Monday, February 27, 2012

CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected

CIPA Author Ernest Istook
Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] author Ernest Istook describes how the American Library Association [ALA] hides important information from communities in a manner that harms children all these years after US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003).  Previously, Library Director Dean Marney described how the American Library Association [ALA] uses "dogma" to mislead communities.  Now its the CIPA author himself.  When will people wake up?
Sadly, Seattle is following a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment.  But they generally omit an important qualifier:  When taxpayers are paying for the computers they have a right to insist that children are protected.
You think?
Although many libraries now apply CIPA, others - encouraged by lawyers for the American Library Association - deliberately reject federal funds to avoid the requirement of filtering patrons' access to the Internet.  Unconfirmed reports claim a third of our public libraries are using this tactic.  They should not be criticized for not tapping into the federal Treasury, but their motivation is worrisome.
Legal tactics?  A third of public libraries using these tactics?  Anyone want to continue to claim the ALA has little to no control over local public libraries?
Nobody should have the Seattle experience of shocking their children, nor of having librarians who are indifferent to the problem.
Now isn't that a shame?  "Indifferent" librarians?  Indifferent to children?

Not all are indifferent, and I am quietly building an organization of those who are not, but more on that much later.  Librarians willing to stand against harmful ALA policy, tactics, and indifference that endangers children may wish to contact me.  All will be kept confidential.

Now read this, by Ernest Istook, the CIPA author, and the source of the above quotes:

Libraries Need Not Expose Kids to Porn
The Heritage Foundation


Librarians can be strict.  In Seattle, for example, you can't eat, sleep, go barefoot or be noisy in a public library.  You can, however, "watch graphic porn on a public computer in front of kids," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently reported.

You don't need to be a literary expert to figure out that making computer porn available is not the highest and best use of limited public resources.  And certainly patrons, whose tax payments keep the doors open, deserve better than to have their children exposed to hard-core pornography.

As a former chairman of a metropolitan library system, the story from Seattle appalled me.  But it didn't surprise me at all.

Sadly, Seattle is following a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment.  But they generally omit an important qualifier:  When taxpayers are paying for the computers they have a right to insist that children are protected.

I know because I authored the federal law on this, and it has passed muster with the Supreme Court.  In 2003, the high court upheld The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in United States v. American Library Association.  Earlier federal attempts to address the problem had all been rejected by the court.

The 6-3 ruling affirmed the constitutionality of CIPA, which requires public schools and libraries that receive Internet-related federal funds to use blocking filters to restrict access to pornography.

The Supreme Court agreed that the Internet is "no more than a technological extension of the book stack."  The justices wrote that each public library has "its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet.  ...  Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion.  ...  It would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."

Because "libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not," the Supreme Court agreed that using filters to exclude categories of websites is appropriate and constitutional.

Adults who so request may have the filter temporarily turned off, but this intervention gives librarians the opportunity to make sure no one is using an unfiltered computer in an area open to children and other patrons.

Although Congress' other approaches had been overturned, connecting this filtering requirement to receipt of federal funds was key to gaining Supreme Court approval, because use of government funds is commonly allowed to include restrictions.

Although many libraries now apply CIPA, others - encouraged by lawyers for the American Library Association - deliberately reject federal funds to avoid the requirement of filtering patrons' access to the Internet.  Unconfirmed reports claim a third of our public libraries are using this tactic.  They should not be criticized for not tapping into the federal Treasury, but their motivation is worrisome.

These libraries still rely upon public funds from the state or local level.  Lawmakers who provide that funding have an opportunity to protect children.  States and local governments can do so if they use CIPA as their model.  They can require that schools and libraries funded by local and state governments must protect children from Internet porn by installing these software filters.  No such filter is perfect, but they protect children and they help parents who want libraries to be safe places for their entire family.

Nobody should have the Seattle experience of shocking their children, nor of having librarians who are indifferent to the problem.


