Two recent examples illustrate the problem clearly.
In Freehold, the Public Library Board of Trustees held a special meeting on August 5, 2026. The agenda focused on personnel matters involving Library Director Kathy Mulholland after an independent investigation into workplace concerns. Those concerns included the director’s stance allowing patrons to view p[*]rnography on public computers, including in view of others and children. Despite a motion from Freehold Borough Mayor Kevin A. Kane (Democrat) to allow public comment, the board voted against it. Attendees were left to protest as they left the room. I stated, “So much for free public speech in a public library,” and received audible support from others present. A board member claimed the board values free speech; the reply was that a vote against public comment demonstrated otherwise.¹
The library’s own Code of Conduct reinforces the problem. Adopted March 26, 2024, it lists among prohibited behaviors: “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.” By limiting the ban to obvious consumption, the policy implies that non-obvious (discreet) viewing or sharing of obscene material is permitted. This is consistent with reports that the director treated the viewing of p[*]rnography on public computers as acceptable so long as it was not blatant. A policy that effectively allows obscenity inside a public library—including potentially in the presence of children—is the opposite of protecting minors.²
In Bridgewater-Raritan, elected Board of Education member Jeremy Li has repeatedly been shut down when he attempts to place inappropriate library materials or parental notification measures on the public record. Video from a recent meeting shows Li speaking about prohibiting visual or explicit written descriptions in elementary and middle school libraries. The superintendent and board president walked out. The public stream was then ended. Li has described earlier instances in which a recess was called and his microphone cut mid-speech while he advocated for a parental notification amendment that would allow parents to prevent their own children from checking out s[*]xually explicit books. The amendment did not remove any books; it sought to put parents “back in the driver’s seat.”³
These are not isolated incidents of “decorum.”
Elected Officials Silenced
Jeremy Li’s experience is particularly significant because he is an elected official exercising oversight. The board is supposed to oversee the superintendent, not the reverse. When discussion of library materials is terminated by walkouts and by ending the public record, the public is denied the very transparency school boards are required to provide.
Parents and Citizens Silenced
In Wayne Township in October 2021, parent Pamela Macek stood at the podium during public comment and began reading passages from Gender Queer: A Memoir, a book available in the high school library that contains explicit illustrations and text. Within approximately 14 seconds, Board President Catherine Kazan interrupted her, stating it was inappropriate with young people present and that she should “verbalize [her] complaint without reading the book.” Macek continued. Her microphone was cut. She kept speaking without it. The president called for police assistance and threatened to clear the room.⁴
The Freehold denial of public comment follows the same logic: the substance of the complaint (children’s exposure to p[*]rnography on library computers) is treated as grounds to restrict speech about it.
Even Discussing an Ethics Complaint Is Restricted
In North Hunterdon-Voorhees, I filed an ethics complaint in October 2024 concerning the board’s handling of school library materials. When I attempted to discuss the status of my own complaint at subsequent meetings, I was shut down—first by the board attorney, later by the board president—over speculative concerns about confidentiality or potential defamatory statements. A prior speaker who criticized the same complaint was allowed to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reviewed the record and sent a letter to the board. FIRE described the selective enforcement as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional. The letter asked the board to rescind any policy or practice that prohibits referencing ethics complaints and to allow commenters to discuss relevant district matters.⁵
Why This Pattern Exists
The consistent silencing of parents, citizens, and even elected board members who object to s[*]xually explicit materials for children is not random. It follows directly from American Library Association policy.
In its official interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights titled “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” the ALA states that “all people, of all ages, should have equal and equitable access to all library resources and services.” It explicitly declares that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources and services as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights. Article V of that document provides that a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” The ALA interpretation treats any restriction based solely on age, apparent maturity, or educational level as a violation of that principle.⁶
Under this framework, efforts to keep inappropriate materials away from children are reframed as age discrimination. Libraries are instructed not to act in loco parentis; only parents may restrict their own children’s access. The practical result is that public and school library boards, trained and guided by ALA standards, treat parental concerns about explicit content as an attack on intellectual freedom rather than a legitimate request for age-appropriate standards. When citizens or board members challenge that orthodoxy, the institutional response is often to shut down the discussion itself.
