Wednesday, August 31, 2022

School Librarian SLAPPs Parents in Louisiana; Pushes Legislation to Block Parents from Challenging Books

School librarian Amanda Jones filed a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against parents who reported on her activities in facilitating inappropriate material to school children.  That's a story already reported by others.

What's new is that Amanda Jones is further evidencing that the SLAPP suit is being used to advance political interests having nothing to do with the defendants.  She wrote a letter to Louisiana politicians asking them to themselves target the parents, and parents statewide, by passing legislation that would prevent parents from having any significant say in what librarians make available to school children.  

The glaring evidence that Amanda Jones cares not about the lawsuit she filed and only about how she can use it to advance the political interests of the Chicago, Illinois, based American Library Association is that her requests seeking certain legislation to the Louisiana lawmakers are substantially similar to those American Library Association itself has guided librarians to make.


If there is a counterclaim for fraudulent claims, "a claim that is dishonest in fact or that is made principally for a patently improper purpose, such as to harass the opposing party" per LA Rev Stat §13:5241, then what Amanda Jones has done in advancing the interests of the American Library Association seems to be a patently improper purpose.

To explain further, I am also writing to Louisiana politicians who received her letter and explaining to them in specific detail why her SLAPP suit and even the letter itself that she wrote to them is evidence that the case was brought for a patently improper purpose.

Here is my response detailing how her letter is substantially misleading and is being used to carry out the directives of the American Library Association's new "Unite Against Book Bans" effort that has made it age discrimination to keep children from inappropriate material—right in its so-called "Library Bill of Rights." 


Dear Louisiana Political Leaders:

I am Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services, and I am writing in response to a letter from the “Leaders of the Louisiana Association of School Librarians” (LASL) regarding school librarian Amanda Jones who heads that LASL that is an “affiliate” of the American Library Association’s (ALA) American Association of School Librarians (AASL).  For ease I will call it the Amanda Jones letter, available here: https://bit.ly/LASLopenletter 

The Amanda Jones letter is substantially false and it seeks passage of legislation that would remove from Louisiana parents any say at all in public school libraries, leaving in place only the say of librarians trained by the American Library Association from Chicago, IL.  Among other things, it stated:

1. “local school librarian Amanda Jones, who spoke as a private citizen against book censorship at the Livingston Parish Library board meeting recently….”  

That is false.  The issue was not "book censorship."  Moving books from the children’s section to the adult section is not censorship and is done all the time.  It is, however, the opinion of LASL that that is censorship.  Right from its home page http://laslonline.weebly.com it has a graphic http://laslonline.weebly.com/uploads/9/0/2/4/90244061/published/img-7902.jpg that says, “Moving books written for teens and housed in the teen section on topics of sex education and sexual identity to the adult section of a library is censorship.”  That is false.  But Amanda Jones wants Louisiana political leaders to think it is censorship just by writing to such leaders as she did.  

And she was not there at that board meeting as a private citizen.  She expressly stated she was there representing LASL, as its President, no less: “I am here as a representative of that organization.”  (Transcript can be seen here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22130936-amanda-jones-petition-for-damages-injunctive-relief). But she told legislators she was there as a private citizen.  That’s just a lie, a lie made to the legislators themselves, right in her first sentence, to make her appear innocent of having filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), apparently on behalf of ALA/AASL/LASL.  

2. “Citizens for a New Louisiana and other groups … attempt to slander and libel individuals whose ideas contradict their own.”  

In reality, statements made by Citizens for a New Louisiana and other groups that contradict Amanda Jones’s ideas are labeled as slander and libel by Amanda Jones.  Once so labeled they become an excuse to file a lawsuit claiming defamation.  ALA provides training to librarians to file false defamation lawsuits against those who report on their activities in a manner with which they disapprove so as to silence them by draining them of time and money up to $500,000.  See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByZ7htC3sJifRFZsazBLZFJ6LU5ULU9QcVVBX1pnaHc0ckp3/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-zem9iwnSbXrekhvxMk90cw for notes taken by a librarian during one such training and uncovered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  On page two it says, “Defimation [sic] Attorney costs up to 5 hundred thousand.”  Amanda Jones has filed a defamation SLAPP suit, something librarians are trained by ALA to do, LASL is an affiliate member of AASL that’s part of ALA, and Amanda Jones is the President of LASL.  This is no private citizen filing a lawsuit.  This is the highest ranking LASL member following ALA directives to silence opponents with SLAPP suits.

3. “We know that this group in particular is involved in political activity throughout the region and is looking to expand their reach while using unsavory tactics to attack individuals.”  

This is projection.  LASL is involved in political activity throughout the region, and it takes its cues from ALA AASL that is involved in political activity throughout the country.  It is more projection in that they are looking to expand their reach while using "unsavory tactics to attack individuals."  For example, setting aside the SLAPP suit itself being one unsavory tactic, ALA created a new political activity effort called “United Against Book Bans” (UABB) in response to many parents successfully getting books containing graphic child pornography pulled from public schools.  Part of that effort is specially geared toward bending the minds of politicians https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/toolkit/#decision-makers so they will do as the ALA suggests/directs.  Here, for example, is a “Candidate Questionnaire” https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UABB_CandidateQuestionnaire_02-ac.pdf that as expected asks pointed questions.  

UABB even includes a survey taken by ALA showing most people oppose book bans.  Well no kidding.  We live in America.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is explicit material in public schools.  When it comes to that, most people oppose explicit books in public schools http://tinyurl.com/MostOpposeExplicitBooks as the Harris Poll shows.  But ALA did not reveal that when it said most people oppose book bans.  It is fundamentally misleading to do what ALA did.  It is an “unsavory tactic.”  So Amanda Jones speaking out against the “unsavory tactics” of parents who want adult books moved to the adult section is just pure projection.

