ALA Admits Libraries Have Never Been Sued for Blocking Porn

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

Legal Background

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

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

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

• "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," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 February 2012.

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

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

• "In Debate Over Pornography, Orland Park Library Pleads the First; Library Has Allies in the Decision to Allow Porn on its Computers," by Taylor W. Anderson, Chicago Tribune, 4 November 2013:

  Dan Kleinman writes about the debate on his website, SafeLibraries.org, which keeps track of library policies.  He cites a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that he said allows libraries to ban pornography without fear of a lawsuit.
  
  "No library has ever been sued because someone said, 'You blocked my pornography,'" Kleinman said. "It has never happened. Not once."

ALA directly responded to my statement that libraries have never been sued for blocking porn:

• "ALA Reply to ‘ALA Supports Orland Park Public Library Stance on Viewing Porn," by Sean O'Connor, Chicago Libraries Examiner, 7 November 2013, reprinting in its entirety a response the author received from ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., the Deputy Director and former Acting Director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF], italics in original:

  Notably, materials some consider "pornographic" or "indecent" do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment.

  .... 

  You further quote the article written by Chicago Tribune reporter Taylor Anderson as stating that "No library has ever been sued because someone said 'you blocked my pornography.'"  But schools and libraries have been sued for employing filters to block access to what some deem "pornography," on the grounds that the filters block materials that are not obscene and are constitutionally protected.
  
  For example, the plaintiffs in PFLAG, Inc. v. Camdenton R-III School District sued their school district because the filters used by the school library unconstitutionally blocked access to web content that promoted gay rights and affirmed gay identity that was not sexually explicit, while allowing access to sites that opposed civil rights for LGBT persons and promoted "ex-gay" ministries.  The school district argued that it had an obligation to protect students from "inappropriate" and "pornographic" material and had broad discretion to choose which materials students may access in the school library.  The court ruled that the school district's use of the discriminatory "sexuality" filter in its library violated the students' First Amendment rights to access information.  The school district agreed to entry of a judgment that required it to stop blocking LGBT websites, submit to monitoring for 18 months and pay $125,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.
  
  You also say that the article written by Mr. Anderson states that "[t]he ALA's position is that a public library that does not allow an adult visitor to view pornographic photographic stills or videos on a public computer risks being sued."
  
  This is inaccurate.  In fact, Mr. Anderson stated that "the association says that libraries that restrict the ability to view certain images or videos online put themselves at risk of lawsuits."  Mr. Anderson does not mention pornography, and as the PFLAG v Camdenton case demonstrates, libraries have been sued for blocking access to constitutionally protected materials published online.

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

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

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

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

• "Children's Internet Protection Act Author Ernest Istook Interviewed," by Dawn Hawkins, Morality in Media, 17 April 2012.

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

In the Past, ALA Described Camdenton Differently Than Now and 

Warned of Possible Lawsuit If Libraries Filter Out Porn

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

• "ALA Listed As Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 29 March 2013.

Within days ALA responded with this which describes the Camdenton case:

• "Filtering and the First Amendment," by Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., American Libraries, 2 April 2013, hyperlink in original (and corrected):

  Recent court filings, news reports [NOTE: that would be international news that ALA was a leading porn facilitator thanks to my research], and online posts, however, have begun to shine a spotlight on libraries’ filtering policies and practices.  According to legal complaints, some libraries are denying users access to websites that discuss Wicca and Native American spirituality; blacklisting websites that affirm the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities while whitelisting sites that advocate against gay rights and promote "ex-gay" ministries; and refusing to unblock webpages that deal with youth tobacco use, art galleries, blogs, and firearms.  School librarians, teachers, and even Department of Education officials are openly complaining that the overzealous blocking of online information in schools is impairing the educational process.
  ....
  Theresa Chmara, general counsel for ALA's Freedom to Read Foundation, has explained why librarians and trustees should not rely on the Bradburn decision for guidance in crafting their internet policies.

