Monday, August 10, 2026

Silenced for Speaking Up: When Opposing Explicit Materials for Children Triggers Free Speech Restrictions in New Jersey

When the topic is children having access to s[*]xually explicit or otherwise inappropriate materials in school and public libraries, free speech in New Jersey is frequently restricted. Boards cut off parents reading from the books themselves, deny public comment, end livestreams, and even silence fellow elected board members. The pattern is consistent and documented.

Two recent examples illustrate the problem clearly.

In Freehold, the Public Library Board of Trustees held a special meeting on August 5, 2026. The agenda focused on personnel matters involving Library Director Kathy Mulholland after an independent investigation into workplace concerns. Those concerns included the director’s stance allowing patrons to view p[*]rnography on public computers, including in view of others and children. Despite a motion from Freehold Borough Mayor Kevin A. Kane (Democrat) to allow public comment, the board voted against it. Attendees were left to protest as they left the room. I stated, “So much for free public speech in a public library,” and received audible support from others present. A board member claimed the board values free speech; the reply was that a vote against public comment demonstrated otherwise.¹

The library’s own Code of Conduct reinforces the problem. Adopted March 26, 2024, it lists among prohibited behaviors: “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.” By limiting the ban to obvious consumption, the policy implies that non-obvious (discreet) viewing or sharing of obscene material is permitted. This is consistent with reports that the director treated the viewing of p[*]rnography on public computers as acceptable so long as it was not blatant. A policy that effectively allows obscenity inside a public library—including potentially in the presence of children—is the opposite of protecting minors.²

In Bridgewater-Raritan, elected Board of Education member Jeremy Li has repeatedly been shut down when he attempts to place inappropriate library materials or parental notification measures on the public record. Video from a recent meeting shows Li speaking about prohibiting visual or explicit written descriptions in elementary and middle school libraries. The superintendent and board president walked out. The public stream was then ended. Li has described earlier instances in which a recess was called and his microphone cut mid-speech while he advocated for a parental notification amendment that would allow parents to prevent their own children from checking out s[*]xually explicit books. The amendment did not remove any books; it sought to put parents “back in the driver’s seat.”³

These are not isolated incidents of “decorum.”

Elected Officials Silenced

Jeremy Li’s experience is particularly significant because he is an elected official exercising oversight. The board is supposed to oversee the superintendent, not the reverse. When discussion of library materials is terminated by walkouts and by ending the public record, the public is denied the very transparency school boards are required to provide.

Parents and Citizens Silenced

In Wayne Township in October 2021, parent Pamela Macek stood at the podium during public comment and began reading passages from Gender Queer: A Memoir, a book available in the high school library that contains explicit illustrations and text. Within approximately 14 seconds, Board President Catherine Kazan interrupted her, stating it was inappropriate with young people present and that she should “verbalize [her] complaint without reading the book.” Macek continued. Her microphone was cut. She kept speaking without it. The president called for police assistance and threatened to clear the room.⁴

The Freehold denial of public comment follows the same logic: the substance of the complaint (children’s exposure to p[*]rnography on library computers) is treated as grounds to restrict speech about it.

Even Discussing an Ethics Complaint Is Restricted

In North Hunterdon-Voorhees, I filed an ethics complaint in October 2024 concerning the board’s handling of school library materials. When I attempted to discuss the status of my own complaint at subsequent meetings, I was shut down—first by the board attorney, later by the board president—over speculative concerns about confidentiality or potential defamatory statements. A prior speaker who criticized the same complaint was allowed to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reviewed the record and sent a letter to the board. FIRE described the selective enforcement as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional. The letter asked the board to rescind any policy or practice that prohibits referencing ethics complaints and to allow commenters to discuss relevant district matters.⁵

Why This Pattern Exists

The consistent silencing of parents, citizens, and even elected board members who object to s[*]xually explicit materials for children is not random. It follows directly from American Library Association policy.

In its official interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights titled “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” the ALA states that “all people, of all ages, should have equal and equitable access to all library resources and services.” It explicitly declares that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources and services as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights. Article V of that document provides that a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” The ALA interpretation treats any restriction based solely on age, apparent maturity, or educational level as a violation of that principle.⁶

Under this framework, efforts to keep inappropriate materials away from children are reframed as age discrimination. Libraries are instructed not to act in loco parentis; only parents may restrict their own children’s access. The practical result is that public and school library boards, trained and guided by ALA standards, treat parental concerns about explicit content as an attack on intellectual freedom rather than a legitimate request for age-appropriate standards. When citizens or board members challenge that orthodoxy, the institutional response is often to shut down the discussion itself.