4. “Please speak out and denounce the behavior of Citizens for a New Louisiana and its leader Michael Lunsford. This organization has no place in our community and cannot be allowed to use these tactics to attack our citizens.”  

The organization is exactly where it should be, and it comprises local parents doing exactly what they should do, namely, advocate for the protection of children.  It is Amanda Jones herself, acting for LASL, AASL, and ALA, who wants to bring in organizations that have no place in communities.  So it is more projection.  An organization that finds putting adult sexualized content in the adult section of the library is censorship is the organization that is bringing in outside influence, not the local parents.  If anyone should be "denounced," it is Amanda Jones.

5. “Moving forward, legislation is needed to protect your constituents against these types of unfounded, vicious attacks. I hope that you will not only speak up against their actions, but take action as a political leader to prevent this from continuing.”  

And there it is.  That is the call for legislative action that ALA via UABB has told librarians to take in response to graphic child pornography being removed from public schools.  That “Candidate Questionnaire” mentioned above asks, “8. Would you introduce or sponsor legislation that would prohibit government entities from banning books from local libraries and schools because of the content, ideas, or viewpoints expressed in the book?  9. Would you introduce or sponsor legislation that would protect librarians and educators for doing their job of providing a variety of age-appropriate reading materials to students?”  And that is exactly what Amanda Jones has just asked you.  So not only has she used the SLAPP suit to advance the interests of an out-of-state organization called ALA, but she is using her very letter to legislators to further promote yet again the interests of that out-of-state organization.  

And "because of the content, ideas, or viewpoints expressed in the book" would broaden school books allowed in schools to any book at all, obliterating the 1982 US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico that allows pervasively vulgar books to be removed forthwith (as in no need for materials reconsideration reviews).  ALA wants legislation to eliminate Bd. of Ed. v. Pico, and Amanda Jones is using her SLAPP suit as the excuse to ask you just that as well, "to prevent this from continuing."  She is bringing in outside influence while complaining, "Citizens for a New Louisiana and its leader Michael Lunsford ... has no place in our community."

And just to be clear on the nature of the American Library Association, its five decade de facto leader Judith Krug (formerly a board member of the Illinois ACLU) said librarians cannot determine what is child pornography, so anything goes. "'A librarian is not a legal process,' Krug said. 'There is not librarian in the country -- unless she or he is a lawyer -- who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography.'"  See https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libraries-vs-police-in-a-suit-sparked-by-porn-1093410.php. I feel certain these are not Louisiana values. 

Given the above, I urge you to act for the citizens of Louisiana and especially its children, and not for the wishes of Amanda Jones who filed a SLAPP suit and who wrote that letter to legislators for the very purpose of using that SLAPP suit as a platform for advancing the interests of an out-of-state organization.  ALA facilitates school children reading books containing graphic child pornography, and convincing legislators to silence parents who challenge such reading material is its goal.

Amanda Jones is bringing that to Louisiana, using her SLAPP suit to do it.  Now that you are aware, hopefully you won't let it happen.

Thank you.

-- 
----------
Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services


UPDATE 1 SEPTEMBER 2022:

The above story made news as I was interviewed by Carol Ross on The Ross Report broadcast at News Talk 98.5FM 1520AM The Talk of Acadiana in hour 2 on 1 September 2022 available as a podcast:
In that broadcast I reference the following:

UPDATE 2 SEPTEMBER 2022:

And now I have breaking news:  The American Library Association, having already deleted its model library policy telling librarians to ignore child pornography after I and others called them out, has now deleted its publication telling librarians how to "sneakily" push Drag Queen Story Hour into "small, rural, conservative communit[ies]" nationwide, despite the link having been available recently enough for The American Conservative and The Epoch Times stories from last month.  

So here it is, from an archived site, and from before they deleted the name of the author:

Here is where to donate to the parents fighting against the behemoth's new #UniteAgainstBookBans effort to legislate the silencing of parents via a SLAPP suit by Amanda Jones, the LASL leader:

UPDATE 24 SEPTEMBER 2022:

The Amanda Jones defamation case has been dismissed.  Here is some reporting on that case and why librarians should not get away with threatening parents with defamation lawsuits:

—
URL of this page: 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Baton Rouge, LA, USA

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousThu Sep 01, 05:56:00 PM 2022

    Dan Kleiman, as a bigoted white man whose ‘kind’ has caused severe damage to humanity. What is your motivation, sir? The denigration that you have sought to impose on one of the most celebrated and astute librarians of the 21st century is communicated to an audience that thinks as you do. Interestingly enough, you have not expressed concern, care or compassion for members of the BIPOC community, who often are not represented in texts and collections that are managed by “those who think like you”, in your blog posts or social media, you have forgotten about children in communities who learn differently and you have certainly forgotten about our students and children who identify as LGBTQIA +, children who have committed suicide due ti bullying and online harassment, oh, exactly what you do. If I were you, I would take some time to evaluate your character, your heart and before you post again, make sure God has given you a word that aligns with peace and human decency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SafeLibraries®Thu Sep 01, 09:48:00 PM 2022

      Thanks for proving the opposition to parents parenting consists of personal attack and projection, all wrapped up in a racist bow. Here are the people you think you are protecting: "'A librarian is not a legal process,' Krug said. 'There is not librarian in the country -- unless she or he is a lawyer -- who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography.'"

      Delete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)