Sunday, October 12, 2014

Teri Lesesne as Professor Nana, the Censor of Sam Houston State University

Photo credit: ALAN
The censor of Sam Houston State University's Department of Library Science is none other than Dr. Teri Lesesne ("rhymes with insane"), aka Professor Nana who teaches censorship.  She is illustrative of how censors work and how they hide and excuse their censorship.

She holds herself out as a professor who teaches school librarians to oppose censorship using, for example, slideshows where the first thing she teaches is "Let children read whatever they want...." See:

But when it comes to things she does not want people to hear, that she censors out.  Children should read absolutely anything, she teaches school librarians, but adults should not hear what she wants to be censored.

She wrote something false, mean, and intentionally misleading about me on her blog:
I responded to her attack in a comment, but it got marked as spam.  I sent her a message about this.  She published my response in a second piece she wrote about me, but only in her own self-interest, and again she cast me in a negative light:
  • "Here Ya Go!," by Teri Lesesne (Professor Nana), The Goddess of YA Literature, 9 October 2014.
I responded to that attack as well, and again it got marked as spam.  Again I informed her of this and asked her to take it out of spam.

Again she did not.  Instead, she launched yet a third attack on me, this time going out of her way to be as downright nasty, unprofessional, and flat out false as she could possibly be:
  • "Guess Who Is Back?," by Teri Lesesne (Professor Nana)The Goddess of YA Literature, 11 October 2014.
My comments simply do not appear on her blog called The Goddess of YA Literature.  (At least as of this time slice.)  When she added one it was in another blog post of her own, hence out of context; it was couched in yet more negative language, and she still did not approve my original comment on her first hit piece on me.  And she never responds to substantive issues.  My comments I post are simply blocked from her site.  Invisible.  Censored out.  By a professor teaching censorship.  At a public institution.  At Sam Houston State University.

Professor Nana feigns innocence, but I have asked her to publish my comments and she has refused, responding instead with the nastiest of new posts.  And this censorship-loving professor actually teaches school librarians not to censor anything from children.  The first page of her training linked above quotes the American Library Association as saying, "Censorship by librarians of constitutionally protected speech, whether for protection or any other reason, violates the First Amendment."  Setting aside that that's legally false, Professor Nana does not even practice what she preaches.  She actually gets paid a publicly-funded salary to teach one thing and do the exact opposite in real life from her public school perch.  She's a paid government censor.

Let me be very clear.  I asked Professor Nana to mark my comment as not spam and publish my comment and she has refused.  She leaves my comments marked as spam.  That not only censors out my comments, but it tells her blog platform that comments from me are considered spam, at least by her.  That makes it harder for me to make other comments on any blog on her blog's platform, in this case LiveJournal, not just on her blog.

It is a means of using the spam filter to censor out speech you hate.  All from a professor in a profession that supposedly opposes censorship and whose leading organization holds itself out as the nation's self-arrogated censorship police.  When I get library mail in my spam folder that I do not like because I disagree with it, I actively click the not spam button.  I play fair.  Professor Nana does not.  I may disagree with it, but it is not spam, and I know leaving it marked as spam will make it harder for the sender to get any message through to anyone else.

By asking Teri Lesesne to publish my comment, I did exactly what I was directed to do by her blog's platform, hyperlinks omitted, emphasis mine:
Due to the variety of anti-spam features that LiveJournal employs there is always a possibility that your legitimate entries or comments will be mis-identified as spam.  If your entries or comments have been incorrectly mis-identified as spam, please open up a Support request....  In addition to contacting Support, you can also contact the journal owner or community owner/maintainers and ask them to mark your comment or entry as not-spam.
But in her third attack piece, Professor Nana, the Goddess of YA Literature, the censorship professor at the Department of Library Science at Sam Houston State University, wrote, "I replied (yes, I should know better) that I had not blocked comments on the blog.  I checked the comment page on my blog and there is nothing there for me to 'mark' and publish. .... This is the end of you, sir.  ....  He accused me then of blocking his comments (and, once again, I did NOT)."  And yet my comments to this day are still not on any of her blog posts about me.

Notice she puts the word "mark" in single quotes to indicate she had absolutely no idea what I was talking about or I am even incapable of speaking intelligently.  It is passive-aggressive bullying.  Yet that is exactly what LiveJournal says to do, "ask them to mark your comment or entry as not-spam."  In the tweet shown above you can see I did exactly what LiveJournal instructed me to do.  Professor Nana is in no position to make it appear I asked for the impossible.

Sam Houston State University
"Now you are just simply baiting me and falsely accusing me of being a censor," she protests.  No, I'm not baiting or deliberately taunting her; she has said false and mean things about me repeatedly and is blocking my responses repeatedly.

