult" computers.   The result is libraries nationwide continue to endanger children by the very means the E-Rate law was designed to curtail and the US Supreme Court approved.  And it can legitimately be laid at the feet of Carla Hayden.

Carla Hayden must not be confirmed to an administration post having control over libraries nationwide, unless the anything-goes Chicago Public Library is your model library, and unless advising people to skirt a law that protects children is your own goal.  Given that a publisher that published information on how to commit crimes was held liable for the crimes committed thereby, Carla Hayden may similarly be held liable for E-Rate fraud in some future case.

Regarding the Brooklyn Public Library, it appears the library is acting in a manner that may result in the jailing of several of its members along with the return of huge amounts of money fraudulently obtained.  The recent US v. Rowner E-Rate fraud and conspiracy jailings strengthen this opinion.  If Dionne Mack-Harvin continues to evade my request for an interview and the production of documents, I will consider following up on this other request: 

Anyone with information concerning violations of the E-Rate program or other related anticompetitive conduct is urged to call the Antitrust Division's Chicago Field Office at 312-353-7530 or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

Dionne Mack-Harvin may go to jail for following Carla Hayden's E-Rate fraud scheme that has become standard ALA policy.  Incidents like this will only increase with Carla Hayden in the IMLS.

That's my opinion, backed up with reliable sources.  What is your opinion?  Are people supposed to accept defrauding the federal government just because it the local public library that is doing it?  Should the ALA continue to advise libraries to skirt the law?  Should ALA policy become national policy?  Please comment below.

Best Wishes to President Clinton

President Clinton is recovering from a serious heart procedure.  I wish him a speedy recovery, and it will be important for him to continue to follow his cardiologist's advice as the years go on and despite his feeling better. 

It was President Clinton who signed the Children's Internet Protection Act into law in 2000.  President Clinton, get well soon.

.

Janet Napolitano vs Dionne Mack-Harvin; Open Request for Interview with Brooklyn Public Library Director Regarding CIPA Internet Filters and $2.5M in Undue Federal Funding

Janet Napolitano versus Dionne Mack-Harvin.  One is the US Department of Homeland Security [DHS] Director and the other is the Brooklyn Public Library [BPL] Director.  Both have provided obviously false misinformation either themselves or through their organizations.  But what separates them is that one corrected herself within days to help protect people and the other has never made corrections, leaving people in the very danger the law was designed to stop.  Who's who?

Janet Napolitano, the DHS Director

First, Janet Napolitano.  The United States suffered a Christmas 2009 terrorist attack, but hundreds of its citizens narrowly averted death by the sheer luck of a faulty explosive device that only operated as an incendiary device on board an airplane over Detroit.  This is the "panty bomber" case, explosive underwear pictured at top right.

The first reaction from the DHS Director was to say "one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked."

No, the system failed completely.  The terrorist just had a bad chemistry or bad timing day.  "The passengers reacted correctly," the Director said, as if our defense systems should depend on the passengers instead of the very system set up to defend the passengers.

But two days later the DHS Director correctly and appropriately changed her message:  "Our system did not work in this instance,' Napolitano said on the TODAY show this morning. 'No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.'"

The DHS Director deserves credit for changing her story, and quickly, to one that reflected reality.

Compare her actions to those of the BPL Director.

Dionne Mack-Harvin, the BPL Director

Dionne Mack-Harvin's actions stand in stark contrast to Janet Napolitano's.  The BPL Director has never acknowledged the problem with porn in her library.  This problem was revealed weeks ago in "Porn in Brooklyn Public Library; Frustrated Patron Provides Photographic Proof; Library Refuses to Act; Two and a Half Million Dollars in Jeopardy Due to Possible Fraud," among other places.

The BPL has suffered numerous incidents, including a retarded girl raped in the bathroom and no one even knowing this happened, porn clips inserted into numerous videos for children, and most recently, in news I broke, porn viewing in the presence of children with the library refusing to take action.  Yet the BPL Director has taken little action, if any, as evidenced by the continual nature of such incidents, the statements made by the library staff, and the failure to make changes such as changing the BPL filtering policies.

