Showing posts with label AcceptableUsePolicies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AcceptableUsePolicies. Show all posts

Monday, January 5, 2015

I Feel Sorry For These Librarians: Toledo Library Loaded with Crime and Bedbugs

Toledo-Lucas County Public Library—it is loaded to the gills with crime and bedbugs:
I feel sorry for the librarians and library employees.  Read the 2012 (link), 2013 (link), and 2014 (link) incident reports from the above story.  It is absolutely atrocious what librarians have to go through, including, for example, frightening sexual harassment from porn-viewing patrons:
A librarian in September, 2014, reported a regular patron had made comments about her hair and tried to touch her.  The following month, he made more comments to her.  This time it was about being the head of her fan club. 
"He keep yelling 69, 69, 69 at me because his birthday is 1969, but he was referencing the sexual act," the female librarian said in her report.  "After using the computer he wouldn't leave and kept asking for my number and saying he will miss me."
Truly unbelievable.

Of course the American Library Association says librarians are never sexually harassed and likely never will be (link).  Why does library media not report on such things, both the harassment and the cover up?  Why is it only me?  (If you are a librarian or library employee being sexually harassed, please contact me.  I am basically the only person who will help you, and I'll do so confidentially.)

And notice the library lets the vast majority of those sex criminals including masturbators get off, as my criminal law professor joked, with essentially a slap on the wrist.  See the excerpt below, for example.  What's with that?

Notice how the library defends itself.  After about 1,000 crimes per year for years, a reporter asks for public records of the crimes, and immediately the library director responds.  Not before, mind you, only when caught.  The excuse is the library has acceptable use policies in place.  "We have a code of conduct and policies that we follow as best as we can," said the director.

I have been showing year after year that acceptable use policies NEVER stop library crime.  Library filters properly managed do help stop library crime, however, and the Federal Communications Commission says library filters work really well (link).

Naturally, American Library Association leadership says filters do not work by promoting outdated and misleading misinformation from a censorious hack cited in a slick publication (link).  At the same time they claim filters on computers for children are wonderful and your kids are in a "safe library" even if the adult computers allow child porn (link).  They must think people are stupid—the filters work on the childrens' computers really well but they don't work on the adults' computers.

By the way, the US Supreme Court ruled there is no First Amendment right to constitutionally protected material in public libraries where that material comprises Internet porn (link).  And do people really want the "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of speech" to see victims of sex trafficking having the worst day of their lives as they get drugged and raped and videotaped for guys to masturbate like they do in the Toledo library (link)?

Here an excerpt from that excellent story by Ignazio Messina in The Blade (link):
Porn and computers

Policing computer usage in libraries also has become a regular duty for librarians, [head of security for the library system] Mr. Sabo said.
Looking at pornography on a library computer can result in a one-week ban, while engaging in sexual activity could mean a one-year ban.  In March, a man at the downtown library was eligible to be slapped with both violations for masturbating at a computer station.

"A couple of minutes into my observations, I noticed [the man] watching a video of a partially clothed female being raped by a male with a gun," a report said, and the man began masturbating through his pants.  He ultimately apologized, acknowledged he should not have done that in a public place, and left quietly.

When a patron is found viewing pornography, he or she usually leaves the building quietly.

But on June 28, a man viewing pornography at the downtown library refused to leave when confronted by library security.

"When I told him he has to leave he stood up and walked within inches of me, threatening, 'If he ever sees me on the street he will put me down' and that 'He doesn’t care what badge I have or if we call the police.' "  He was eventually escorted out by two security guards.

After a patron is banned, returning to the library can get him or her slapped with a criminal trespassing charge.  The libraries deal with a lot of repeat offenders.
Source:


NOTE ADDED 6 JANUARY 2014:

This post is right on target.  You can tell when a Systems + Instruction Librarian at Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, named Nicholas Schiller (link) takes time out from work to attack me as "evil" for "malicious harassment"!  I simply tweeted this blog post having to do with sexual harassment of librarians to Twitter hashtag #TeamHarpy that is about sexual harassment of librarians (link).  Here is my tweet:


Do you see anything wrong with that?  I don't.  That tweet, however, prompted the following response (to another tweet, shown in context at bottom) from the university librarian and ALA member:


When I responded that I had no idea what he was talking about and asked why he would be so mean (link), he made further attacks on me for "harassing women" (link), then felt compelled to explain to everyone but me that he really wasn't being mean.  Oh no.  He was just doing a public service.  He was just "publicly pointing out bad behavior" to other librarians generally at #libchat and to the upcoming ALA Midwinter meeting at #alamw15:


What was my "bad behavior"?  Pay attention because this goes to the crux about how some librarians will do absolutely anything to help ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" continue to facilitate child pornography, homophobia, and sexual harassment of women in libraries.  My "bad behavior" was tweeting about my being involved in a SLAPP suit (link), exactly as #TeamHarpy was involved in a SLAPP suit, as a direct result of my reporting on someone else reporting on homophobia by representatives of the Orland Park Public Library (link):


And how do we know the #TeamHarpy matter is a SLAPP suit?  Mr. Schiller tells us, "I Am #TeamHarpy; I ally myself with Lisa Rabey and nina de jesus.  Lisa and nina are friends of mine and colleagues who are facing a SLAPP suit to silence their frank and open discussion of another colleague's behavior (link)," hyperlinks omitted.  Similar to TeamHarpy exposing sexual harassment of librarians, I exposed homophobic statements made to protect child pornography facilitation in a library.  For that I was SLAPPed.

So the #FreeSpeech experts who support those who call child pornography "intellectual freedom" (link) say it's "bad behavior," "harassing women," "evil," and "malicious harassment" for me to use a Twitter hashtag.

Who cares about the victims I am trying to help, right?

Some librarians will say and do absolutely anything to perpetuate the facilitation of child pornography in America's libraries and the massive harm caused by so many public libraries being used to consume child pornography and pornography, both against the law in public libraries, both harming sex trafficked victims and the rights and lives stolen away from them (link).

So long as I'm one of the few reporting on these issues, since mainstream library media will not touch it seriously, I'll continue to use "bad behavior" to report on and publicize the matter.