And that in turn links to another ALA attorney, Theresa Chmara, who again describes the Camdenton case and who threatens the possibility of lawsuit for blocking porn or, as ALA calls it, "constitutionally protected material."  Notice too how she defines CIPA to exclude obscenity and child pornography but not pornography:

• "Blocking Access to Protected Speech Can Lead to Litigation and Legal Fees," by Theresa Chmara, Esq., American Libraries, 24 July 2012:

  In another recent case involving a school library, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ... held on February 15 that the school district in Camdenton, Missouri, had unconstitutionally blocked websites that support or advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people while permitting students access to websites that condemn homosexuality or oppose legal protections for LGBT people.
  
  The district court held that the library's use of an "anonymous" system for requesting that sites be unblocked was stigmatizing and ineffective if students did not know what had been blocked.  After the court's finding of unconstitutionality, the school district agreed to stop blocking LGBT websites, submit to monitoring for 18 months, and pay $125,000 in attorneys' fees.
  
  Libraries should continue to be wary of using internet filtering systems that block constitutionally protected material for adults or minors.  CIPA only requires filters that block access to visual images of obscenity, child pornography, and, for minors, material deemed harmful to minors.  If libraries use filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, those libraries may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses.

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

With that history in mind, let's turn back to the recent ALA response.  ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone cites that Camdenton case where material about homosexuality and/or gay rights was filtered out in a school.  She argues the people merely "deemed" that they were blocking porn:

You further quote the article written by Chicago Tribune reporter Taylor Anderson as stating that "No library has ever been sued because someone said 'you blocked my pornography.'"  But schools and libraries have been sued for employing filters to block access to what some deem "pornography," on the grounds that the filters block materials that are not obscene and are constitutionally protected.

For example, the plaintiffs in PFLAG, Inc. v. Camdenton R-III School District sued their school district because the filters used by the school library unconstitutionally blocked access to web content that promoted gay rights and affirmed gay identity that was not sexually explicit, while allowing access to sites that opposed civil rights for LGBT persons and promoted 'ex-gay' ministries.

But that is a case about blocking, as she admits, "gay rights and affirmed gay identity that was not sexually explicit," not about blocking pornography!  And filtering manufacturers claiming gay rights sites were pornographic as a means to discriminate does not make them pornographic.

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

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

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

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

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

"Years of Litigation and Significant Legal Expenses"

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

The Height of Deception

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

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

Here is some press on the matter.  Notice ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone is dead wrong.  Pornography was not the issue, in fact blocking "explicit material" and "pornography"was perfectly acceptable, even to the ACLU:

• "School District Told to Replace Web Filter Blocking Pro-Gay Sites," by Michael Winerip, The New York Times, 26 March 2012:

  this particular filter, which along with blocking obscenity also discriminates against content supportive of gay people....

• "Camdenton School District Required to Remove LGBT Web Filters," by Rachel Lichtman, PFLAG, 13 April 2012:

  The lawsuit was filed after multiple warnings that the district's website filtering software discriminated against LGBT content, including the websites of the plaintiffs.  If a student tried to access a site related to LGBT support such as gay-straight alliances or local PFLAG chapters, they were treated as if they were attempting to access explicit material.  However, anti-LGBT sites such as the National Organization for Marriage were allowed to be viewed.

• "Court Orders Missouri School District to Stop Censoring LGBT Websites," by media@aclu.org, American Civil Liberties Union, 15 February 2012:

  A federal district court ruled today that the Camdenton R-III School District must stop censoring web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities through discriminatory filtering software. The ruling orders the district to not block content based on the viewpoints expressed by the website.
  ....
  “The court correctly recognized the constitutional rights of all students to viewpoint-neutral access to information,” said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “It is absolutely possible to protect children from sexually explicit content while also protecting their First Amendment rights. Like thousands of other school districts across the country, Camdenton R-III will now begin using a filtering system that blocks pornography without discriminating against LGBT-related content.”