I notified the BPL, including the BPL Director herself, weeks ago.  I have received no response.

Passengers and Patrons ARE the Safety Systems, Supposedly

The DHS Director said the passengers's actions meant the system to protect passengers worked correctly.  In a strikingly similar policy, that same reasoning apparently applies in the BPL—the patrons's actions mean the system to protect the patrons worked correctly, at least according to a recent comment I got on my blog from "Jeff."

Jeff, a Brooklyn librarian, explained in a comment on my previous blog post that circumventing the law is not circumventing the law because of the excuse that the library delegated to the patrons the ability to disable Internet filters:

Paragraph 4: actually "an administrator, supervisor, or person authorized by the responsible authority..." can disable.  Doesn't have to be staff.  BPL authorizes the individual patron to disable.

Yes anyone on an adult computer can disable the filter without assistance.  And only adults can sign onto an adult computer.

[Source.]

Law Requires Library Personnel to Disable CIPA Filters, Not Patrons Themselves

Compare this with the law—"An authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes."  It does not say the adult may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by himself.  The "authorized person" and the "adult" are separate people.

Compare this with US v. ALA—"Justice Kennedy concluded that if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request, there is little to this case."  As can be seen, a "librarian" does the unblocking "on an adult user's request."

Compare this with common sense—if an adult can disable a filter just by clicking a button on the pretext that the library authorized him to do so, then the law is being circumvented and becomes essentially worthless.

BPL Acknowledges Library Employees Must Disable Filters

Even apart from the law and common sense, the BPL itself acknowledges that CIPA-compliant filters must be disabled by library employees.  Read the following from BPL's "Internet Use Q & A," emphasis added:

3. Why is BPL using Internet filtering software on its public access computers?

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires libraries receiving federal support for online technology to implement filters that block material considered obscene, child pornography, or, in the case of persons under the age of 17, harmful to minors. In September 2003, the BPL Board of Trustees decided to comply with CIPA. The U.S. Supreme Court held that CIPA is constitutional: unlimited adult access to the Internet will be possible, since adults may request that the filtering technology be disabled, and they need not explain the reason for the request. Thus, adult library users can continue to benefit from federal e-rate discounts, without experiencing undue interference with public Internet access.

Adults do not need to "request that filtering technology be disabled" if all they need to do is click an onscreen button.  Clearly, they must make that request of a person.

The BPL is fully aware that requests for disabling filters must be made to library employees.  It even says so in writing. 

Either Have CIPA-Compliant Filters Or Don't, But You Can't Have Both

A library is entitled to refuse filters or to use them in a non-CIPA compliant fashion, and it need not apply for CIPA funding, but it is not entitled to claim compliance in writing when it is not in compliance in practice.  It is not entitled to defraud the federal government by $2.5M.  In my opinion, when the library says one thing in writing, does another thing in practice, then claims $2.5M in funding based on what it does not practice but has in writing, that's fraud.

Privacy Screens Suffer from Similar Written Word/Actual Practice Dichotomy

And it is not the only example of things written being different from things in practice.  Recall the picture I displayed in the last blog post showing the man looking at porn.  Here it is again to the right.  Notice no "privacy screen" is being used.  Yet library policy requires, "All adults using computers designated for adults must use privacy screens."

The repeated nature of the BPL saying one thing in writing but doing another in practice is another factor that, in my opinion, tends to lead one to conclude the library's actions regarding CIPA compliance are not inadvertent.

The DHS Director Corrected Her Misstatements While the BPL Director Has Not

So, to sum up the issue of Janet Napolitano versus Dionne Mack-Harvin, the DHS Director got caught in a big lie but righted the wrong two days later, whereas the BPL Director got caught in a big lie (not personally but on the theory that she is responsible for what is happening in her library that she directs) and has yet to respond at all.  This is likely in an effort to wait till the matter blows over.  As an ALA Councilor recommended to another community, "The storm will die down when the media becomes bored and moves on to other issues."  Maybe it is the lack of press attention in the first place that is enabling the Director at this time.  I sure hope it is not just media ennui with another BPL porn story.