If the "free speech" librarians cannot stand my occasional use of a Twitter hashtag, that's their problem, not mine.  Unbelievable that my using a hashtag is "malicious harassment" but facilitating child porn in public libraries isn't and my saying so must be squelched with broadcast ridicule.  By librarians, of all people.



URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/01/sorry.html

On Twitter: @FCC @IgnazioMessina @OIF @ToledoLibrary @ToledoNews


Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, 325 North Michigan Street, Toledo, OH 43604, USA

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Commonwealth v Crayton: Librarians Report Child Porn and Preserve Computer Evidence for Police

Commonwealth v. Crayton provides a good example of a librarian reporting child pornography to the police and the library providing police with specially preserved electronic evidence of child porn viewing.  I have to say this because the American Library Association [ALA] works hard to convince librarians to ignore child porn and to delete evidence before police can access it, as I noted in my previous post, among others.

So below are relevant parts from the case I would like people to see showing this library and librarians doing the right thing by reporting the crime and preserving evidence, then providing police with that evidence, as opposed to librarians who adhere to ALA diktat.  Admirably, these Massachusetts librarians go so far as to preserve the evidence before it gets automatically deleted each night.  Really outstanding but really against what ALA advises.  These outstanding librarians who help protect their communities will never win ALA awards; such awards go to librarians who help facilitate child porn such as at the Orland Park Public Library in Illinois, as I proved in my previous post.

We are talking about school children seeing child pornography in a public library.

Also, since ALA policy as applied locally is often directly related to the facilitation of child pornography in public libraries, ALA media such as American Libraries magazine rarely discusses such matters or does so superficially.  I doubt it will report on Commonwealth v. Crayton, except to the extent I have made this prediction, so it might want to prove me wrong.

By the way, this case again illustrates that "Acceptable Use Policies" do not work.  ALA says acceptable use policies work and Internet filters do not.  In reality, it is the exact opposite.  The Cambridge Public Library policy is "Using library computers for illegal activity is strictly prohibited and will result in the loss of library privileges and possible criminal prosecution."  Clearly that had no effect.  On the other hand, the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] has just revealed library Internet filters work exceedingly well.  Such filters would have prevented the school children from seeing the child porn ALA facilitates.  I urge Cambridge Public Library to follow FCC advice and consider using Internet filtering software and tossing aside previous misconceptions ALA keeps promoting.

Here is the Commonwealth v. Crayton case, followed by an excerpt describing the factual background I would like people to read as an example of libraries working effectively to record and report child pornography viewing—too bad they did not use Internet filters to prevent such viewing in the first place but it is never too late to update policies:


470 Mass. 228, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 
17 December 2014, 
pp. 230-233, underline emphasis in original, bold emphasis mine, footnotes omitted:


Background.  We summarize the evidence at trial, reserving discussion of the evidence that pertains to the issues on appeal.  On January 21, 2009, between approximately 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., an eighth grade student, M.S., was doing homework at a computer in the basement technology center of the Central Square branch of the Cambridge Public Library. [FN 4]  A man she described as short, white, and bald, with a “little beard” and eyeglasses was sitting at an adjacent computer to the right of her. [FN 5]  She went to the library “[m]ostly every day,” but had never seen the man before.  When she looked at his computer screen, she saw an image of “a girl about ten years old, covering her chest.”  She could not tell whether the girl was wearing any clothes, because she saw only a “top view” and the man was “cover[ing] the computer screen” with the “umbrella-type” cover that was on it. [FN 6]  She “waved” at her friend, R.M., a ninth grade student, who was also in the technology center of the library, and urged him to look at the man's computer. R.M. testified that he “just got a quick glimpse of the computer,” and could only see “a small portion” of the screen, which displayed a young child wearing no clothes.  He saw only the side of the man's face; he described the man as bald with a goatee.  He went to the library every day after school, but had not seen the man before.  During trial, both M.S. and R.M.  identified the defendant as the man that they had seen at the computer on January 21.

M.S. and R.M. walked over to Ricardo Negron, a library employee who was working at the staff desk in the technology center that afternoon, and they told him that a person was looking at children wearing no clothes on the computer. [FN 7]  Before M.S. and R.M. approached him, Negron had observed M.S. at computer no. one and a white male, “perhaps” in his “early thirties,” bald, with eyeglasses, whom he had seen before at the technology center, at computer no. two. [FN 8]  The police later showed Negron an array of photographs, but he was unable to identify anyone from the array. [FN 9] [FN 10]

Library users were required to log on to a computer by entering their library bar code, so when the two teenagers alerted Negron to what they had seen, Negron looked up the log-in information for computer no. two.  While he was doing so, the man using computer no. two logged off and left the room.  The log inquiry revealed that a person using the library card of an eighteen year old male, “perhaps of Asian descent,” had logged on to computer no. two at 3:08 p.m. and logged off at 3:55 p.m. [FN11]  At some time after 3:55 p.m., Negron went upstairs to speak to the library manager, Esme Green.  Green went downstairs to the technology center, looked at two “video clips” saved on computer no. two, saw that they depicted an approximately twelve year old girl, “either naked or almost naked, masturbating,” and telephoned the police.

When Negron went upstairs, another library employee, Ricardo Ricard, went downstairs to staff the technology center.  Having learned of the allegation, Ricard logged on to computer no. two, saw a folder on the computer with the label “W,” and looked at a video file inside the folder, which showed a nude female child.  Because he was concerned that the library computers deleted all files when they were shut down for the night, Ricard transferred the folder containing the file to a universal serial bus (USB) drive, which he later gave to Green.  He then disabled the computer's “reboot” software so that the computer would retain the files that were then on it.

Ricard had not seen the man who used computer no. two on January 21, but he was aware of the man's physical description.  On January 22, when he saw a man who matched that description in the library lobby, he told Green of the man's presence, and Green notified the police.