How to Fix This

The silencing of parents, citizens, and elected board members is a downstream effect of a single upstream decision: the adoption of American Library Association policy as if it were binding law.

It is not.

The Library Bill of Rights and its interpretations—including the one that treats age-based restrictions as discrimination—are internal documents of a private trade association. They have no force of law. No statute requires any public library or school library in New Jersey (or anywhere else) to follow them. Boards that claim they are “powerless” to keep inappropriate material away from children are not powerless. They have simply chosen to subordinate local authority to ALA guidance.

The remedy is straightforward:

1. Remove all ALA policy from library and school board policies. 
Delete the Library Bill of Rights, every interpretation of it, and any language that incorporates ALA standards on intellectual freedom, access for minors, or collection development. These documents function as the camel’s nose under the tent, pictured top right. Once adopted, they are used to argue that any effort to protect children is censorship or age discrimination.

2. Return to local law, community standards, and common sense.
Public libraries and school libraries operate under state statutes, local ordinances, and the authority of elected or appointed boards. Those boards have both the legal power and the responsibility to set age-appropriate standards, require parental consent where appropriate, filter content, and remove materials that violate community standards or applicable law (including New Jersey’s obscenity statutes regarding minors, like N.J.S. 2C:34-3).

3. Assert that authority clearly.
Boards should adopt policies that explicitly state they are not bound by ALA guidance and that decisions about materials available to children will be guided by local community standards, parental rights, and the best interests of minors—not by a private organization’s ideological framework.

Libraries are not required to treat a 10-year-old the same as a 40-year-old. They never were. The claim that they must do so comes from ALA policy, not from the US Constitution nor New Jersey law. When boards delete that policy and reclaim their own authority, the institutional pressure to silence parents and dissenting board members loses its foundation.

The power has always been local. It simply has to be exercised.

———

Endnotes


1. Freehold Public Library Board of Trustees special meeting, August 5, 2026. Contemporaneous reporting and video documentation of the vote against public comment; Shore News Network, “Head Librarian Who Allowed P[*]rn Use on Computers Faces Uncertain Future in Freehold,” August 6, 2026; contemporaneous posts from attendees including the author.


2. Freehold Public Library, Library Code of Conduct, adopted March 26, 2024, p. 3. Available via the library’s Services page: https://freeholdpubliclibrary.org/services.php (Google Drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-UeGKjZIV35sAhQEs9h4UOaMYW7C0QGh/view). The policy prohibits only “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.”




3. Video of Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education meeting showing walkouts and the stream being ended while Jeremy Li addressed library materials; Jeremy Li public statements and Facebook posts describing earlier microphone cuts and recesses during discussion of a parental notification amendment for s[*]xually explicit books (2025–2026).  Start at 1:37:36 and go to 1:45:32.


4. ProPublica, “The Conservative Transformation of the Wayne Township School Board,” June 29, 2023 (detailing the October 2021 meeting); TapInto Wayne and local coverage of the October 7, 2021 Board of Education meeting, including video of the interruption and microphone cut while Pamela Macek read from Gender Queer.

5. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “New Jersey school board shuts down speaker for discussing his own ethics complaint,” June 18, 2026. The article documents the selective restriction on discussion of my October 2024 ethics complaint regarding North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board handling of school library materials and FIRE’s formal letter to the board.

6. American Library Association, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors (accessed August 2026). The interpretation states that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights and that any restriction based solely on age violates Article V.

—
URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/silenced-for-speaking-up.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: New Jersey, USA

Sunday, August 2, 2026

The Double Standard: 'Destroy Them' and 'Go In for the Kill' Are Just Idioms—But a Red Circle Around a Librarian's Head Is Targeting

In the recent discussion of cartoonist Ryan Estrada, we saw him publish guidance for authors and activists confronting parents who challenge materials in school libraries. One section states: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.) He has also offered to provide more “ammunition” to those who email him. When called out, Estrada has framed the language as figurative—an idiom—and responded with a comic casting a critic as the big bad wolf.¹

Contrast that with the treatment of school librarian Amanda Jones.