Dionne Mack-Harvin is Beloved In Her Community

I understand that BPL Director Dionne Mack-Harvin is truly beloved in her community.  She deserves a lot of respect.  That does not excuse either defrauding the federal government or misleading BPL patrons about the use of CIPA-compliant Internet filters.  Right now it appears to me that she is doing or allowing both.

Simple Honesty Would Evidence Community Interest by the BPL Director

Simple honesty like that exemplified by the DHS Director would go a long way toward showing the BPL Director's actions were community-minded instead of being in apparent furtherance of anti-filtering attitudes by some losing parties in US v. ALA.  Indeed, Janet Napolitano's honesty may be part of her possible elevation to the US Supreme Court.

It is a shame that a BPL patron, being put off by BPL staff, had to approach me for assistance.  Obviously something is wrong.  The DHS Director admitted security "failed miserably."  Now it is time for the BPL Director to admit claimed CIPA-compliant Internet filters have failed miserably as well in that they are not being deployed in a CIPA-compliant fashion.  Now is the time for the library to comply with its own written policy or return $2.5M to the federal government.  "It is insulting that the Obama administration would make such a claim...."  It is also insulting that the BPL administration claims the library is CIPA-compliant when it is not. 

Open Letter to BPL Director Seeking Public Informational Interview

Dear Dionne Mack-Harvin,

I respectfully request an informational interview with you to discuss the matter of CIPA-compliant Internet filters.

This matter became known to me when one of the Brooklyn Public Library's patrons approached me directly after BPL staff refused to act satisfactorily.  I have posted that contact on my SafeLibraries blog at "Porn in Brooklyn Public Library; Frustrated Patron Provides Photographic Proof; Library Refuses to Act; Two and a Half Million Dollars in Jeopardy Due to Possible Fraud."

I have confirmed with the federal agency responsible for awarding E-rate grants under the CIPA program that CIPA-compliant filters are not CIPA compliant if they are disabled by the patrons themselves.  It is my understanding that BPL, allowing patrons to disable CIPA filters for themselves in practice, though not in writing, is not in compliance with CIPA.  Since 2003 when CIPA was found constitutional in US v. ALA and BPL claimed compliance with CIPA, BPL has obtained about $2.5M in federal funding by claiming the existence of CIPA-compliant filters when they may not have been in compliance.

These and related issues are the ones I wish to ask you, and I seek your permission to make our discussion public.  I would like to record our conversation and make a transcript, making either or both public.  I also ask for copies of all applications made from 2003 to the present for federal CIPA funding, including the identity of each person who signed the applications.

May I meet with you for discussion given the above information and requests?

Thank you for your consideration.



Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries.org

.

Porn in Brooklyn Public Library; Frustrated Patron Provides Photographic Proof; Library Refuses to Act; Two and a Half Million Dollars in Jeopardy Due to Possible Fraud

This is sad.  A patron in the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn, NY, is so frustrated by the library's refusal to act regarding porn viewing on the public library computers that he reached out to SafeLibraries.  Based on the photos, his comments, and a little research, it appears millions of dollars in federal funding may have been fraudulently obtained and needs to be refunded.  Installing Internet filters may be the solution—just because legal porn is legal does not mean the library must provide it or cannot stop it.

Here is the email I received:

from      [elided]
to           SafeLibraries@gmail.com
date       Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:33 PM
subject  Porn in the open, where kids wander around.

Took this at the Brooklyn Public Library today in the popular section. When I told the people who work in the library they said that unless the material is something illegal, like child porn, all I can do is file a complaint. They said it is perfectly legal for people to look at whatever they want, as long as the material is not illegal, like child porn. The woman at the information desk who gave me the survey sheet to me said the same thing.

I have been involved with past Brooklyn Public Library problems, including one where I'm called a "library watchdog."  I also wrote a 13 May 2008 blog post entitled, "Retarded Teen Raped in Library Bathroom and Library is Unaware."  So I suppose that's partly why the patron reached out to me.  Still, it's sad he felt that the library cared so little about "porn in the open, where kids wander around" that he reached out to me.  The first two graphics on this page are the photos I was sent.