Detectives Brian O'Connor and Pam Clair of the Cambridge police department arrived at the library and saw the defendant at a computer with another individual.  The detectives observed the defendant for approximately twenty to thirty minutes at a computer that displayed a “MySpace” profile page, “looking at MySpace.”  As the defendant was leaving the library, Detective O'Connor asked to speak with him, and the defendant agreed.  The defendant admitted that he had been in the library's computer room the previous day.  He said he had used one of the computers for five minutes and then switched to another computer, which he identified as computer no. two, to check his electronic mail (e-mail).  The defendant said that his e-mail address was cblizzard@yahoo.com.  He also said that he did not have his own MySpace profile, but used his friend's profile.

After this conversation, Detective O'Connor obtained the USB drive that Ricard had given to Green, seized computer no. two, and copied the folder labeled “W” onto a compact disc.  After obtaining a search warrant, Detective O'Connor conducted a forensic search of the hard drive of computer no. two.  That search revealed twenty-seven “cookies,” which O'Connor described as “text file[s]” that store information on an Internet browser regarding a Web site that a particular user has visited on the Internet. [FN 12]  The first of these cookies, entitled “magic-Lolita(1).txt,” was created at 3:14 p.m. on January 21; the last, entitled “www.innocentgirls(1).txt,” was created at 3:48 p.m. that day.  Detective O'Connor also uncovered “Yahoo searches” on computer no. two that had been conducted between 3:14 and 3:25 p.m. on January 21 using such search terms as “One hundred percent Lolita” and “Top Lolita.”  Detective O'Connor also located temporary Internet files on the computer's hard drive in which images were automatically downloaded by the Internet browser from a Web site that the user visited.  In those temporary files, he found approximately 210 photographs where children were engaged in sexual acts, of which seven were printed out and admitted as exhibits at trial.  These seven images were created on the computer between 3:27 and 3:50 p.m. on January 21.  The detective also located six video files on the hard drive of the computer, of which two video files were located in a temporary Internet file folder and four video files were located in a folder entitled “W.”  The four video files in the “W” folder, which were played for the jury, were created on the computer between 3:43 and 3:54 p.m. that day. Detective O'Connor also located a MySpace page in the temporary Internet files reflecting a log-in date and time of January 21 at 3:13 p.m.  The MySpace page identifies the user as “Walter”; the e-mail address associated with the MySpace page was C-Blizzard69@MySpace.com.


NOTE ADDED 23 MAY 2016:

Updated the judicial opinion link to an archived version.


URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/12/commonwealth-v-crayton.html

On Twitter: @ALAlibrary @AmLibraries @CambridgePL @CambridgePolice @OIF

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Cambridge Public library, Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work to Stop Library Crime

Acceptable use policies do not work to stop library crime.  Here's another example, this time at Westmont Public Library, Westmont, IL:


Here's that library's "Public Use of the Internet Policy" that precludes pornography, emphasis added:
  • "The Westmont Public Library requires that library patrons using the library computers, wireless networks and/or Internet do so within the guidelines of acceptable use.  The following activities are unacceptable: ... 
Viewing pornography, which is considered by most to be inappropriate for a public setting where minors may be present."

Here's the reality of the total failure of that policy, from the story linked above:
A Westmont man was charged with obscenity and disorderly conduct after he viewed online pornography in the youth services area of his local library, authorities said Thursday. 
Steven Beckow, 42, is accused of browsing the websites on Sept. 4 and 8 while using public computers in plain view at the Westmont Public Library, 428 N. Cass Ave. 
Police Sgt. Steve Thompson said the library terminated Beckow's Internet privileges after the first incident.  Four days later, he said, Beckow returned and was again seen viewing pornography online.
So not only did he blow right past that "acceptable use" policy and lose his "Internet privileges," but he returned within days, automagically regained his "Internet privileges" that were supposedly taken away, then viewed pornography again even though that violated the required "acceptable use" policy.

Can you see how the public is being completely misled by worthless "acceptable use" policies and claims of removing "Internet privileges"?  Internet filters actually work well, but libraries are guided by the American Library Association to instead use worthless "acceptable use" policies: "The position of the ALA ... calls for free and unfettered access to the Internet for any library user, regardless of age."  Is that the position of your community?  Do you want a magnet library for sex crimes?

So while "acceptable use policies" are complete and total failures in stopping criminal activity in public libraries, they are entirely effective in blame/liability shifting and fooling local communities into thinking libraries are responsive to communities instead of to the American Library Association.  Acceptable use policies do not work to stop library crime.

Here is more from me on this topic: Acceptable Use Policies.


URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/11/aup.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @OIF @WestmontLibrary

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Westmont Public Library, 428 North Cass Avenue, Westmont, IL 60559, USA

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Magnet Libraries

Criminals know to seek out and use public libraries having weak or nonexistent library porn filters.  Below is an example.  And the evidence comes right from the mouth of the criminal.  So if your library allows porn despite policy and the law, your library is a magnet for criminals.

Notice the library's Internet use policy states it provides Internet filters, blocks porn in accordance with law, and adheres to the Children's Internet Protection Act, but it is completely useless, as all "acceptable use policies" are.  It is apparently just for show because it looks really good but it obviously does not work.  The Maricopa County Superior Court judge and relevant legal counsel ought to consider if the library is itself partly responsible for providing an attractive nuisance:
  • "Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources," by Scottsdale Public Library, Scottsdale, AZ (hyperlinks in original):
    4.  The Library provides filtered access to the Internet in order to adhere to the requirements set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS 13-3501 “Obscenity, Definitions”, 13-3506.01 “Furnishing Harmful Items to Minors, Internet Activity”, 13-3507 “Public Display of Explicit Sexual Material”) and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Because filtering software is inherently imperfect, we cannot guarantee that all Internet content will be appropriately filtered at all times.

    5.  Adult customers may request unfiltered Internet access at any time without having to provide an explanation to library staff. Disabling of the Internet filter by Library staff in no way exempts the customer from ARS 13-3507 “Public Display of Explicit Sexual Material.”
Ever heard of magnet schools?  Well Scottsdale Public Library is a magnet library.  Does your community have a magnet library like this one?