In July 2022, after Jones spoke against censorship at a Livingston Parish Library Board meeting in Louisiana, the Facebook page of Citizens for a New Louisiana posted a photo of her speaking. The image placed a red circle (with a white border) around her head and asked why she was “fighting so hard to keep s[*]xually erotic and p[*]rnographic materials in the kid’s section.”²

Jones later described the circle as a “target.” In her memoir That Librarian she wrote: “They posted a picture of me with a target around my head. According to them, it’s just a circle, but who are they kidding?”³ She launched multi-year defamation lawsuits against the posters, arguing the image and accompanying text damaged her reputation and contributed to harassment.⁴

Yet her first reaction was different. In a training video she recorded for other librarians (August 28, 2023), Jones herself admitted:

“When I first started being attacked, I thought ‘This is not serious, like this is ridiculous.’ I went on their page and put the laughing emoji… and I wish I could take that back cuz it’s not funny… and they talk about that all the time. ‘She put the laugh, she thinks it’s funny.’ So I learned that the hard way.”⁵



What she initially treated as absurd enough to laugh at publicly became, within weeks, the foundation of sustained litigation. A red circle is one of the most ordinary tools in digital photo editing and annotation—the default highlight function in countless apps precisely because it draws the eye without implying violence. Treating that common editing mark as actionable “targeting” while dismissing explicit militaristic language directed at parents (“Destroy them,” “go in for the kill,” offers of “ammunition”) as mere idiom is the double standard in plain view.

Parents who speak at school board or library meetings are fair game for destruction rhetoric and cartoon portrayals as the big bad wolf. Librarians and their allies who face ordinary visual highlighting of their public comments receive multi-year lawsuits, national media sympathy, and awards for courage.

One set of statements is explained away as colorful language. The other is treated as a serious threat of violence—even when the person later suing over it first responded with a laughing emoji.





If you're a big bad wolf who wishes to support the legal defense of free speech against double standards and SLAPP-style suits arising from reporting on these issues:  

———

END NOTES


2. The original Facebook post and the red-circle description appear in Jones’s own petition for damages (filed August 2022) and are summarized in contemporaneous reporting:  

3. Amanda Jones, That Librarian: The Fight Against Book Banning in America (Bloomsbury, 2024), quoted in Oprah Daily, August 27, 2024: https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/books/a61600534/the-librarian-amanda-jones-book-bans/

4. Court records and appellate history confirming the multi-year litigation:  

5. Transcript of Amanda Jones’s August 28, 2023 training video for librarians (timestamp ~16:04), published on SafeLibraries, September 2024: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/09/amanda-jones-trains-librarians-to-blind.html  


—



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Livingston Parish, LA, USA

Saturday, August 1, 2026

'Destroy Them': Cartoonist Ryan Estrada Turns Real Dictatorship Book Bans into a Campaign Against American Parents

Ryan Estrada is a cartoonist who gained prominence in part through the real experiences of his wife, Kim Hyun-sook (also rendered Gim Hyeon-suk or Hyun Sook). Under South Korea’s military dictatorship of Chun Doo-hwan, she participated in an underground “banned book club” that read forbidden works by Paulo Freire, Che Guevara, Noam Chomsky, Betty Friedan, and others. She faced genuine risks of surveillance, arrest, interrogation, or worse, and was interrogated by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. That was actual government book banning and suppression of dissent.

Estrada later used his artistic skills to depict her experiences. He has since leveraged that platform to promote the American Library Association’s narrative of “book bans” in the United States. In the U.S. context, the term is routinely applied to parents and community members who object to certain materials in public school libraries or classrooms—materials many view as age-inappropriate. Critics of this framing, including parents speaking at public meetings, are frequently labeled “book banners,” “extremists,” or “Christofascists.”

Estrada has gone further. He has published detailed guidance for authors and others on how to confront parents who challenge books at school board meetings. One section includes the language: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.)

I previously highlighted the danger in that rhetoric (July 27, 2025). 


Today Estrada reframes my criticism as a claim that “AUTHORS WANT TO ‘KILL’ PARENTS!!!” and responds with a comic titled “KILL `EM WITH KINDNESS,” casting me as the big bad wolf. The comic was presented at the Perth Comics Festival 2026.