So let me comment.  And I want Brooklyn political leaders to pay attention because the library obviously refuses to act for political reasons—there are no legal reasons why it could not act, such is by using Internet filtering software.

Here is evidence the library refuses to act to stop pornography viewing: "When I told the people who work in the library they said that unless the material is something illegal, like child porn, all I can do is file a complaint. They said it is perfectly legal for people to look at whatever they want, as long as the material is not illegal, like child porn." The photos are further evidence.

There is also evidence that the library may have fraudulently obtained federal funding that now, having been caught, may need to be refunded to the federal government.

Under the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA], "libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-rate program unless they certify that they have an Internet safety policy that includes technology protection measures. The protection measures must block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors)."

Library Executive Director and American Library Association [ALA] member Dionne Mack-Harvin, have you certified to this?  The top photo shows no "technology protection measure" is in place.  Further, the email I received from the patron supports the same conclusion.  Dionne Mack-Harvin, has your library received E-rate funding for Internet access fraudulently?

Before you answer, I am sure you know the Universal Service Administrative Company's (USAC) Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) provides the means for determining the type of E-rate funding that was received, by whom, and in what amount.  I did a search and found the following payments for "Internet Access" that appear to evidence you or another library representative have falsely certified CIPA compliance: $428,040.00 in 2008, $317,340.00 in 2007, $835.10 and $423,712.72 in 2006, $372,564.00 in 2005, $2,278.80 and $510,000.00 in 2004, and $1,920.00 and $504,000.00 in 2003, the year CIPA was found constitutional in US v. American Library Association.

The total amount of funds that may need to be returned to the federal government is $2,560,690.62.  People might be interested in filing a complaint with the "Whistleblower Hotline" for the return of the misappropriated federal funding.

I doubt that ignorance of the law can be used as an excuse for this multimillion dollar swindle.  Not only is ignorance not a defense, but there is evidence from Life magazine that the library knew or should have known of the CIPA requirements.

Pictured at right is a photograph from Life magazine entitled, "Supreme Court Rules On Internet Porn."  The photo is dated 24 June 2003.  The caption reads, "NEW YORK - JUNE 24:  An Internet-enabled computer runs at the Brooklyn Public Library June 24, 2003 in New York City.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government can require public libraries to install anti-pornography filtering software on their computers.  Photo:  Spencer Platt/Getty Images Jun 24, 2003."

As further evidence of the library's evasion of the law, look at the library's own statement:  "Policy Statement:  The Library will provide public access to the Internet and will comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), including filtered Internet access for youth under 17 years of age."  So the library claims to comply with CIPA.  It must know what CIPA requires.  It must have certified compliance with CIPA requirements.  Yet it is evident CIPA requirements are easily circumvented, as the photos evidence, and the library refuses to apply CIPA requirements, as the reported statements of the librarians or library employees reveal.

"Guidelines for Parents and Minors We will comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). This will enable the Library to continue to be eligible for certain federal funding."  Nice words, aren't they?  Might those words evidence the library knew exactly what it was doing?

So, Brooklyn, what will you do about this?  Naturally, everything I said should be considered to be my opinion.  A full independent analysis should be undertaken before any action is taken in response to this apparent fraud.  I will hazard a guess that the federal government will forgive the multimillion dollar amount if the library now applies the very Internet filters it apparently claims to have had and applied in accordance with CIPA all these years, which it has not.  The filters are legal, and US v. ALA points out they may be used to extend existing book collection policies over the Internet.  It is simply false when the library claims nothing can be done since legal porn is legal.  It is, but as US v. ALA points out, that does not mean a public library need serve it up on a silver platter:

Internet terminals are not acquired by a library in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves. Rather, a library provides such access for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality. The fact that a library reviews and affirmatively chooses to acquire every book in its collection, but does not review every Web site that it makes available, is not a constitutionally relevant distinction. 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. Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not. While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review. Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything made available has requisite and appropriate quality. Concerns over filtering software's tendency to erroneously "overblock" access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories software users intend to block are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. 