SCOTTSDALE, AZ (CBS5) -

A man awaiting trial on child sex crimes was arrested at his Gilbert home Tuesday on allegations of downloading hundreds of images of child porn at a Scottsdale library, police said.

Murat Alev, 60, was wearing a court-ordered ankle monitoring device that enabled Maricopa County adult probation officers to track him down at Mustang Library at 10101 N. 90th St.

Alev was a school bus driver for the Gilbert school system at the time of his arrest, according to a probable cause statement.

Alev handed over a thumb drive that he admitted contained hundreds of images he downloaded of young naked girls while on the library computer, a court document stated.

Court paperwork stated Alev had been at the library for six hours.

Alev told a Scottsdale police detective that he was at Mustang Library because its computers "don't filter as well as other libraries," according to the probable cause statement.

The man is currently on felony release pretrial services for furnishing obscene materials to minors. As part of his release conditions, he is not allowed to access computers or the internet.

Scottsdale police detectives arrested Alev after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge granted a warrant.

Authorities said examining the thumb drive and said future charges are possible.

Copyright 2014 CBS 5 (KPHO Broadcasting Corporation). All rights reserved.


On Twitter:  @CBS5AZ @CourtPIO @ScottsdaleAZGov @ScottsdalePD @ScottsdaleReads 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Mustang Library, 10101 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85258, USA

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Smug Gering Public Library Director Diane Downer Touts ALA Porn Policy

Gering Public Library
The Gering Public Library, Gering, NE, allows porn viewing, expressly basing its decision to do so, despite children viewing porn, on guidance from the American Library Association [ALA].  So effective is the library's propaganda that the town mayor says, "there are Supreme Court rulings that said you cannot prevent someone from having access to those types of materials," the 100% exact opposite of the law as expressed in United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  In reality, it is perfectly legal to block porn and also to refuse to unblock porn even if requested.  Watch:


I have written so much on how the ALA misleads libraries that then lie to communities to mislead them to allow the libraries to act outside the law, and how local officials are totally bamboozled and expose their communities to significant liability.  ALA was recently listed, for example, as one of the nation's leading porn facilitators.  So I won't repeat all the details now.  I am just noting that this story from Gering, NE, really provides a perfect little example of what I have been reporting is happening, complete with a smug smile from library director Diane Downer when she cites the ALA porn policy:

Smug Library Director Diane Downer Touting ALA Porn Policy

  • Parent Michael Onstott, contact me for how I can help.  
  • Mayor Edwin Mayo, contact me for reliable sources showing that you have been misled and your town is exposed to significant liability.  
  • Library Director Diane Downer, contact me if you have an open mind.  
  • Reporter Kenna Nash, contact me for what may be even a bigger story than just this one library porn incident.
For educational purposes in line with Section 107 of the US Copyright Act, here is the unedited text of the article:

by Kenna Nash
KOTA Territory News ABC
8 June 2013

A panhandle father is fuming after his son catches a glimpse of a man watching pornography at the Gering Public Library.

"They were on the computers, checking out books, doing whatever, and my wife had noticed and my son had also noticed, that another person in the library was using one of the computers to view pornography," says concerned parent Michael Onstott.

Onstott's wife approached library staff about what she and her son had witnessed but was told the man wasn't breaking library policy.

"She was basically dismissed, saying there's nothing that they can do about it," says Onstott.  "He wasn't doing anything illegal and that it's within their current policies not to do anything."

Library Director Diane Downer says the Gering Public Library's policy follows the American Library Association's guidelines.

"It doesn't specifically say 'no pornography'," says Downer.  "Obscene? Yes, but what's obscene to someone is not always obscene to someone else."

Mr. Onstott wrote a letter of concern to city council after learning about the library's policy.

Mayor Edwin Mayo says he's sympathetic to the issue but says his hands are tied.

"On the adult side, the adult used computers, they can not have those filters on," says Mayo.  "They are Supreme Court rulings that say you can not prevent someone from having access to these types of materials."

Onstott says he will do whatever it takes to get this policy changed.

"If I have to go to the state to get a law changed, I plan on riding this to the end,"
 says Onstott.  "I'm in it to win it. And I think everyone that has any values for their kids, their grand kids, nieces, nephews... they're going to understand. This has to be changed."

Mayor Mayo says this is a tough situation because if you block all access to all materials that people deem inappropriate, then they get complaints on the other side of it too.


NOTE ADDED 14 JUNE 2013:

More stories on this issue, likely because everyone knows the library director is wrong:


NOTE ADDED 15 JUNE 2103:

Here is one local media source ignoring the facts and the law to side with the porn facilitators, exemplifying the work Michael Onstott has cut out for him in deprogramming the ACLU/ALA propaganda:




Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Gering, NE, USA

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Banned From All Libraries on Earth for Masturbating in Racine Public Library That Allows Unfiltered Internet Access; Law School Exam Question on First Amendment and Criminal Law in Public Libraries

A man has been banned from "all the libraries on the face of the Earth" for public library masturbation:
Pretend this is a constitutional/criminal law school exam (perfect for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Library & Information Studies).  When answering law school exams, one uses IRAC, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.  In this exam question, I'll raise some issues and some rules I think are present.  Can anyone find others?  The media did not state whether the masturbator viewed online porn in the library, but, for this hypothetical law exam question, let's assume he did as that is the consistent precursor to public library masturbation, something so common reporter Carl Monday filmed a man masturbating in a public library, right next to the children's room.  You have four hours to answer and may refer to the linked reliable sources of information, or others, as long as you provide URLs for me to check.


SafeLibraries School of Law
Constitutional/Criminal Law Final Exam



FACTS:

The Racine Public Library, Racine, WI, allows unfiltered Internet access under its "Internet Access Acceptable Use Policy," and its "Rules and Regulations Governing Use of the Internet Workstations" say, "Users should not send, receive, or display text or graphics which may be reasonably construed as obscene by community standards."  The acceptable use policy clarifies that when it comes to obscenity, "That determination is made through legislation and interpreted by the courts."  The Racine Public Library Board of Trustees has created a legal disclaimer stating, "Neither the Racine Public Library nor the City of Racine, its officers, directors, or employees shall be liable for any damages (direct or consequential), including lost profits, for any information obtained or provided on the Internet."