No, I'm not falsely accusing her of being a censor.  Instead, I am reporting that she is a censor.  My evidence includes 1) my comments as posted by me do not appear on her blog posts despite my efforts to have them posted per LiveJournal instructions by requesting her to publish them, 2) her comments about me are false and misleading and evidence an intention to censor, not an intention to act professionally by identifying and resolving any technical issue blocking my ability to comment, if any, and 3) her blog is promoted by Sam Houston State University, a public university, where she is employed to teach library science, meaning her actions are not only hypocritical but also represent official government censorship, in this case by a public institution of learning.

"Paint me and anyone who dare object to your form of censorship however you like," she says.  And exactly what form of "censorship" is that?  I oppose censorship in all its forms.  Keeping inappropriate material from children is a serious matter but it is not censorship.  Besides, the last book banned in the USA was Fanny Hill, and that was in 1963, over 50 years ago.  For context, a Banned Books Week cosponsor recently wrote that it was censorship to keep middle school children from reading in school about explicit adult content, so I published an extensive excerpt so people can see exactly what type of material Professor Nana and others like her are protecting.

This is how the censor works.  Censors make false and misleading claims about people who they want to smear so others will not pay attention to them.  They mark legitimate responses as spam or leave them marked as spam so computers can spread the censorship further.  They continue to attack since those censored have no platform on which to respond.  They modify your words then attack you for something you did not say.  The icing on the cake is doing this in a profession that opposes censorship and as a professor who teaches school librarians to oppose censorship.

Think about it.  The censor of Sam Houston State University is the professor teaching censorship.

I should write a letter to Sam Houston State University to see if Professor Censor is really the best match for teaching school librarians about censorship.  There are so many wonderful librarians who can teach.  Actively employing an active censor, and a mean one at that, might not be a good fit for a respected public university, "one of the oldest purpose-built institutions for the instruction of teachers west of the Mississippi River and the first such institution of its type in Texas."

For those wishing to see the material being censored, I published it on my SafeLibraries Publications page here.


Look how supposedly professional librarians, prompted by Professor Censor, pile on to make a mockery of their professional ethics and values, egged on by Walt Crawford:

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @ProfessorNana @SamHoustonState @SHSULIBSCI #censorship


  1. Liar. Take it up with the software developer if you're getting that message.

    1. Do my comments appear on her blog posts about me or do they not? They do not, even as of today. That solves the "liar" problem.

      Further, I have noticed for a long time that the free speech advocates who wish to silence me and others with whom they disagree use this tactic of clicking the spam button or leaving comments marked as spam. Professor Nana just made it very obvious so I finally wrote about it.

      Here's Google advice: "By marking the message as not spam or phishing, Gmail's system will learn from that example and be more accurate in marking messages in the future." And vice versa. And the censors know it.

      Professor Nana is just the latest in a long line of censors who use this particular technological lever to silence free speech.

      What makes Professor Nana noteworthy is that she TEACHES the evils of censorship while she PRACTICES censorship herself from her perch as a PUBLIC university professor on a blog link on her PUBLIC university profile. She did so in a completely UNPROFESSIONAL manner.

      Recently I wrote a piece that completely misidentified the speaker. It was an honest mistake due to the similarity of voices. An American Library Association official politely pointed out my error, I corrected it, and he appreciated the correction. This is how professionals operate.

      Contrast Professor Nana. She did a hit job on me from the start with flat out false information, even making things up then attacking me for the words she put in my mouth. When I responded I found I was blocked. I asked her to unblock me. She simply failed to do so AND piled on more absolutely false things she simply made up then attacked me for. VERY unprofessional.

      Here is what a professional response might have been, particularly from someone who teaches the evils of censorship. Mr. Kleinman, I do see your comment is not published on my blog post. Please allow me to review the reasons why then get back to you. Thank you.

      As it stands now, my comments on her blog are still marked as spam, so her LiveJournal blog has learned that comments from me are spam. Thus they are not published. Thus I am censored. In this case, by a public university professor who teaches school librarians that keeping children from sexually inappropriate material is censorship.

  2. LOL @ Dan accusing people of the EXACT SAME THING he does right here on his blog. You're a HUGE hypocrite. Now, delete this comment and prove me right.

    1. Sorry, but I'm not a professor teaching about censorship in a department of library science at a public university. Sorry, but removing your ad hominem comments that NEVER deal with the subject matter has nothing to do with removing the comments of someone responding substantively to how he was falsely maligned. Sorry, but my removing "anonymous" comments from my blog has nothing to do with platforms like LiveJournal learning named commenters like "SafeLibraries" have been marked as spam by various users, so let's just save us all the trouble and not publish that person's comments any further.