I documented the sequence here::


Others have also noted the pattern:


One reader even points out that Estrada harassed him for several days and ended up censoring citizens:



I am currently defending against SLAPP-style lawsuits related to reporting on these issues. If you wish to support the legal defense of free speech in these matters: 


NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

Already Ryan Estrada has responded to the above post.  He essentially doubled down.

"...and just since the person mentioned here wrote a whole essay on the premise that he never said it, here it is."

He shows a graphic that does not say, "authors want to 'kill' parents!!!"  Instead, it says, "authors ... oppose parents."  It's not the same.  And he quoted me saying, "Author makes call to 'kill' parents...."  He did.

Then he follows up with a second post:

"But he knows that, as even in the very rant where he claims he didn't, he calls me a 'stochastic terrorist' for using the idiom 'go in for the kill' in the context of public debate.

"Bro confuses kindness with obedience so thinks a public disagreeing with him is not just unkind, but terrorism."

Here he continues to lie and mischaracterize to cover up that I outed what he did/said.  

"Rant," he says.  I had nothing to say about him for quite a while until he wrote an entire comic making me the big bad wolf where it was displayed at the Perth Comics Festival.  I guess I'm in good company given cartoons like this:




I did not "rant."  I responded.  And I would not have responded had he not lied in a way that threatens me with his stochastic terror.  He said that I said, and has since doubled down on that, that authors want to "kill" parents.  He knows that's a lie but that it will rile people up.  

Indeed one responder has already said, "I would love to read more about this idea that authors want to 'kill' parents, that's wild."  Another said, "Aw, c'mon, Ryan, how is a raving lunatic supposed to remember every rant?"  To that, Estrada responds by admitting to misquoting me, but keeps up the ridicule: "I do regret that I got one word of the quote wrong, because 'makes call to kill parents' is actually a much funnier misquoting of my original point."  Is he admitting to intentionally misquoting me to be "much funnier"?

I did not claim stochastic terror was caused by an idiom nor that it was in the context of public debate.  That's his words.  Rather I linked his entire piece for full context, and it's in the context of what he wrote, not public debate.  That context includes his writing detailed directions for others to target parents who challenge books.  

Among other things, he says the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill."  "Go in for the kill" are the only words he put in bold font.  If I said that about school librarians, if I wrote a long piece to urge other parents to eliminate obstructions by school librarians, if I said the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill," you can bet Estrada and many others would be calling that stochastic terror and calling for me to be investigated and mass canceled. 

If I recall correctly, Estrada previously reported me to the FBI essentially for stochastic terror.  He reported that I tweeted urging parents to attend an American Library Association conference.  I did.  I do.  Parents should attend to see for themselves how children are harmed by ALA policy and practices.  When they do they are shocked that the vast majority of training is about DEI.  Taxpayer money pays to send librarians to ALA conferences to learn about librarianship, not about DEI.  It's a legitimate concern to raise.  It's not stochastic terror to urge people to attend ALA conferences.  

But apparently he thought that was because any excuse to silence me and parents like me can and will be used.  So if he can say it's stochastic terror for me to say parents should go to ALA conferences, then I can certainly say the full context of what he wrote, including the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill," is stochastic terror.

This is not a case with the public not agreeing with me, as he implies because he always belittles people with whom he disagrees.  This is not a case about me at all.  That's misdirection.  This is a case where he is providing specific training on how to eliminate parental opposition to inappropriate material in schools by using "fun" training to "destroy them" and "go in for the kill" at school board meetings, then he goes on to mock people who call him out for providing such training.  And he makes it sound palatable by raising the specter of real censorship by a Korean dictator and comparing it with America parents who wish to keep inappropriate books out of American public schools.  Inappropriate books in schools like this one, "Gravity's Rainbow":


Yes, he's not going to kill anyone and he's not openly urging that, but stochastic terror is the public demonization of someone in a way that is statistically likely to inspire random acts of violence by ideologically motivated individuals, while Estrada maintains plausible deniability.  Stochastic itself means random or probabilistic.  Over time, someone in a large audience, and he has one, relatively speaking, almost 16K followers on Bluesky, may act out to have "fun" "destroying" and "killing" someone he maligns as he does, like he is maligning me.  What he said is false and is not legitimate political criticism.  I would never say about school librarians what he says about parents.  Go have fun destroying and killing.  No one would.

The more he speaks, the more he reveals about himself (like his admitting to a misquote).

Do not allow this man Ryan Estrada to attend any school or library event, whether in person or via electronic means.

That's my opinion, anyway.