In a case ALA cites to counter my statement in the Chicago Tribune that no library has ever been sued for blocking porn, ACLU LGBT Project's attorney said, "It is absolutely possible to protect children from sexually explicit content while also protecting their First Amendment rights."  The exact opposite of what ALA falsely argues.  As the ACLU put it, "Like thousands of other school districts across the country, Camdenton R-III will now begin using a filtering system that blocks pornography without discriminating against LGBT-related content."  So in a case ALA cites to say blocking pornography resulted in a legal suit, the ACLU attorney says blocking pornography is perfectly acceptable as long as non-pornographic LGBT-related content is not blocked.

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

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

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

Effect of ALA Propaganda on Local Libraries

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

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

"She said that they could get sued like other libraries that had been sued in the past and lost."  Who said that?  Let's look at one OPPL employee/whistleblower's statement and detailed description of the unfettered porn in the OPPL, the false claim that the library would be sued if it blocked porn, and her own investigation finding out that was completely false.  Here's just her realization she's been lied to about lawsuits for blocking porn, but take the time to read her entire post–it is sadly enlightening:

• "Liars and Tigers and Porn... Oh My!," by Linda Zec, Life According to Linda, 9 November 2013, emphasis and hyperlink in original:

  The next time I was there early enough I went in to talk to Director Wsol, and I remember sitting in her office.  I told her about what I had seen, she told me there was nothing that could be done.  Regardless of our thoughts of these individuals, Freedom of Speech prevails.  I told her they should put a filter on the computers in the Adult area, but she explained they could not.  She said that they could get sued like other libraries that had been sued in the past and lost.  She was nice about it, but said that that was how it was going to have to stay...unfiltered.  If I felt uncomfortable, my only other option was to quit, but she said it nicely.  I was dumbfounded, but walked out believing her about the legality of porn in the library.  (Now to this day, I am unsure if Director Wsol actually believed that there were actual cases of libraries being sued, or just used that line to shut me up and make me go away.)
  
  

  

  This is from one of the Birmingham Public Library
  librarian sexual harassment cases but it's similar
  to what is being revealed about OPPL.

  I went home and began to internet research about porn and the legality of it on the library computers.  Keeping in mind that this online research was almost 10 yrs. ago, I found no lawsuits regarding freedom of speech and not allowing a patron to watch porn on the library premises.  Granted, the internet was not as filled with information as it is now, but still after all of my online hunting I found nothing online that said libraries had been sued.  I went to talk to Mary Weimar (whom I tried so hard to be friendly with, but I was told by other co-workers "watch your back, Linda").
  
  I appealed to Mary about what I had seen and told her that I found nothing on the internet about libraries being sued.  She said the same as Sharon (I am convinced that the two had talked about this and me possibly being a problem), and she assured me it was out there, and if I was uncomfortable with it, I could leave my position. (She did not tell me to quit directly, but nicely suggested that there would not be any hard feelings, and don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya, basically.)  I told her that I did not think that taxpayers were aware of what they were paying for, that the public had no idea and that they should know.  She "in her nice way" basically told me to leave it alone.  I got up and returned to the computer area once again feeling defeated.  But if libraries had been sued as she and Sharon told me, then it MUST be true??  (According to Safelibraries.org, I found out with this current media fodder that NO library has ever been sued, period.  Never.  Not once.  So now I think: Was I intentionally lied to by Director Sharon Wsol and Asst Director Mary Weimar to just shut me up and make me (and the porn issued) go away??)

Challenge to Debate ALA's Caldwell-Stone or Chmara

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

NOTE ADDED 11 NOVEMBER 2013:

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


NOTE ADDED 12 NOVEMBER 2013:

Picture removed in respect of first comment.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/NeverBeenSued.html

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

Follow @SafeLibraries