The library needs to comply with the law or return the money.  Legal pornography may be excluded legally.  Consideration should be given to whether honest library management should replace existing management, then library policy should be reevaluated.

By the way, in ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007, the ACLU expert and the court agreed Internet filters are about 95% effective and no longer block out breast cancer and other health-related information—so effective that another law, COPA [Children's Online Protection Act], was found unconstitutional.  I say this because another excuse the library may use is that filters do not work.

Another excuse will be that filters are not needed since an "acceptable use policy" is preferable.  The library already has such a policy, it is evidently flouted with ease, and the library condones such behavior.  "4. Users should not display images, sounds, or messages in a way that will negatively affect those who find them objectionable or offensive."  Apparently the person who contacted me was negatively affected.  Another acceptable use policy bites the dust.

"Privacy screens" are a failure too.  They only provide the library CYA coverage for allowing what Internet filters would stop, and people can see through them anyway.  Obviously, the following library policy is still more policy not enforced: "6. All adults using computers designated for adults must use privacy screens."

Internet filters are the way to go.  But I eagerly await seeing how the people and political leaders in Brooklyn respond to this apparent fraud.

Hats off to the whistleblower who contacted me.  I urge him to update everyone with anonymous comments to this blog post.  Other whistleblowers will similarly get a receptive ear.  Sadly, libraries can be tone deaf to complaints about pornography.

.

Retarded Teen Raped in Library Bathroom and Library is Unaware

A retarded teen is raped in a public library bathroom and the library didn't even know! Here is the article "RAPE! Teen Sexually Assaulted at Library," followed by my letter to the editor:

RAPE! Teen sexually assaulted at Library
By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Paper
May 10, 2008

Two men raped a mentally retarded teenager in the bathroom at the Brooklyn Public Library’s Central branch on Grand Army Plaza on April 14, cops said.

According to police, the victim, who suffers from Down Syndrome and cannot communicate verbally, did not indicate to her family that something had happened to her, but her relatives figured out that she was in pain and took her to the hospital.

Once there, doctors discovered trauma and other evidence that she had been sexually assaulted, cops said.

A spokeswoman for the library said it was unaware of the incident. She said the library had not been contacted by the police.

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

Now here is my letter to the editor for publication in The Brooklyn Paper:

A retarded child is raped in a public library bathroom and the library was not aware of this? What else is unknown to the library? Were the "two men" using the Internet computers to view p0rnographic material immediately before the rape, like happens in library after library nationwide?

Maybe the librarians do know something. Maybe they know they are misleading the public by suggesting anything goes after the filters are disabled upon request?

Maybe. I don't know. But the librarians didn't know about a rape in their own library. That is unbelievable. And if it is ever determined that library policy is based on American Library Association [ALA] policy instead of on the law, and if that contributed to the rape in any way, then the resulting lawsuit damages may be unbelievable as well.

I urge the police to make a thorough examination, including all computer logs and possible security tapes. Oh, that's right, the library destroys such records to skirt another law, the USA PATRIOT Act, again following the ALA's lead. Recall Rudolph W. Giuliani decried the actions of the ALA regarding this law in 2005. So with the records destroyed, I guess Brooklyn need not worry about legal liability after all.

Fact Checking:
"Taking Liberties With the Nation's Security," The New York Times, 17 Dec 2005, p.A23, by former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. See:
http://www.safelibraries.org/taking_liberties_with_the_nations_security17dec2005by_rudolph_w_giuliani.html

http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/legal/patriot.jsp

http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/legal/internet-faq.jsp

And while I'm writing about how the ALA drives local policy in New York City, here's an inspiring example that when the people find out, they rid themselves of the ALA's influence. You see, the ALA listed a certain s3xually inappropriate book in a top ten list (ALA | Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers), and as a likely result, a librarian ordered that book for hundreds of New York City schools. Then the parents found out. See "City's Ed. Boobs," by Carl Campanile, New York Post, Oct. 13, 2003. You won't be disappointed.