Quote from @ProtectSaladoKs:

He sure has an interesting way of spreading kindness.

Don’t forget this gem from “The Ryan Estrada Method”: 😆

“If you ever ... need some hints on where to look for the ammo to destroy them, feel free to email ...”

If anyone wants a fun mental challenge, explain—without reference to Cluster B personality disorders—how Mr. Estrada expresses kindness in the following (real) terms he uses to describe people who want to protect children from harmful material in libraries:

- lying book banners
- angry anti-book activists who insult [board members] with zero care or empathy
- complete idiots
- dumb dorks
- terrible people

To be clear, using strong, even forceful language is not objectionable per se. (Although Mr. Estrada’s is often belligerent and frankly militaristic. In today’s climate, post-Charlie Kirk, parents have every right to raise an eyebrow.) What is worthy of critique—and yes, ridicule—is the utter lack of self-awareness in claiming his primary tactic is kindness, when it patently is not.

https://archive.ph/pEJCS#selection-427.0-427.142



NOTE DATED 2 AUGUST 2026:

The next day after I published the above I have published a new and related post:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Busan, South Korea

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Neutrality in Libraries is White Supremacy Says Librarian Kelly Jensen

"Neutrality is white supremacy," says a librarian i
Kelly Jensen: "neutrality is white supremacy"
n another example of how librarians are not "trusted experts" and seek to use local libraries for carrying out a political agenda antithetical to America.  American Library Association-awarded librarian Kelly Jensen in Book Riot writes that.  She doesn't want libraries to be neutral and blames it on capitalism, which is what she means by "white supremacy."  The public wants neutrality in libraries, but ALA librarians don't.

More from Kelly Jensen: "Who gets the safety of 'neutrality?' Cishet white people."  Sounds racist to me.  Sound racist to you?  "That trustee has been noting there aren’t enough books for their white cishet son, who is into history nonfiction."  Yep, racist.  "He wants the library to be 'beige,' built in the image of white supremacy and nothing more."  Yep, racist, and "beige" is not white, so her statement is internally inconsistent because she's blinded by hate.  Your "trusted expert" for school kids is a racist—but also a librarian, so she's fine and will continue to collect ALA's American Association of School Librarians awards and maintain her position as Senior Editor at Book Riot.

She's also anti American.  Kelly Jensen has a history of hate for America, such as by posting to her 13K Bluesky followers, "BTW, it is okay to just not celebrate or give a single sh[*]t about America's 250th anniversary of colonization.  You are allowed to just ... not!"  

Here are two articles on how people talking about "white supremacy" mean anti capitalism and anti American:

Borysenko, Dr. Karlyn. “Re-Education #7: Why Whiteness Means Capitalism; It’s Not About White People; It’s About the System.” Substack newsletter. Decode The Left with Karlyn Borysenko, August 18, 2024. https://karlyn.substack.com/p/re-education-7-why-whiteness-means.

Lindsay, Dr. James. “White Supremacy.” New Discourses, September 18, 2023. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-white-supremacy/.


Now let's see in detail what ALA's "trusted expert" for children says about neutrality in libraries.  It's jam packed with projections like about "right-wing boards"—while ALA trains librarians ("Read. Lead. RUN!") into creating anti-American, pro child indoctrination boards comprised of librarians:

Jensen, Kelly. “Pride Month Still Matters, Despite Disappearing From Libraries: Book Censorship News, July 17, 2026; Pride Displays, Programs, and Events Continue to Disappear from Libraries in the US, Making Them Complicit in Queer Erasure.” Book Riot, July 17, 2026. https://bookriot.com/pride-is-disappearing-in-us-libraries/.  [Bold font modified.]

Quieting [of Pride in libraries] also happens more systematically. Numerous libraries have seen their right-wing boards craft policies related to affinity displays or programming. These policies target marginalized groups either intentionally, which we have seen in libraries where the far-right has simply taken over the library board and built the institution in their cult leader’s image, or they’ve been created under the guise of “neutrality.” But libraries aren’t neutral. Libraries have never been neutral, and libraries can never be neutral. They are unabashedly pro-library, which means being unabashedly pro-community and unabashedly pro-representation. Neutrality is bullsh[*]t. “Neutrality” is why far-right interests have run the train over libraries again and again and again. If libraries stand for nothing, they fall over easily again and again and again.

