Monday, July 21, 2025

After Mahmoud, ALA Bluffs to Set ALA's Library Bill of Rights as State Law; Massachusetts H3591, H3594, H3598, and H2328

Regarding Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328
Submitted by Dan Kleinman, Executive Director, World Library Association

Dear Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development,

Why are we here?  We are here because the American Library Association [ALA] based in Chicago, Illinois, has been working for over half a century to s3xualize and indoctrinate America’s children via the medium of its so-called "Library Bill of Rights" that half a century ago made it "age" discrimination to keep anything from children. See, Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442 (archived: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing). This has driven the faster and faster pushing of inappropriate material into public libraries and school libraries, causing parents to challenge such material in greater numbers and frequency.  Then the librarians complain about all the parents complaining, after ALA first caused the problem.  

So in an effort to stop all parents anywhere from challenging materials, ALA had to come up with something.  ALA wants its "Library Bill of Rights" to be codified into state law nationwide, thereby effectively overruling the US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico ( https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/ ) and blocking parents from even filing complaints in the first place.  This Chicago organization called ALA has over a third of state legislatures considering whether to codify this "Library Bill of Rights" that one court ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).

Now such legislation to overrule the Pico case and the First Amendment comes to Massachusetts in the form of Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328.  So that’s why we are here.  The question is, will Massachusetts legislators pass into law what a private organization from Illinois has put forth to try to turn its nothing "Library Bill of Rights" into Massachusetts law?

ALA caused the problem and provides the solution: legislation to essentially codify its own "Library Bill of Rights" nationwide.  Such legislation has passed in a few states but ALA wants more.  Now it wants Massachusetts.  And in a big way.  American Library Association is to be the Massachusetts standard setter in Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328.

    Bill H.3591 requires: "E. Adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights ...."

    Bill H.3594 requires: "Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy...."  "The written policy shall be in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "The policy shall provide that if a material is the subject of a complaint or attempt to remove or restrict its use, it shall remain on the shelves pending a vote of the school committee during the process for responding to challenges...."  The latter is a direct violation of Board of Education v. Pico that allows for immediate removal.  The concept of ignoring Pico and leaving the book on the shelf until a long process has completed is the sole idea of Chicago's American Library Association.  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... : (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association...." "The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."

    Bill H.3598 requires: "Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy ... in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association...."  "The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."  "SECTION 12. Section 19B of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by ... inserting ... (8) adopt and make public a written policy for the selection and use of library materials and facilities in accordance with section 33; provided, that such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights...."

    Bill S.2328 requires: "SECTION 3. Said chapter 71 is hereby further amended by inserting ... Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy ... in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association and as required by section 19B.  The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."  "SECTION 12. Section 19B of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by ... inserting ... 8) adopt and make public a written policy ... that such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights...."  "SECTION 14. Said section 33 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word 'Association', in line 6, the following words:- including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights...." 

Can you all see how Chicago ALA's "Library Bill of Rights" aspirational creed is set to set the standard for Massachusetts law?

I’m Dan Kleinman, the Executive Director of the World Library Association [WLA] based in Bee Cave, Texas.  WLA is the new alternative to ALA.  For opposing a similar law in New Jersey, also promoted by that same Illinois private organization, NJ state senator Andrew Zwicker called me a "meddling minority."  So the World Library Association from Texas is a meddling minority, but the American Library Association from Illinois that essentially wrote the Massachusetts legislation and that of all other states is not.  The meddling being done is by the Illinois organization trying to mislead Massachusetts legislators into violating Pico with false claims of First Amendment rights, intellectual freedom, the "right to read," and the right for children to "see themselves" in the book they are reading.

This effort by ALA has encompassed about 22 states so far, almost half of the United States.  The details of exactly how and why it is so bad, along with what states are considering codifying the Illinois organization’s aspirational creed that means nothing, is written at the Right to Read Act page on World Library Association here: https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/  I feel there is no better guide on the topic from the point of view of parents.

To be very clear, ALA has worked for a very long time to mislead legislators nationwide into doing what the Illinois private organization wants, namely, ensure children get access to all materials at any age per the "Library Bill of Rights."  As you consider this legislation, ask yourselves if you wish to be misled and to discard US Supreme Court precedent designed to protect children from harm, and to discard the First Amendment and your own state constitution.  

And there it is, the Massachusetts Constitution, Article XIX (a real Article XIX, not the fake ones in the "Library Bill of Rights"), "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."  People have the right to seek redress of the government.  Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 basically remove that right.  No one will be able to seek redress of the government for inappropriate books because Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 enjoin that via the application of legislation written in Chicago, Illinois, by an organization tired of losing past efforts to keep kids reading inappropriate materials in school libraries. 