How to Fix This
The silencing of parents, citizens, and elected board members is a downstream effect of a single upstream decision: the adoption of American Library Association policy as if it were binding law.
It is not.
The Library Bill of Rights and its interpretations—including the one that treats age-based restrictions as discrimination—are internal documents of a private trade association. They have no force of law. No statute requires any public library or school library in New Jersey (or anywhere else) to follow them. Boards that claim they are “powerless” to keep inappropriate material away from children are not powerless. They have simply chosen to subordinate local authority to ALA guidance.
The remedy is straightforward:
1. Remove all ALA policy from library and school board policies.
Delete the Library Bill of Rights, every interpretation of it, and any language that incorporates ALA standards on intellectual freedom, access for minors, or collection development. These documents function as the camel’s nose under the tent, pictured top right. Once adopted, they are used to argue that any effort to protect children is censorship or age discrimination.
2. Return to local law, community standards, and common sense.
Public libraries and school libraries operate under state statutes, local ordinances, and the authority of elected or appointed boards. Those boards have both the legal power and the responsibility to set age-appropriate standards, require parental consent where appropriate, filter content, and remove materials that violate community standards or applicable law (including New Jersey’s obscenity statutes regarding minors, like N.J.S. 2C:34-3).
3. Assert that authority clearly.
Boards should adopt policies that explicitly state they are not bound by ALA guidance and that decisions about materials available to children will be guided by local community standards, parental rights, and the best interests of minors—not by a private organization’s ideological framework.
Libraries are not required to treat a 10-year-old the same as a 40-year-old. They never were. The claim that they must do so comes from ALA policy, not from the US Constitution nor New Jersey law. When boards delete that policy and reclaim their own authority, the institutional pressure to silence parents and dissenting board members loses its foundation.
The power has always been local. It simply has to be exercised.
———
Endnotes
1. Freehold Public Library Board of Trustees special meeting, August 5, 2026. Contemporaneous reporting and video documentation of the vote against public comment; Shore News Network, “Head Librarian Who Allowed P[*]rn Use on Computers Faces Uncertain Future in Freehold,” August 6, 2026; contemporaneous posts from attendees including the author.
Freehold Public Library Board voted NO to public comment about the director allowing p**n to be viewed in the facility
— Wake Up NJ 🇺🇸 New Jersey (@wakeupnj) August 6, 2026
One guy said so much for free public speech, I shouted out about it too, the people should be able to speak! https://t.co/c6NMhO9K0j pic.twitter.com/dEshlY3T6E
2. Freehold Public Library, Library Code of Conduct, adopted March 26, 2024, p. 3. Available via the library’s Services page: https://freeholdpubliclibrary.org/services.php (Google Drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-UeGKjZIV35sAhQEs9h4UOaMYW7C0QGh/view). The policy prohibits only “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.”
3. Video of Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education meeting showing walkouts and the stream being ended while Jeremy Li addressed library materials; Jeremy Li public statements and Facebook posts describing earlier microphone cuts and recesses during discussion of a parental notification amendment for s[*]xually explicit books (2025–2026). Start at 1:37:36 and go to 1:45:32.
4. ProPublica, “The Conservative Transformation of the Wayne Township School Board,” June 29, 2023 (detailing the October 2021 meeting); TapInto Wayne and local coverage of the October 7, 2021 Board of Education meeting, including video of the interruption and microphone cut while Pamela Macek read from Gender Queer.
5. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “New Jersey school board shuts down speaker for discussing his own ethics complaint,” June 18, 2026. The article documents the selective restriction on discussion of my October 2024 ethics complaint regarding North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board handling of school library materials and FIRE’s formal letter to the board.
6. American Library Association, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors (accessed August 2026). The interpretation states that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights and that any restriction based solely on age violates Article V.
—
URL of this page:
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/silenced-for-speaking-up.html
Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs
Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse
Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/silenced-for-speaking-up.html
Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs
Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse
Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA
Join World Library Association:
WorldLibraryAssociation.org
Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