A man views pornography on the unfiltered Internet computers provided by the public library in full view of all employees and patrons, including children, then he openly masturbates.  He is arrested and removed. 

The library has seen persistent problems.  Consider this from 24 September 2005 Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI): "Father Wants to Make Sure Porn Can't Be Seen at Library; Panel Creating Proposal on Teens' Computer Use":
The Racine Public Library is hosting a public forum to discuss its Internet Acceptable Use Policy, a discussion that comes on the heels of a citizen's complaint about teens using public computers to access adult Web sites.  ....  Java Orr of Racine became concerned when he was at the library several months ago with his 6-year-old daughter and he saw a male teenager downloading and viewing pornographic material on a computer in the adult services area.  Orr said when he brought his complaint to library officials, he was told nothing could be done to prevent the youth from viewing the material.  Orr took his fight to keep children from viewing pornographic material at the Racine Public Library to the public.  He spent hours in front of the library petitioning residents to sign his Child Friendly Library Act, which he intends to get the Legislature to pass a bill on.  So far he has more than 500 signatures on the petitions.  His goal is 1,000.  "The bill would prevent children, including young adults, from gaining access to obscene or pornographic material," Orr said.  ....  "I'm hoping to hear what the public wants," [Racine Public Library Director Jessica] MacPhail said.
Or this in the same media source dated 30 July 2005 and entitled, "Porn Access at Public Library Criticized; Dad Wants Material Kept from Youths":
After observing what he calls pornographic material being downloaded and viewed by a teenager at a public library, a Racine man is now on a mission to change the law.  Java Orr said in an interview last week that while visiting the Racine Public Library three weeks ago with his 6-year-old daughter, he observed a male teenager downloading and viewing pornographic material on a computer in the adult services area.  Orr said that when he brought his complaint to library officials, they said nothing could be done to prevent the youth from viewing the material.  "It's insane that kids can actually see and read about this kind of sexual material at a public library," Orr said.  "Furthermore, that my child or any other child can easily walk by and witness it."  Orr is taking his fight to keep children from viewing pornographic material at the Racine Public library to the public.  In the past week, Orr has spent hours in front of the library petitioning residents to sign his Child Friendly Library Act, which he hopes will get attention from the Legislature.  He has gathered more than 500 signatures and has set a goal of 1,000.  "The bill would prevent children, including young adults, from gaining access to obscene or pornographic material" at a public library, Orr said.  ....  [Racine Public Library Director Jessica] MacPhail said a separate youth services area in the library provides five computers equipped with filters to weed out such material.  She said that area is used primarily for children through eighth grade.  ....  MacPhail said the Racine Public Library does post its Internet access policies for the public.  The policies state ... it is unacceptable to use the library's Internet equipment to send, receive or display text or graphics that may reasonably be construed as obscene by community standards.


LAW:

Federal:  Internet filters are legal in public libraries since US v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  Legal porn may be legally removed from public libraries as there is no First Amendment right to view porn in public libraries.

State:  See Wisconsin Library Law, Chapter 43.  Wisconsin criminal code includes "948.10 Exposing genitals or pubic area" and "948.11 Exposing a child to harmful material or harmful descriptions or narrations," including "(4) Libraries and educational institutions."  Consider if other Wisconsin Criminal Code provisions apply.  Also consider cases such as Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library and other library hostile environment or sexual harassment lawsuits.  Locally, consider Jackson v. County of Racine.

Local:  Consider also Racine Municipal Code, including "Sec. 66-1001. - Public nuisance prohibited."  And might there be any ordinances regarding officials failing to act in the public trust?  Any legal instrument on the statutory creation of the Wisconsin public library and whether pornography is allowable as "free access to information and diversity of ideas"?  Consider searching Google for "annoyed librarian porn ala."


QUESTIONS:

Is there a crime or other legally actionable activity or lack thereof?  What?  Who is liable?  For what?  Have the patrons been harmed?  Children?  Library employees?  What about the perpetrator?  Was there an attractive nuisance?  Might the crime not have happened in the first place had effective filters been in place?

And the code that created the library.  Did it allow for pornography?  Has the library acted outside the law by acting as an open public forum and allowing porn instead of as a quasi public forum and filtering out porn per US v. ALA? 

What are the duties of the municipality when a library acts outside the law, and what are the liabilities for failure to require a library to act within the law?  Is the municipality liable for anything?  What?  Does the library's legal disclaimer protect the municipality? 

What effect might there be as a result of the knowledge of persistent problems in the library occurring as a result of pornography?

If libraries and educational institutions are exempted from liability for "carry[ing] out the essential purpose of making available to all citizens a current, balanced collection of books, reference materials, periodicals, sound recordings and audiovisual materials that reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society," does that protection extend to pornography displayed publicly as a result of the lack of Internet filters?  Does pornography "reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society" to the extent that it should be allowed in libraries even when the US Supreme Court said it may be legally blocked from libraries?

Library policy states, "Websites may be brought to the Library's attention; however, staff will not review sites if viewing the content would violate the City's Anti-Harassment Policy." What might that mean?  What relevance might that have?  And the library's "Acceptable Use Policy", what effect has that had in fact and might it have in law? 

If the library policy is to exclude obscene material, but also to claim the decisions as to what is obscene "is made through legislation and interpreted by the courts," what effect might that have in fact and on any legal proceedings?  Has the library covered itself from liability?  With millions of pornographic web sites and the library's requirement that only a court can determine what is obscene, has the library set up an impossibility that effectively nullifies its claim to preclude obscenity by policy?  If the library, in setting up such an impossibility, is following the requirements of an out of state organization, has it effectively ceded control of the central policy of the library to that outside organization?  When answering, consider the American Library Association's guidance to public libraries entitled, "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy":
Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually "harmful to minors." The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides.  Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.  Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or "harmful to minors."

Lastly, what might be the implications and effect of the library's legal disclaimer?


ANSWER:

[Insert answer here or in comments below.  You have four hours.]



Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Racine Public Library, 75 7th Street, Racine, WI 53403, USA

Sunday, March 10, 2013

School Library Child Porn Arrest Story by Associated Press Features Police Expert Dr. Frank Kardasz, Thanks to SafeLibraries

The American Library Association [ALA] is tracking a story regarding an arrest in a collegiate library (Metropolitan Community College, Kansas City, MO).  Here are a couple of links to the stories:


In the stories one police source figures prominently:

Frank Kardasz, retired commander of the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, said his task force worked dozens of cases involving people viewing or trafficking child pornography while using public and college library computers. 
The problem is tough to police because of the imperfect nature of Internet filtering devices and pushback from free-speech advocates who believe adults should have the right to view adult pornography in libraries, he said, adding that any place offering wireless Internet connections "is an opportunity for child pornography offenders to traffic contraband images." 
"My experience is that some, not all, libraries underreport the offenses because they do not wish to bring attention nor police involvement to their facility," said Kardasz, founder and director of the Phoenix-based Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign. "Also, because many offenders are nefarious enough to avoid apprehension, there are probably more offenses occurring than we are aware of."

That Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign is an open Facebook group having 360 members of which I am one of the earliest members.  And I have written about Dr. Frank Kardasz previously:


I am so happy the police caught up with and stopped the criminal.  And I am also happy to expose yet again that acceptable use policies are failures, as this case evidences, and that libraries hold them up like they are so precious—here it's the school's first defense:
Kathy Walter-Mack, chief of staff for MCC Chancellor Mark James, declined to discuss Lawrence's case because he is a student at the college and is the focus of an ongoing investigation.  She said the college's policies prohibit the unlawful use of its computer networks.

That said, it should be known that the Associated Press author contacted Dr. Frank Kardasz as a direct result of his having learned of the good doctor right here on the SafeLibraries blog.  I love linking numerous reliable sources in my posts, and when main stream media is using them to find experts, I know I am being successful in exposing the harmful activities of the ALA.  So thanks, ALA, for tracking the story to which I directly contributed.  As a direct result of my work, you are learning:

But the First Amendment, Kardasz said, was crafted long before the invention of computers. 
"While I support free speech, I cannot imagine that the framers of the Constitution foresaw pornography in the library as acceptable when children are also present," he said.

And indeed, the US Supreme Court said, directly to ALA/ACLU, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  Are there, as Dr. Kardasz put it, "free-speech advocates who believe adults should have the right to view adult pornography in libraries"?  Yes, but they do not have that right.  If your library is saying they do, here's a road map for removing porn from libraries.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Location: Metropolitan Community College, 3200 Broadway, Kansas City, MO 64119, USA

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Library WiFi Ended by P-rn Fine in West Bend Community Memorial Library; Acceptable Use Policies are Absolute Failures


Boots & Sabers exposes
p-rn/fines shut down
WiFi at WBCML.
A library has shut its WiFi service as a result of downloaded p-rn and copyrighted material and the federal fine that resulted.  Remarkably, this is the West Bend Community Memorial Library, West Bend, WI, [WBCML] that vigorously defended p-rnography in the past and opposed using Internet filtering, choosing instead to follow the guidance of the American Library Association [ALA].

This is the very ALA that effectively controls a third of American libraries, according to the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act.  This is the same ALA that made personal appearances in West Bend to sway the public.  This is the same ALA that made factually false statements to emotionally shape people into refusing to use legal means to protect community members.  The University of Wisconsin-Madison joined in that propaganda effort.  This is the same ALA that attacked everyone who sought to apply legal means to control p-rn in the WBCML or who sought to assist them, like myself.  This is the same ALA that quietly, without public statement, granted $1,000.00 to one community member to sway the events that occurred in that community; that's called astroturfing.

At least one community member recognized the problem and stood up to try to do something about it.  As a result of her work the local government refused to reappoint a number of library trustees.  The board president herself was removed as well.

That said, the ALA propaganda was effective on the library board as constituted at the time, so the community remained exposed to harm it would have been legal to control.  And here we are today, with p-rnography flowing over the library's WiFi system so much that the federal government fined the library:

Remarkable, especially given this WBCML library's history of defending its anything-goes policy:

Due to illegal downloads and fines,
the West Bend Library is eliminating wireless access
to all laptops and mobile devices.
When a practical solution can be implemented
we will resume wireless service.
Our other 13 internet stations are still available for use with your library card [sic]

Source:  "No Wireless," by Unnamed, West Bend Community Memorial Library, 28 August 2012.

Will the community finally jettison the harm done by the ALA?  Maybe the WiFi fine will provide some motivation.  I call upon the library to publicize the letter advising the WBCML of the federal fine.


"Acceptable Use" Policies are Absolute Failures

By the way, this matter illustrates once again the absolute failure of library "acceptable use" policies.  WBCML had a "Wireless Internet Access" policy: "Users are expected to comply with the Library Acceptable Internet Use Policy."  Did that work?  No, and that's why the library got fined.  You see, the ALA advises libraries to use acceptable use policies and not Internet filters.  Given the ALA's heavy involvement in this community and quiet grants, perhaps the ALA should pay the fine.

"The Library is not responsible for the content of websites or email accessed through the Library network."  Given the federal fines, that statement is patently false.  As are many of the library's other policy statements.

If your library is relying on policies instead of filters to control illegal activity, your community may be next up for a federal fine.  You don't have to sit back and let that happen.  Contact me or Safe Schools, Safe Libraries Project if you would like assistance in restoring local control to your public library.


NOTE ADDED 30 AUGUST 2012:

Two additions of note.  First, a comment on the Boots & Sabers blog from one of the library's trustees in response to the blog and quoting another comment.  Second, an email to a radio personality from the person who raised the alarm many years ago.