The right of redress is so important in Massachusetts that there is a second article in the constitution about it, and solely about the right of redress.  Article XXII: "The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new laws, as the common good may require."

Does a law making available to children books about butt plugs and how to upload pictures to Grindr to meet a man for a night and blocking people from seeking redress serve "the common good"?  How many legislators have even done either?  Why might they create that right for school children if Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 pass into law?

Will Massachusetts legislators toss away Article XIX and Article XXII of their own state's constitution so blithely just to pass a law written by a Chicago organization working for 60 years to harm school children with inappropriate material that a court has already ruled its "Library Bill of Rights" means "nothing" and is just an organizational creed?

So if the four pieces of legislation crowning American Library Association as king pass into law, they will immediately violate the Massachusetts Constitution because parents will lose the right to seek redress without new, stringent preconditions from school and library boards whose hands are now tied by the law.  This is why people don’t want a private organization from Illinois writing any laws for Massachusetts.  ALA simply doesn’t give a whit about the Massachusetts Constitution, nor anything or anyone else for that matter.

One way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is with "long-term inoculation."  This is in training from EveryLibrary, a crypto ALA affiliate.  As part of long-term inoculation, ALA (via EveryLibrary) specifically states, "Get to know your legislators and local leaders," in the context of "identifying and activating others who care."  Have any Massachusetts legislators been "identified and activated" to "care" about ensuring children have unlimited access to anything whatsoever?  Have any librarians or library associations gotten to "know their legislators"?  See this for yourselves here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. And the crypto nature of EveryLibrary being a part of American Library Association is detailed here, as well as details on its "long-term inoculation": https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html

A second way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is via training ALA’s top lawyer gave to librarians, that before legislation is written, because that’s the goal they are after, before legislation is written, there needs to be "sustained messaging" that takes away the idea that certain materials are s-xually inappropriate for children and "reframes" the issue as one of diversity, inclusion, and the right for kids to "see themselves" in the materials they are provided.  This statement was surfaced and reported by me, after which Utah Senator Mike Lee discussed it at a recent "Banned Books" hearing on Capitol Hill.  He played the recording, then afterwards said ALA’s lawyer was "saying the quiet part out loud," that ALA is gr—ming and s-xualizing children.  His words.  As Utah Senator Mike Lee put it, “the goal is to s-xualize children, to provide minors with s-xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.”  Watch Senate Mike Lee display then discuss this video World Library Association surfaced and listen to his discussion of the issues regarding the contents of supposed "banned books": https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments

And remember, the "book ban" hoax has been exposed by the United States Department of Education and it has dropped all of its actions against parents.  I proved years ago it was ALA that caused US Dept of Ed to promulgate the "book ban" hoax in the first place ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html ).  The hoax is over.  Now Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 is no longer needed.

So ALA has decades ago made it age discrimination to keep kids from materials.  The Pico case allows for the removal of inappropriate material; books like Gender Queer have been successfully removed from many schools under the Pico case, and ALA couldn’t stand for that.  Result?  It created "Unite Against Book Bans," one of the goals of which was to get legislation passed nationwide that would prevent parents from applying the Pico case and prevent parents from exercising their First Amendment and state constitutional rights to seek redress of the government from governmental actions.  And here you are in Massachusetts discussing this very legislation that has been the subject of "long-term inoculation" and "sustained messaging" that essentially "reframes" known inappropriate material as diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Along comes Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328. Compare them with the "Library Bill of Rights" that the Berry v. Yosemite Community College District court case ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).

American Library Association diktat has a trail of child victims, like Maia Poet who exposed how she was directly harmed by a school librarian predator.  Watch: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606?s=61


Not only does Bill H.3591 eliminate the US Supreme Court Pico case, it also eliminates the First Amendment’s and Massachusetts Constitution’s grant of the right of redress.  If the school board is constrained by law from removing Gender Queer and similar books, then parents' rights to seek redress of the government are eliminated, gone, or an unconstitutionally huge burden is placed on them and no book will ever be removed, no matter how inappropriate.  This is the goal of ALA.  Under the new legislation, there is no longer a right to ask a school board to remove a book from the school, or the right is so limited that nothing will ever be removed.  Never.  So those rights are gone.  The new legislation takes those rights away.  Under the wording of Bill H.3591, there is not a single book in the library now or ever that may be challenged by a parent and removed by a school board.  This is the goal of the Illinois-based private organization called ALA.