Neutrality is white supremacy. Until libraries understand that being political isn’t the same as being partisan, extreme partisan interests will declare the library as theirs and theirs alone.

....

At Columbia State Community College in Tennessee, a library’s LibGuide on LGBTQ+ terminology, flags, and organizations disappeared from the library’s website. It had been the library’s most-viewed guide, but the director heard from someone that they should remove it to “avoid any controversy.” The guide was not deleted, but it was unpublished. This is complying in advance, of course, and it’s also doing a tremendous disservice to an adult user audience. Who gets the safety of “neutrality?” Cishet white people.

.... 

Need I say more?  The above is all my opinion.  But watch Kelly Jensen on Bluesky to see for yourselves what I see.  These are the people set up by American Library Association to be "trusted experts" for school children.

Neutrality is white supremacy.

Quote of the above graphic:

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 
The first CRT tenet that we rely on, "racism as ordinary," is defined by Delgado and Stefancic as the idea that "racism is an ingrained feature of our landscape, it looks ordinary and natural to persons in the culture" (2017, 8-9). Because White Supremacy culture underlies the landscape of librarianship, and vocational awe and neutrality are arguably two of its most important mainstays, the assumptions, beliefs, and policies born from these values are seen as the norm rather than things to be challenged and ultimately transformed. Within this overarching tenet, we draw specifically on Alan Freeman's identification of a "perpetrator perspective" and a "victim perspective" in understanding White Supremacy, as well as Cheryl I. Harris's multifaceted approach to understanding whiteness as property. The second CRT tenet that we draw on to examine neutrality and vocational awe is "critique of liberalism," which pushes back against the idea that "equal treatment for all persons, regardless of their different histories or current situations," yields an equitable social structure, and that "with the election of Barack Obama, we arrived at a postracial stage of social development" (Delgado and Stefancic 2017, 26). Specifically because the value of neutrality in libraries relies on these misconceptions, we italicize this term throughout the rest of this chapter to highlight the fallacy in the goals of neutrality-framed library work. 
Due to a prevalent idea that "libraries are for all," there is a misconception that racial inequity does not affect libraries and requires no real intervention in libraries because people from all races, creeds, and walks of life are treated equally in the space. This idea is a central defense of neutrality; proponents of neutrality state that since we serve everyone, we must allow materials, ideas, and values from everyone. It also bolsters vocational awe, in that it forestalls meaningful critique of the field, particularly critique of its racial dynamics. As three People of Color, we have experienced on the micro and macro levels how librarianship weaponizes vocational awe and neutrality to uphold White Supremacy and further marginalizes communities of color. However, our very marginality allows a clearer view of the disconnect between the espoused values of librarianship and the reality of the field. We use this view to examine the current narratives of library work and, in a CRT tradition, to revise the history that has so long comforted the white majority of our profession (Delgado and Stefancic 2017, 25). 
Many of CRT's tenets overlap, particularly to relate the following ideas: that White Supremacy is purposefully maintained over time and is not happenstance and that the dismantling of White Supremacy is poorly served by incrementalism and similar liberal methods of achieving equality. Incrementalism, as defined by Lindblom, is the method of change by which many small policy changes are enacted over time in order to create a larger broad-based policy change (1980). Incrementalism, as a method, will not be limited to public policy in this analysis but will also encompass the larger implicit and explicit cultural rules that define the field of librarianship.

Source: Leung, Sofia Y., and Jorge R. López-McKnight, eds. Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory. The MIT Press. The MIT Press, 2021. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book-pdf/2252069/book_9780262363204.pdf. 


Oh yes, oh yes, by the way, something completely different about Kelly Jensen.  She has been viciously attacking, of all places, New York Public Library and its president and CEO Tony Marx.

Jensen, Kelly. “What Goes Into Tracking Censorship, With an Update From the New York Public Library Comms Team; Immense Work Goes into Reporting On and Tracking Censorship, So When We’re Asked to Pull That Work, We Take It Seriously.” Book Riot, July 13, 2026. https://bookriot.com/what-goes-into-tracking-censorship/.

One of the things she really hates is that New York Public Library demanded she delete a link to something.

Within hours of last week’s Literary Activism link roundup post going live, a spokesperson from the NYPL’s communications department sent an email (to my personal email–something really unusual) expressing frustration that they were not asked for a comment and with “an urgent” request for a phone call.

....