Comment by WBCML Board of Trustee Member Matt Stevens:

According to the Daily News, it is a p-rno production company claiming $200 x 2 for because someone downloaded two copyrighted p-rnos.  Also claiming there could be more to pay for legal expenses, etc.  I hope the library ignores this - I suspect the p-rno company is used to getting their payments because the downloader doesn’t want anyone to know it.  Kind of like a form of legal blackmail.  Anyway, the library should just blow it off & see what happens.
We are paying the fine per recommendation of the city attorney.  My understanding is that charter verified the download took place.  The addition of the webfilter is two-fold.  Stop most users from doing anything illegal, and give us logging capabilities so we can verify something took place should this come up again (and depending on the filter, possibly give us the ability to identify the offender).
Article also notes that Library Board member Matt Stevens will donate his services to help set up the web device that will reduce the chances of this happening, so that this outage of access will not be unnecessarily longer than it needs to be.  A big shout-out for that!
Thank you.  The library is important to me, which is why I'm on the board in the first place.  I think the library could find volunteers for other various needs as I know there are many who care about the library too.

In addition, we also were able to almost 0 balance our budget last night thanks to the fantastic work of Sue and her staff.  They worked hard, came up with ideas, and we approved a plan that will balance the FY2013 budget save maybe a few thousand dollars, which will come out of the reserve fund.  That's far better than the $60,000+ deficit we started with.  I'm guessing another article in the daily news this week will cover the details, but we were able to make the adjustments without cutting services or eliminating any positions.  We did increase the late fees slightly, the copy fees slightly, etc as well, but the fees are all still very low and in-line with other libraries in the area.

Posted by Matt Stevens on August 30, 2012 at 0821 hrs


Comment by Ginny Maziarka of West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries:

They're at it again.  The West Bend Library has been busted for illegal p-rn downloads on their WiFi.

This is exactly what West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries predicted, and fought against.  Why did we lose?  Because bully outsiders, people who don't live in our community and by our community standards, came to West Bend and shouted down the local parents and taxpayers to get their way.  People like the wealthy, uber-liberal American Library Association, Wisconsin Library Association, Office of Informational Freedom and, of course, the biggest crybaby bully of them all, the ACLU.

Now we have perverts using our taxpayer-funded WiFi to download p-rn in West Bend.  Nice.  Guess what?  They're looking at it on the hardwired taxpayer-funded computers, too.  How do we know?  Because we filed an ORR three years ago and have copies of police reports and complaints.  No surprise here, though.  This is the now the standard, the norm, instead of a rare occurrence.  These stories are in the paper all the time across the nation because goons like the ACLU and the ALA insist that folks like us shouldn't get to say what we will and will not pay for, and put up with, in our local communities in the glorified name of censorship.

Three years ago the citizens of West Bend said NO.

We asked for filters on the computers in our library - the library board said "no."

We asked for gay kiddie p-rn to be removed from the young adult section of the library - the library board said "no."  To this day we still have the same young adult librarian, Kristin Pekoll, pushing the same garbage onto our shelves.

I've included an article (with the link) below for you that was written by Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries, a national organization that exposes the American Library Association for what it is - a p-rn-pushing, liberal,  immoral, George Soros buddy of an institution that intimidates and censors small-town folks.

The West Bend Library now has a new board headed by Chris Jenkins, a supposed conservative in the area.  Wonder if he'll take the initiative to push the board towards investigating what goes on at the hard-wired computers?  Wonder if he'll take another look at the crap that's being shoved down our kids' throats in the Young Adult section.  Better yet, wonder if he'll size up Kristin Pekoll and take note that she wants nothing more than to indoctrinate our kids with gay p-rn through the back door of our (cough, cough) "family-friendly" library.  I wonder....

West Bend is better than this, and it is a sad reflection on the morals and values of the folks who live here.  But don't let it be said that we didn't try.  We did.  But they came, they bullied, and they won.

Ginny Maziarka
West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries

LINK TO SAFELIBRARIES ARTICLE:  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/08/LibraryWifiEnded.html

Article in entirety below:
....



NOTE ADDED 31 AUGUST 2012:

In a big win for the community and a restoration of local control after the ALA debacle three years ago, the library will now install web filters:
The filter is to stop "illegal" downloads.  I see no mention of legally stopping legal p-rn.  Could this be a problem waiting to happen, or will the library legally block legal p-rn as well?  For those who did not know, the following may be useful:


NOTE ADDED 29 MARCH 2023:

Text updated to add a hyphen into the p word to bypass the censors.
Posted by at 21 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: West Bend, WI, USA

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Guidance for Plaistow Public Library Director, Trustees, Patrons, and Local Government on the Legality of Filtering Porn Out of Libraries


Dear Plaistow Public Library Director,

I have just read an article about a library porn incident in your Plaistow Public Library, Plaistow, NH:

It says a Board of Trustees meeting will occur Monday night to discuss the incident.  This email is intended to provide you, the Board, the patrons, and the Plaistow government, with information some may find enlightening.  I will publish this for others to see as well.  My knowledge of the specific facts pertaining to the immediate incident draw mainly from the Union Leader article, so I'll quote from that, then comment.

"Workers at the Plaistow Public Library got a surprise last week when a printer began spitting out pages of pornography."  Please note that librarians and library employees may consider this to be sexual harassment and may file EEOC complaints or civil suits:

"Police were notified of the incident, but Deputy Police Chief Kathleen Jones said no crime was committed because the images involved adult pornography, which isn't illegal."  Yes, that is true, but that does not mean a public library has to allow such activity even if legal.   More on that soon.

"Librarians say they’re not in the business of monitoring what people do on library computers, and most don’t have filters to censor Web sites."  Yes, librarians need not necessarily monitor what people do.  "Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid."  Rather, there are perfectly legal and effective means to block certain material from library computers, as the quote intimates, and it not "censorship."

When the media write about "filters to censor Web sites," they have stopped reporting on facts and entered the world of opinion.  In other words, the story provides a spin that has more to do with the viewpoint of the writer than the law and the reality of the situation.  In reality, with properly configured Internet filters, no "censorship" occurs.  Besides, even if a web site is inappropriately blocked, the law (discussed below) specifies a patron can simply ask for the site to be unblocked.  By the way, besides the text, the title of the Union Leader article presents an inaccurate picture.  An accurate and more interesting title would have been, "Porn in Library Startles Librarians."