ALA recently lost a big case in Mahmoud v. Taylor.  Parents can now opt out of what ALA is pushing.  The US Supreme Court allows parents to opt out, but Massachusetts legislators want to make ALA legislation into law via Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328?

Look at the Massachusetts Association of School Committees [MASC] in what it said about the Mahmoud case.  https://www.masc.org/scotus-decision-in-mahmoud-v-taylor-considerations-for-district-policy/  It says:

"This case has been viewed as an attack on the LGBTQ+ community and a direct challenge to the fundamental responsibilities of local school committees and their districts. MASC will be examining to what extent this decision requires revisions to our current policy recommendations. Crafting an appropriate policy that will protect districts, and avoid unwelcomed results when applied, is challenging given that these cases are so fact specific and the latest decision provides minimal guidance." 

Look how hard MASC will be working to craft a proper policy in light of the Mahmoud decision to "protect districts, and avoid unwelcomed results when applied."  One policy "is challenging" and "these cases are so fact specific and the latest decision provides minimal guidance."   Yet Massachusetts legislators are ready to pass  Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 just on the trust of the American Library Association and its claimed and assumed adherence to and trend setting on "intellectual freedom"?

Let's be very clear, ALA being the trusted expert on intellectual freedom is illusory.  It doesn't even hold its own organization to the same standard.  See, "ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values," by Trevor A. Dawes, Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums and May Morris University Librarian at the University of Delaware, https://trevordawes.wordpress.com/2025/07/19/ala-closed-door-meetings/

Quoting from Mr. Dawes: 

“The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship and for intellectual freedom is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes. When librarians advocate for open government meetings in their communities and resist attempts to conduct public business behind closed doors, how can their professional association justify adopting the very practices they oppose?”

“The library profession has long served as a bulwark against information gatekeeping. Librarians regularly advocate for government transparency, fight against secret deliberations by public bodies, and champion the public’s right to know. When ALA adopts the very practices its members oppose in other contexts, it undermines the moral authority of the profession’s advocacy efforts.”

“ALA’s credibility as an advocate for transparency and intellectual freedom depends partly on its willingness to embody these values in its own operations.”

“When librarians testify before city councils about the importance of open meetings or when they argue against secret deliberations in school board decisions, they draw moral authority from their profession’s commitment to these principles.”

“By retreating to closed-door deliberations without adequate justification or member input, ALA risks undermining not just its own democratic processes but the broader advocacy efforts of the library profession.”

“President Helmick and the ALA Executive Board have positioned this change as a technical adjustment to improve governance efficiency. However, the decision represents something far more significant: a choice between convenience and values, between operational ease and organizational integrity.”

“The question isn’t whether ALA can afford to maintain transparent governance practices. The question is whether it can afford not to.”

So, will Massachusetts constituents want their legislators to pass laws written by an outside organization that doesn't even live up to its own standards?  Won't enforce intellectual freedom within its own ranks?  This is the model to follow for Massachusetts?

I feel certain no parent wants any of this legislation to pass into law in Massachusetts, except those few who support that Illinois organization more than they support the law, community standards, and common sense, and except those few legislators who have been successfully co-opted by the "long-term inoculation" and the "sustained messaging" from the Illinois based private association of librarians and members of the local Massachusetts Library Association and the like.  To me, any legislator passing anything from American Library Association into law knowing the history of ALA and how it doesn't even stand up to its own standards will be complicit in the harm done by this legislation.  Any lawsuits brought under any of these laws if passed should include the legislators who knew ahead of time the harm being done but who chose to let the harm be done.

I further feel certain that should any of Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, or Bill H.2328 pass into law, it will be challenged in court for First Amendment violations, among other things, then eventually struck down.  Will that out-of-state private organization fund all that legal footwork to protect Massachusetts's children?  Of course not.  You'll all be on your own.

Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 should never become law in the first place, and it should never be reworded because it is fatally flawed.  It comes from an out-of-state organization as part of an over half-century effort to "long-term inoculate" adults, especially legislators, so they drop their guard and allow children to be s3xualized and indoctrinated in schools and public libraries despite that being against the law, community standards, and common sense.  When the ALA lawyer says to "reframe" inappropriate material as DEI so kids can "see themselves," anyone can see for him or herself what’s going on, and Senator Lee’s words make it crystal clear.  And ALA won't even follow its own policies it expects you to pass into law.

Do not pass Chicago ALA’s Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, or Bill H.2328 into law, else Massachusetts children will be directly harmed, and legislators could possibly be complicit in harming them.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Dan Kleinman, Executive Director
World Library Association

—
URL of this page: 


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 24 Beacon St, Boston, MA 02133, USA

No comments:

Post a Comment

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)