I extended the offer to share what NYPL may wish to say in response to the carousel link. The spokesperson then responded with requests to take down the link, once again asking me for my phone number. I did not remove the link, though I did again offer to link to any public response they might give.

To be clear, we do not pull or censor our link roundups to allow individuals or entities to respond to information linked in these sources. Responses have been included in succeeding Literary Activism link roundups where appropriate.

To me, this is hysterical.  She's offended NYPL committed "censorship" by demanding she delete her link to something.  

This is yet another of the never-ending line of ALA double standards.  In the first of the many defamation suits ALA had someone file against me, there was a demand made of me.  If I complied with the demand, the lawfare lawsuit would be dropped.

What was the demand ALA wanted for the defamation suit against me to be dropped?  To delete a link!  To delete what I wrote about ALA!  About how ALA was homophobic!  ALA wanted me to delete a document proving ALA was homophobic!  Kelly Jensen wasn't incensed about that but demands NYPL be criticized for doing nearly exactly what ALA did!  To protect homophobia!  By Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.!

So I never deleted it, the case continued on, and I won it both times (since it was refiled after the initial attempt failed).  Now, read about ALA homophobia from the very article ALA sought to get me to censor and I didn't—and Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., only rose to more and more prominence in ALA making all of ALA homophobic (were she in my company, I would have fired her for homophobia):

Kleinman, Dan. “Gay Hate @ Your Library.” SafeLibraries®, July 27, 2014. https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/07/gay-hate-at-your-library.html.

And I'm still being sued in now the fourth and fifth defamation suits promoted by ALA.  Please give $5, it's cheaper than a Starbucks!

Kleinman, Dan. “Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech.” GiveSendGo, February 3, 2026. https://www.givesendgo.com/legalfundforparents.



Quote of the above graphic:

At the center of any investigation into whiteness that uses the methodological tools of “Critical Race Theory is Cheryl I. Harris’s (1995) foundational work on whiteness as property and the “conscious selections regarding the structuring of social relations” (280). Harris’s profound insights into the workings of whiteness compel us to recognize that the construction of racial meaning has historically emerged—and continuously reemerges—as a structural formation co-constitutive with US nation building, the territorial expansion of American empire, and racial capitalist development. The goal of destroying White Supremacy, then, routes us on a path to destroying the property relation itself—that is, destroying the system of ownership and control that reproduces relations of domination. In this vein, Jennifer Brown, Nicholae Cline, and Marisa Méndez-Brady’s chapter, “Leaning on Our Labor: Whiteness and Hierarchies of Power in LIS Work,” asks us to think carefully about the political economy of library services—in particular, how the commodification of information, the bureaucratization of diversity efforts, and inequitable distribution of labor seamlessly function to enact changes that don’t actually change anything at all. This “stubborn resistance,” as they call it, is, indeed, both ordinary and extraordinary, impeding the actual work of dismantling systems of oppression. Such a recognition forces us to consider whether a liberatory LIS is even possible within the very system of racial capitalism.”

Source:
Knowledge Justice
Leung, Sofia Y.; Lopez-McKnight, Jorge R.; Chiu, Anastasia



NOTE ADDED 20 JULY 2026:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Woodstock, IL 60098, USA

Monday, July 6, 2026

In the Matter of Ensuring Children's Safe Use of Screens and E-Rate-Funded Services; FCC WC Docket No. 26-133

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of

Ensuring Children’s Safe Use of Screens and E-Rate-Funded Services

Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries

Establishing the Emergency Connectivity Fund to Close the Homework Gap

Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program


WC Docket No. 26-133

WC Docket No. 13-184

WC Docket No. 21-93

WC Docket No. 21-455


Comments of Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries® brand library educational services


I respectfully submit these comments regarding the Commission’s top-to-bottom review of the E-Rate program. I am Dan Kleinman, owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services, that focuses on library policies, compliance with federal requirements such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), and transparency in the use of public funds. I previously filed detailed comments in WC Docket No. 13-184 (September 16, 2013) documenting concerns about E-Rate program integrity and CIPA compliance; those comments remain available at https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/09/FCC.html.


E-Rate Has Outlived Its Original Purpose


The E-Rate program was established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, at a time when Internet access (often capitalized to reflect its novelty) was expensive, limited, and unavailable to most schools and libraries. The program successfully helped close that gap. Today, however, high-speed broadband is widely available at relatively low cost through competitive private markets, widespread home and mobile adoption, and other public and private initiatives. The dramatic change in circumstances is evident even in language: what was once a specialized "Internet" service is now ordinary "internet" infrastructure; even the capitalization has changed.