  3. Reminds me of your buddy Megan Fox.

  4. This is boring news. Why aren't you talked about Bridget Bittman is suing you for assault, libel, and slander?

    1. She is? I'm in NJ, she's in IL. I've never been to IL. How did I assault her in IL from NJ?


      Probably verbal assault

    3. Bittman v. Fox et al
      Filed: October 20, 2014 as 1:2014cv08191
      Plaintiff: Bridget Bittman
      Defendant: Megan Fox, Kevin DuJan, Dan Kleinman and others
      Cause Of Action: Federal Question
      Court: Seventh Circuit > Illinois > Illinois Northern District Court
      Type: Torts - Injury > P.I.: Assault Libel & Slander

    4. Oh, I see. You are saying assault because it is how it is characterized by that web site. Okay. Just know I've assaulted no one, but I may have peppered them with questions. Also, no one now or ever has sued me for assault. You're just trolling.

      Oh yes, how did you learn of such an obscure web site? It leads me to think you as a troll/harasser are in some way connected to the plaintiff, perhaps the plaintiff herself, or to OPPL. Really, no one else would know/care.

      You should reveal your name and connection to OPPL if you wish legitimate debate instead of ad hominem trolling.

      At some point your comments will fill this blog post with homophobic hate as you have in the past so at some point I'll likely have to delete your comments again. Stay civil if you wish to continue to have a say.

    5. Where was I ever uncivil? I was showing you what's published on the internet. How are you saying that you're not being sued? It says it right there.

      I have no connection to the OPPL, I just don't like people like you making up stupid things. Also, I am the farthest from a homophobe. This has nothing to do with your sexuality. Why do you always assume it does? I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say 'as you have in the past' but I have made no homophobic comments. You must have more than one person that is a critic.

    6. You said, "Bridget Bittman is suing you for assault." That is false. She is not suing me for assault. Claiming that she is is uncivil and it's trolling as you are not here to discuss "Teri Lesesne as Professor Nana, the Censor of Sam Houston State University," rather you are here to make false claims about my assaulting people. That's not true. It's uncivil and it's trolling. And in the past you have made homophobic remarks and I have had to remove them. And a critic differs from a troll. You are a troll.

  5. What's she suing you for?

    1. She likely has zero interest in me, but ALA has been after me for quite some time. Most likely ALA has funded this matter.

      It is a suit for alleged defamation. The alleged defamation includes that I linked/embedded the Megan Fox YouTube video of Bridget Bittman and Diane Jennings making homophobic remarks to Kevin DuJan.

      For those reading this comment who are not familiar, Megan and Kevin both disclosed unfettered and unreported child pornography at the Orland Park Public Library, which the library has been hiding/enabling ever since, and Bridget Bittman is the PR person employed by the library.

      Here is the link for which I am being sued: "Gay Hate @ Your Library." Please go there and watch the homophobia in action in Megan Fox's video.

      I feel great standing up to oppose those who spew hate. Of all the years I've been exposing ALA for promoting child porn in public schools and public libraries, nothing has ever angered me. This gay hate displayed in that video and known to me from other sources makes me angry. Certainly ALA and Jennings/Bittman could make arguments in favor of allowing child porn in public libraries without also attacking Kevin DuJan for the great sin of being gay like many other people. How Kevin DuJan is being attacked for being gay as a means to continue to enable child porn in a public library truly shocks the conscious, and I am happy to report on the homophobia by library trustees/employees others have made evident.

      Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and Bridget Bittman made repeated homophobic statements against Kevin DuJan, and there are many witnesses to this blatant homophobia.

      So, in summary, this is just a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), and I have a First Amendment right to report on homophobes being homophobic to enable/maintain child porn in public libraries.

    2. Truth is not, however, an absolute defense to false light, which you are being sued for two counts of in addition to two counts of defamation per se.

  6. What about your Facebook posts on the page defaming her? How do you defend your participation in that?

    1. I am about to or now have counsel (depending on certain things). Therefore, I'll not comment further for the time being.

    2. Disbarrment awaits.

    3. You're worried about disbarrment?

    4. The troll's previous comment he/she appears to have deleted/edited was "Disbarrment awaits." I suppose realizing that itself might be defamatory, he/she changed it to "You're worried about disbarrment?"

      Troll: I am about to or now have counsel (depending on certain things). Therefore, I'll not comment further for the time being.

    5. Nah, just forgot what comment you deleted. Thanks for reposting.

    6. Troll, no, I've deleted none of your comments here. I did see just now Google on its own had automatically marked your comment as spam. I just clicked the button to have it published. I assume it is now published. I had not realized this earlier when I said you deleted/edited the comment, so I withdraw my comment in that regard.

      And, by the way, to bring this back to the actual issue of this blog post, "Teri Lesesne as Professor Nana, the Censor of Sam Houston State University," Professor Censor could have done what I just did and unmark a comment as spam. She didn't. She's a censor.

    7. No one cares. Must be disheartening that your entire life's work only receives attention and interaction from thosebyou label as trolls and now you ironically face disbarrment because of your trolling of a fake Facebook page.

    8. I don't know what you're trolling about.

    9. You're better off hiding behind no comment rather than ignorance.


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