Showing posts with label AlaAdmitsFiltersWork. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AlaAdmitsFiltersWork. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Librarian of Congress Nominee Carla Hayden Misleads Congress But Speaks Truth About Filtering

Librarian of Congress nominee Carla Hayden misleads Congress but also speaks the truth about Internet filtering.  On 20 April 2016, she appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.  She spoke with Chairman Senator Roy Blunt at the confirmation hearing about the American Library Association [ALA] on matters regarding child safety and the Internet.  She is the former ALA President who presided when the US Supreme Court decided United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  US v. ALA ruled there is no First Amendment right to Internet pornography in public libraries.

Below is a transcript of a portion of her testimony, followed by how she misled Congress and what she said that was right.  She should not be confirmed.

Here is video of the portion of the testimony transcribed below:


TRANSCRIPT OF DR. CARLA HAYDEN, 20 APRIL 2016

Senator Roy Blunt:
Got a couple of other questions. You know, being the President of the American Library Association is I'm sure a great honor, but maybe not an unmixed blessing because suddenly you’re responsible for everything that's being talked about as part of the Association. There a couple of, couple areas of criticism that you and I have talked about and I'd like to get your response to those on the record today. One was when the, when the Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, um, the, uh, American Library Association challenged the constitutionality of that arguing that it violated, uh, the First Amendment. And I know beginning then as a leader of the national organization through really, up till now you’ve, you’ve commented on this several times, but, you wanna talk about that whole issue of, uh, what kind of violation that would have been and then the issue of what kinds of things need to happen in a library to be sure the children don't have access to material that we wouldn't want children to have access to, and then how often you have to revisit that whole concept?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
I really appreciate, um, that question, Senator, because there's been quite a bit of just misinterpretation of the Library Association’s position during that time.  That was in 2003/2004, and at that time the filters that would have been required, um, for libraries to install were found to prohibit access to very important health information and the most notable at that time was breast cancer. And since that time, um, the technology has improved and the filters that are installed to receive federal funding in my, my library, The Pratt Library, and in its state role has installed filters, have improved, and the need to be vigilant is also something that libraries are doing in not only to the technological aspect but just plain physical arrangements of computers, making sure that there are face-out positioning of computer monitors, as well as very few, if any, cubicles that contain computers as well. And education and making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form.

Senator Roy Blunt:
So you don’t think, you don't think that pornography, illegal, as you described it, has a place in the library?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Not online, no.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And there are at the same time, things in lib-, in the library that aren't appropriate for everybody that visits the library to see.

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Right. And, Senator, the way you, um, described it is, is, is exactly the way that libraries even design their buildings and the furniture and making sure there’s even signage that, uh, unaccompanied adults in children sections are, um, are going to be questioned. There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And while your final degree was a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a very highly respected institution, your, a lot of your early work was as a children's librarian, a lot of early focus was that, so these are issues that you have always cared about?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Yes, and its been, um, interesting to see how, and I mentioned earlier, with the, uh, "C" for caution with copyright, that if you pay attention in the front end that it sometimes really helps in terms of later and working with young people and seeing what imagination can be sparked. 3D printers now are in libraries and that’s the perfect time to let young people know that all of this information that you can now get on your device is not free for you to use and just, uh, put your name on it. So, I've been very involved in youth issues for quite a while.

Senator Roy Blunt:
Well I thought, I thought, uh, just the example you gave of how you early on expressed to somebody the importance of their own creative work was an indication of the way you would approach a number of these issues. On another, uh, thing from the American Library Association, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, um, librarians objected to a particular part of that and, in fact fact, the law was changed I think for what's now called the Librarian's Provision. You wanna talk about that a little bit?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Yes, that was a, um, quite a time, that was also in 2003/2004, and the entire nation was concerned about security, and it was a time of great apprehension and people were going into libraries to find information about all of the different aspects of what was going on and the library community was just conc-, very concerned that in the quest for, um, security and making sure, uh, that we were all safe that the public's rights were also considered as well. And since that time there have been a number of reforms to the PATRIOT Act with the approval of Congress that have helped alleviate the library communities concerns and we are, and I think I can also, uh, say that the American Library Association is, um, very pleased at the progress that’s been made to balance security and personal rights.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And so would an example of that, Dr. Hayden, would an example of that be under that, uh, under that original discussion there was some thought that law enforcement might be able to come in and just say we'd like to look through your records and see who's been looking at certain books, certain, looking up certain things, or even we'd like to look at a certain person’s, uh library record, without a court saying that that was necessary, was that the concern?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
That was um the the basis of it, and especially the bulk collection of information about who was interested in a subject. What we were concerned about and especially at that time in 2003/2004, that interest in a subject would be or could be misinterpreted as intent to do something. So interest and intent were not equal, we were saying.