Ernest Istook, a fellow at The Heritage Foundation, served 14 years as a Republican congressman from Oklahoma.  Readers may write to him at:  The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site:  Information about Heritage's funding may be found at

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers.  McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

2012, The Heritage Foundation

Reprinted by SafeLibraries under US Copyright Fair Use §107.  Clearly, on SafeLibraries, this article is reprinted for educational use and community discussion, etc.


That OpEd was written by Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act.  It appeared in numerous outlets across the country.  Basically, he said the ALA is misleading many communities nationwide resulting in continued harm to children.  Exactly what I've been saying, by the way.

One would think the CIPA author saying the ALA is thwarting CIPA, particularly given the ALA's big loss in US v. ALA, would be a major story in honest media.

Predictably, not a single main stream library media source has covered that story.  The author of CIPA says the ALA is misleading communities on CIPA, and CIPA is central to the ALA and its so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom," the heart of the ALA where it spends most of its money for lawsuits, and the library world is silent.  No articles in the ALA's own American Libraries?  Nothing in Library Journal?  School Library Journal, hello?


When you ignore a story so it WON’T have legs, that's a part of the propaganda game.  And Library Journal is independent from the ALA.  When an independent journal won't cover the story, as major a story to the library world as it is, that's evidence of intimidation, in my opinion.

By the way, above I called for people to contact me if they wished to band together to oppose harmful ALA policy, tactics, and indifference that endangers children.  Several have already done so.  Really, there will be only so much longer the ALA can help bury major stories about the ALA's own malfeasance.


As an apparent follow up to his written opinion, Ernest Istook went into further detail in an interview with Dawn Hawkins of Morality in Media.  He provides never before heard details on the legislative history of CIPA, the extent of ALA's propagandization, what can be done to wrest control of libraries from ALA and restore it to local communities, even recommending me as a "trusted source" on ALA control, and so much more.  Definitely a fascinating read:

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

ALA Enables Soros to Indoctrinate Children and Communities Nationwide in a Manner that Threatens Freedom of Speech

Open Society Institute logo.
The American Library Association is enabling noted "open society" advocate George Soros to indoctrinate or propagandize children, media, and communities nationwide in a manner that furthers Soros organizations's efforts to curtail freedom of speech:
"Today the American Library Association (ALA) unveils a new campaign to engage librarians, journalists, news ethicists and students across the country in a news literacy education project.  The campaign, 'News Know-How,' is supported by the Open Society Foundations."

When I say "indoctrinate or propagandize," I mean it.  George Soros funded Media Matters for America [MMfA] has just been caught propagandizing America.  I mean control over major, well-known media individuals and outlets.  I mean writing the news as actually read on major network prime time news broadcasts.  I mean weekly coordination with political powers in control.  I mean having an enemies list of private individuals, politicians, and organizations, to hunt down, attack, then have removed from the airwaves.  Several media sources have lost their jobs as a result.  All this and more represents an unprecedented attack on the freedom of speech in the USA.

See for yourselves with these examples:

The ALA, the self-arrogated national freedom of speech police, could care less about accepting major donations from and acting on behalf of the person responsible for this curtailment of free speech that has already seen several voices removed from the airwaves, like Don Imus.  It is this person, George Soros, who funded MMfA and its massive curtailment of freedom of speech and associated control of American news outlets and national indoctrination.

It is this person funding the ALA so it can help "librarians, journalists, news ethicists and students across the country" to learn about "nonpartisan, critical analysis of news and information." It is this person who has bankrolled the perpetration of the greatest suppression of free speech in American history who will guide "high school students, with public libraries as their 'newsroom,' [on] how to distinguish facts from opinions; how to check the source and validity of news and information and how to identify propaganda and misinformation."