Further, a site blocked here or there does not compare with the sites the library itself blocks and no one even notices.  There is something called the "Deep Web."  It consists of seven eighths of the entire Internet.  Google does not reach into the Deep Web.  However, there are specialized means of reaching into the Deep Web.  Libraries often make absolutely no effort to employ those specialized means.  So libraries themselves may be blocking eight times as much information as could ever be blocked by filters.  I am not impressed that a filter blocks one or two sites while libraries block millions by not helping patrons navigate the Deep Web.  Besides, a patron can ask for an unblock anyway.

"Like most libraries, the Plaistow library has a policy spelling out the rules for Internet use."  Be honest.  No perpetrator ever follows those policies/rules.  I know of case after case of "surprised" library directors who proclaim the "acceptable use policy" should have stopped the inappropriate activity.  Examples:

Internet filters work to filter out inappropriate material—acceptable use policies do not.  Such policies are effective, however, in making people feel good that something is being done.  (The same goes for "privacy screens.")  I think having an effective means to manage a public library is better than having policies that make it appear an effective means is in place.  Indeed, many libraries claim they do not use filters because they do not want parents to be lulled into a sense of security—exactly what they are doing themselves with acceptable use policies.  It is a double standard.  As long as the Plaistow Public Library continues to place its trust in a piece of paper, incidents like the one that occurred will continue to occur, and eventually some child, patron, or library worker will be seriously harmed.  If your town is worried about liability, think about the consequences if something like that should happen, especially now with the library and town government being put on notice of the uselessness of paper policies and the double standard used to defend them.

"The policy states that use of library computers to access obscene material, child pornography or material that is harmful to minors is prohibited."  Obviously the policy had no effect on the guy printing out the obscene material.  Obviously the paper policy is useless.

"'We felt that by printing and then leaving them in the library without picking them up, it was almost a challenge for the staff.  Someone had to take those copies out of the printer.  We were definitely surprised at how many pages were printed,' she said."  "Almost"?  Continue to downplay such incidents and eventually legal action may be taken, as illustrated above.

And they guy didn't pay for those copies.  Isn't that theft?  After all, libraries will send the police after five year olds for overdue books:

"Gavrish said she’s been director for about a year and in that time has had to speak to only a few people who were accessing what were believed to be inappropriate sites."  So that establishes that there are numerous incidents.  At this point it should be obvious that the "acceptable use policy" is not only a failure, but is already known by the library to be a failure.  So to the extent the library continues to promote its policy as effective, it is knowingly misleading the public, and possibly intentionally.

"In most libraries I've been in the feeling is it's a public library and we're not here to monitor what people do.  We're here to provide access to free information.  We just don't feel it's up to us to decide what people can look at."  Since when is pornography considered "information"?  Since when did libraries adopt an "anything goes" policy despite community standards? "We just don't feel it's up to us to decide what people can look at."  That's nice you feel that way, but you are in a position of public trust.  You need to act in light of that public trust, else you are violating that public trust.  You may most certainly and legally block pornography from public libraries, you simply refuse to do so.

Dean Marney
You see, public libraries are not open public fora where anything goes.  They are "quasi" public fora where, among other things, pornography may be legally blocked using Internet filters.  It has been nine years since this was decided by the US Supreme Court in US v. American Library Association (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html).  Nine years.  No library director can possibly be unaware of this.  It makes me think your actions as library director to mislead the public are not only knowing, but also intentional.  To be clear, US v. ALA said, "[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."

Even major media is catching on to the misinformation and calling for the placement of filters in public libraries:

Here is library director Dean Marney, for example, who speaks out about the "dogma" the American Library Association [ALA] and its acolytes use to mislead people, so library directors are definitely aware of US v. ALA:

Your own patrons are finding out about this now too, thanks to me:


"While no crime was committed, Plaistow police said they would still like to know who printed the images so they can run the name through the sex offender registry because some offenders aren’t allowed to be viewing pornography."  Valid point (except perhaps for theft of services for the unpaid copies).  However, many libraries intentionally destroy such information or fail to collect it in the first place, or make its retrieval difficult, having been guided to do so by the ALA:

"The New Hampshire State Library also has an Internet acceptable use policy that says it doesn't censor legal activities."  Again, such policies do not work.  Again, it is not censorship to comply with US v. ALA and filter out pornography from public libraries.  The NHSL saying it is only goes to show New Hampshire has a bigger problem than just Plaistow.

"It also has an Internet disclaimer stating: 'The State Library has no control over the materials found on the Internet.  The library cannot censor your access to material nor protect you from information you find offensive, controversial or inappropriate.'"  That is true but misleading.  Of course the State Library has no control over the materials found on the Internet, but it leaves out that Internet filters can filter out inappropriate material legally and effectively.  Of course the State Library may not censor access to material, but it is not "censorship" to block pornography from public libraries.  When it says, "information you find offensive, controversial or inappropriate," it is really saying the material is none of those, rather, "you" are the problem.  It is a confrontational tone that does not belong in a State Library policy, especially in light of the other misleading statements.  I am CC'ing State Librarian Michael York on this so he can correct this situation, though I doubt he will.  And I'll use Governor John Lynch's online form to send him this message as well.

I hope these comments of mine and the associated references help you and others be aware of the basis for legally filtering out pornography from your public library.  I hope you and others become aware that acceptable use policies are not effective.

If there's one big take away from what I have written, it is to read US v. ALA all the way through.  Only then can people make an informed decision, instead of one to which they have been led.  The case decides filters are constitutional first, then it applies that decision to libraries accepting certain federal funding.  So even if the library does not accept that funding, the case remains applicable, as if that is not obvious.

Anyone wishing further information, feel free to contact me.

Please distribute this message to all members of the Board of Trustees in sufficient time so it can be read and considered before Monday night's meeting.

The town government should also have a copy as well so it can consider if the library's current policies are exposing the town to potential liability.  The following may be relevant:

Thank you very much.

-Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries


NOTE ADDED 12 JANUARY 2012:

The library/media snow job continues unabated:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Plaistow, NH, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)