In this environment, a dedicated federal subsidy program for basic connectivity in schools and libraries is no longer necessary for most communities. Continuing the program at current levels risks subsidizing services the market now provides efficiently, potentially distorting competition and creating ongoing administrative costs without commensurate public benefit.


Program Integrity, CIPA Compliance, and the Role of the American Library Association


E-Rate funding has long been conditioned on compliance with CIPA, which requires libraries and schools to implement technology protection measures to block obscene material, child p*rnography, and material harmful to minors. Despite these requirements, significant compliance issues have persisted. My 2013 filing documented multiple examples of libraries receiving E-Rate funds while maintaining policies or practices that undermined CIPA protections—such as easily bypassed filters, patron self-unblocking systems, and ALA-influenced guidance that treated filtering as optional or constitutionally suspect. These practices effectively allowed federal funds to flow to institutions that did not fully meet the statutory conditions.


The American Library Association (ALA) has historically provided policy guidance and training to libraries that, in practice, facilitated non-compliance or minimized CIPA’s requirements. With connectivity costs largely covered by E-Rate, libraries have greater flexibility to direct local resources and staff time toward other priorities.


Current Advocacy and Use of Funds


The ALA is currently conducting a coordinated national campaign titled "Save Our E-Rate," that urges libraries, schools, and the public to file comments and contact Congress in support of preserving the program. While advocacy is legitimate, the campaign appears designed to maintain the existing funding stream and even characterizes FCC's current actions as "overreach." Critics reasonably question whether these funds indirectly support the ALA’s broader institutional priorities rather than strictly educational connectivity.


With E-Rate subsidizing infrastructure, libraries have been able to allocate resources to programs and collections that many parents and communities consider inappropriate for children. One prominent example is Drag Queen Story Hour events "sneakily" hosted in public libraries, as American Library Association itself details here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170612040326/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intersections-glbt-book-month-dispatch-small-town-librarian. 


Dr. James Lindsay has analyzed these programs in detail in "Groomer Schools 4: Drag Queen Story Hour," available at https://newdiscourses.com/2022/06/groomer-schools-4-drag-queen-story-hour/, describing them as vehicles for introducing queer theory and gender ideology to young children under the guise of storytelling and inclusion. Many families view such events as ideological rather than educational. As Dr. Lindsay points out, that's the very purpose of such events. He cites to the writings of Lil Miss Hot Mess, "a performer and board member for Drag Queen Story Hour, and the author of the children’s book The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish (Running Press Kids, 2020)."  See "Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood," in the journal Curriculum Inquiry here: https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621. "Through this programme, drag artists have channelled their penchant for playfully '"reading" each other to filth' [footnote omitted] into different forms of literacy, promoting storytelling as integral to queer and trans communities, as well as positioning queer and trans cultural forms as valuable components of early childhood education" "We’re reading books while we read each other’s looks, and we’re leaving a trail of glitter that won’t ever come out of the carpet."


Similarly, initiatives such as "Books Unbanned" (promoted in alignment with ALA principles) provide teens nationwide with digital access to books that local school boards and libraries have removed or restricted—often titles containing explicit s*xual content, profanity, or contested gender and s*xuality themes. While framed as defending intellectual freedom, these programs effectively create a national distribution channel that can bypass local community standards and parental oversight.


Recommendation


The E-Rate program has served its historic purpose. Given the maturity of the broadband market, persistent questions about program integrity and CIPA enforcement, and the diversion of attention and resources toward controversial, non-educational programming, I respectfully urge the Commission to phase out or substantially narrow E-Rate support for libraries. If any funding continues, it should be strictly limited to truly unserved or underserved areas, subject to rigorous independent auditing, verifiable CIPA compliance (with librarian-controlled filtering and transparent enforcement), and clear demonstration that funds support core educational objectives rather than subsidizing ideological or age-inappropriate content.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for the Commission’s attention to these important issues of child protection, fiscal responsibility, and program effectiveness.


Respectfully submitted,


Dan Kleinman

SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

@OccupyLibraries


—
URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/07/in-matter-of-ensuring-childrens-safe.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Location: 45 L St NE, Washington, DC 20554, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)