By the way, the Girl Scouts of America still has not explained how MMfA got published in one of its booklets for girls, even though the author revealed that she submitted her writing with Snopes, not MMfA, and had never heard before of MMfA:

What a coincidence!  Soros-funded MMfA uses an American institution, the Girl Scouts, to promote MMfA as a source to clear up "media misinformation," while the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations uses another American institution, the American Library Association, to teach communities and students "how to identify propaganda and misinformation."

You getting this?  Does anyone want to speak up about this before it's too late and free speech becomes impossible through the sheer weight of unfettered indoctrination?

I have written before about George Soros's control over the ALA, and it is not pretty.  See:

Noteworthy is that American Libraries, the ALA's monthly magazine, intentionally set this article in ALAnews, and only this one article, as the only one that will not allow people to add comments.  You will accept the Open Society Foundations's propagandizing "librarians, journalists, news ethicists and students across the country," and you will not be allowed to have any say whatsoever.  Remarkably, this run and hide strategy is the same one used by MMfA, also Soros funded!  See:
  • "David Brock Explains It All," by Vince CoglianeseThe Daily Caller, 21 February 2012.
  • "PICKET: (VIDEO) Media Matters' David Brock Runs From Questions on Organization's War on Fox," by Kerry Picket, The Washington Times, 21 February 2012:
    Media Matters for America (MMFA) founder David Brock refused to talk to the Washington Times affiliated radio show America's Morning News on Tuesday morning about the series of stories The Daily Caller has been reporting on for the past week regarding his organization's aggressive plan to go after the Fox News Channel.

    According to the Media Matters documents obtained by the Daily Caller, part of the 2012 strategy was to treat the cable news channel like a political opponent and hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News employees who work both on the air and behind the scenes.

    The ultimate objective, according to the documents, for MMFA is to make the channel come off as an illegitimate news source to potential viewers who may have no opinion of Fox while pushing mainstream news outlets to treat the network as illegitimate as well.

Librarians, are any of you going to do something about this?  Communities, are you willing to learn about this so you can combat this?  Media members, do you realize what is happening to freedom of speech in the USA?

The American Library Association has become one more George Soros funded means to curtail freedom of speech in America.  The ALA may not see it that way, but huge amounts of money originating from Soros may have something to do with that. The ALA has lost all credibility on that issue that it ever may have had.

I call on the ALA to rethink its association with the greatest threat to American freedom of speech.

When the ALA tells your community about freedom of speech, such as in trying to stop local citizens or school boards from keeping children from reading inappropriate material, just keep this in mind.  The ALA has no credibility on freedom of speech while it is funded by and acting on behalf of the greatest threat to freedom of speech the USA has ever known, and in a manner designed to further spread freedom of speech abrogation.

"News Know-How" is really propaganda know-how.  Set a Google alert for it and watch as it creeps into your own communities.  Then speak out before it is too late.


Those wishing to learn about George Soros whose money the ALA so gleefully accepts should read:


2011–2012 ALA CD#19.2
2012 ALA Annual Conference

ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee
Report to Council
2012 Annual Conference
Anaheim, CA
Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) is pleased to present this update of its activities. 




News Know-How

Under the leadership of Barbara Jones, OIF's latest initiative is the News Know-How program,
supported by a grant from the Open Society Institutes.  This grant brings together journalists, 
librarians, and high school students to discuss how to check facts and discern fact from opinion 
in the news—from newspapers to radio to social media.  News Know-how draws from librarians'
expertise in information literacy in general.  This summer and autumn there will be programs in 
Iowa, Chicago Public Library, Oak Park Public Library and Pratt Free Library (Baltimore).  For 
more information, contact the Office for Intellectual Freedom (

In closing, the Intellectual Freedom Committee thanks the division and chapter intellectual 
freedom committees, the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, the unit liaisons, and the OIF staff 
for their commitment, assistance, and hard work. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee 

Pat Scales (Chair) 
Gladys Smiley Bell
Teresa Doherty
Barbara Fiehn 
Julius Jefferson
Jim Kuhn
Robin G. Shader
Barbara Stripling
Ma’lis Elizabeth Wendt
Kathleen Condon-Boettcher (intern)
Cynthia Mari Orozco (intern)

Friday, February 3, 2012

ALA Admits Library Filters Work; Barbara Jones Bursts Her Own Breast Cancer Bubble

Barbara Jones is the leader of the American Library Association's [ALA] so-called Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF].  On 25 January 2012, she made the oft-repeated false statement that Internet filters block access to breast cancer web sites and do not work. [EN 1]  The ALA does this as a means to convince people not to block pornography in public libraries, because breast cancer might be accidentally excluded.  Nevermind that the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] was involved in a legal matter finding filters no longer block health-related information. [EN 2]

On 26 January 2012, I responded that she was lying about breast cancer being blocked. [EN 3]

Then, on 1 February 2012, library director Dean Marney [EN 4] was asked about blocking breast cancer and he responded in no uncertain terms that claims of breast cancer blocking are false. [EN 5]

Surprise!  Barbara Jones was on the very same radio broadcast with Dean Marney, and she contradicted herself [EN 6] from just a few days previously, handing me and Dean Marney a major success in our efforts to educate communities about the ALA's misinformation.  She admits, finally, that the breast cancer excuse is outdated.

And librarians know it is a lie. [EN 4] [EN 7] [EN 8]

ALA Admits Library Filters Work; 
Says Librarians Are the Biggest Impediment

Barbara Jones even admits that library filters work but that librarians don't know how to set them properly! [EN 9]  Breaking news!  ALA admits library filters work!!  Then the ALA blames librarians for misusing them.

But even in admitting they work, she still misleads saying, among other lies, "There is still constitutionally protected information being filtered out," by which she means pornography or the like.  As we all know by now, legal porn may be legally excluded from public libraries, and it was the ALA itself that lost on this very issue in the US Supreme Court back in 2003. [EN 4] [EN 10]

If anyone ever again says public library filters block breast cancer sites, know immediately that they are lying, and they are likely misleading in other areas as well.  Given my success (along with Dean Marney, mainly,) in turning the ALA on this issue, consider following me if you want accurate information about how the ALA misleads communities into leaving their own citizens open to harm.

Consider Subscribing to SafeLibraries for Politically Incorrect Library News

I am happy to be the only source bringing you this significant, high importance, well sourced news of major admissions by the ALA's OIF leader that library filters work, old breast cancer excuses don't, librarians don't know how to run filters correctly, etc.  But why am I the only news source doing so?  Where is the Library Journal?  Where is the ALA's American Libraries?  Where is LISNews?  Have any of them reported on, for example, the news I broke in "Know the ALA"?  Of course not.

People, consider subscribing to my news feed (at Twitter or Facebook) for library stories not politically correct enough to be reported elsewhere.  After all, if the ALA OIF finally admits filters work, doesn't its whole house of cards fall down?

End Notes
  1. "Libraries, Sexual Content and the Internet: Striking a Balance Between Rights, Access, and Comfort," by Barbara Jones, Huffington Post, 25 January 2012:
    Research shows time and again that filters end up blocking content that is not only legal but is important for adults to be able to view.  ....  An ideal example is the word, "breast," which many filters block.  The problem is that in addition to blocking what might be offensive content, the filter also blocks "breast cancer."  And so the only solution is for parents, teachers, librarians, and other community leaders to work with Internet users.  Filters won't do it for them.
  2. ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007:
    75.  In addition to analyzing the content of Web pages, dynamic filters also take the context of the page into consideration, to ensure that the determinations are as accurate as possible.  For example, many companies will develop templates that provide additional context to teach the software how to recognize certain contexts – for example, to block the word "breast" when used in combination with the word "sexy," but not when used in combination with the words "chicken" or "cancer."  The software analyzes context, in part, by utilizing statistical pattern recognition techniques to identify common features of acceptable and unacceptable Web pages, depending on the context in which the content appears.  Cranor Testimony, 10/23 Tr. 243:5-244:6; Whittle Testimony, 10/31 Tr. 201:4-17, 204:17-205:2 
  3. "ALA OIF's Barbara Jones Misleads Entire Nation to Think Library Porn is Not a Problem While Library Filters Are," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 January 2012:
    "An ideal example is the word, 'breast,' which many filters block.  The problem is that in addition to blocking what might be offensive content, the filter also blocks 'breast cancer.'"  Now this lady has gone from misleading people to flat out lying.  She is lying.  She is in the very position to know better, and she chooses instead to lie, so she is purposefully lying.  Even the ACLU admits filters are 95% effective and no longer filter out health-related information:
  4. "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2010:
    The outdated tenets about using technology to manage the Internet, promoted by the Freedom To Read Foundation (FTRF) and American Library Association (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom, express dogma and fundamentalism and deserve challenge.
    Filtering offers a technological solution for a technological problem.  If your filter is inadequate, find a better one.
  5. "Viewing Porn in Public Libraries Spurs Debate," by Ross Reynolds, KUOW 94.5 FM Puget Sound Public Radio, 1 February 2012 interview with Barbara Jones and Library Director Dean Marney:
    Ross Reynolds (7:13):  Now I've heard that some computer filtering can be problematic because, for example, it won't allow you to go to a breast cancer web site 'cuz it's got the word "breast" in the search.

    Dean Marney (7:23):  Ross, that drives me crazy because when people bring up that as an example and I wanna go, if their filter is blocking breast cancer, they've got the wrong filter.  'Cuz that's, maybe that was like maybe that was 50 years ago but it's not the state of the art now.
  6. See End Note 5:
    Ross Reynolds (9:05):  Back to you, uh, Barbara Jones, uh, Dean says he's got filtering software there that just works perfectly.

    Barbara Jones (9:12):  Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days, but, um, we're currently working on a case and I can give really, um, really current examples ….
  7. "Librarians are Guardians of a Trust," by Jo Ellen Ringer, Notus Public Library Director and Guest Writer, SafeLibraries, 10 April 2011:
    There are two issues here: "proper" (based on local standards, not ALA standards) expenditure of public tax dollars in our communities, and using the trust given to librarians in wise ways.  Education and information are the twin missions of any library.  Are we meeting those goals?  Pornography, violence, bomb-making are not for the public good, nor do most taxpayers wish to support this with their taxes.
  8. "Minneapolis Library Workers Go Public with Cybersmut Complaint," by American Library Association, American Libraries, 21 February 2000:
    "We feel harassed and intimidated by having to work in a public environment where we might, at any moment, be exposed to degrading or pornographic pictures," read a February 12 Minneapolis Star Tribune letter to the editor signed by 47 employees of the city's Central Library.

    Siding with a February 5 editorial by a patron outraged that MPL won't intervene when users display sexually explicit Internet sites, the letter urges the installation in high-trafficked areas of "sophisticated filters" which, "contrary to the 'official' line of the ALA . . . allow searching of topics such as 'breast cancer.'"
  9. See End Note 5:
    Ross Reynolds (9:55):  Are the filters getting better?

    Barbara Jones (9:59):  Um, filters have gotten better because people have more control.  However, um, a lot of librarians don't know how to set these controls, and some of the controls actually don't work.  Um, nothing is as good as the human brain.  There is still constitutionally protected information being filtered out.  I do have evidence to show this.
  10. United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003):
    [P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights....

    In any case, the suggested alternatives have their own drawbacks.  Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid.  Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography.  To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so. 


I have updated some links that had gone missing with archived links.

Also, see how Children's Internet Protection Act author Ernest Istook describes how ALA purposefully misleads people in a propagandistic fashion:


Updated link in Note 5.