Senator Roy Blunt:
I think that's um, that’s a position I believe the country has generally come, come to, and I think your explanation of 2002 and 3 was also a good one that everybody’s trying to figure out what, what can we do to stop this from happening again and sometimes that requires a lengthy discussion as to the right way to do that. Any, uh, follow up questions, Senator Cochran, Senator Boozman? Well, we will, um, have the record open until the time I announced earlier for, uh, additional questions. Anything you want to add, Dr. Hayden, that you wished had been asked that wasn't, any topic, uh, you wanna cover?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Well, I had a few. Uh, and I, I just wanted though to, to thank everyone, um, for their support and for your consideration, um, Mr. Chairman, and, um, I really appreciate this opportunity and to be nominated it as a librarian, a career, career librarian, I must tell you this one of the highest honors and I thank you for this opportunity.

Senator Roy Blunt:
Thank you. This hearing’s adjourned.


HOW DR. CARLA HAYDEN MISLED CONGRESS

Dr. Carla Hayden materially misled Congress by saying ALA is about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."  That is false.

ALA's position is not that pornography is illegal.  Rather, it is that pornography has no legal definition ("The word 'pornography' has no meaning in the law, and there is no agreed-upon definition for the term.").  As James LaRue, the Director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom wrote to me just yesterday, "you should know by now that THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY."  Emphasis his.  It's as if US v. ALA doesn't exist.

So for Carla Hayden to say the ALA is about making sure "people know that pornography is illegal" is simply false.  Had she told the truth of ALA's position, that pornography has no legal definition therefore librarians must not take action to block it, she would have portrayed ALA as the extremist organization it is with her as its former extremist leader.  This is why she lied.  She wants to get into the Librarian of Congress position, and from there she can force the ALA worldview on the entire nation, not just public and school libraries.

Even Senator Roy Blunt picked up on her claim ALA is concerned about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal" as he followed up saying, "So you don’t think, you don't think that pornography, illegal, as you described it, has a place in the library?"  Carla Hayden responded, "not online, no."

Also, librarians will not protect children from pornography, only parents ("What About Protecting Children From Pornography, Whether Or Not It Is Legally Obscene?  The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.")  Even ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights" makes it age discrimination for librarians to keep any material whatsoever from children.

ALA is so extreme that it trains librarians not to report child pornography!  The source comes directly from ALA:


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.”
....
As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material.
So, straight from ALA's "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," librarians are or have been trained they are in no position to decide what is child pornography.

Based on that (they are not judges) it tells them not to help the police. Still more policy (not shown above) tells them to delete public records such as browser histories precisely to thwart the police.

ALA plays a game. "Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are ... child pornography...."  That is an impossible standard.  Impossible.  Why?  Because the standard requires that a judge determine if a web site is child porn before a librarian may also determine whether it is child porn by following the judge's lead.  Sounds good, right?  It's not.  There are hundreds of thousands of child porn web sites.  There would have to be hundreds of thousands of completed cases to find them to be child porn.  That is an impossible standard.  It will never happen.  In the infinitely impossible chance that it would, perhaps via class action or mass tort liability, by that time another hundred thousand sites would replace those.

It is just ridiculous to demand that a librarian may only determine what is a child porn site if a court first makes that decision.  Yet Carla Hayden says ALA is about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."  That is false and it is knowingly false given has was ALA's former leader and her statements were intended to mislead Congress about ALA so her nomination would be confirmed.  Then she would be in a position to apply ALA's extremist child pornography views to the nation as a whole.

To exemplify the seriousness of the matter, libraries are following ALA's guidance and covering up instances of child pornography.  One such library did that in Illinois.  Here is its legal council advising the library not to report child porn viewing and instead protect the patron privacy of the child porn viewers:
Were Carla Hayden to have told Congress the truth, she would have said ALA advises librarians not to report child pornography, not to help the police, and protect the patron privacy rights of the child porn viewers.  Had she said that, the nation would have had an eye opening and shocking moment of truth, and she would never be confirmed for Librarian of Congress.  Instead, she lied, saying ALA wants to "mak[e] sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."

So Carla Hayden successfully lied about ALA, saying what the public believes but not what she knows is happening since she once led the effort to mislead the public as ALA's president, thereby accomplishing two goals.  She ensured people will stay ignorant of the harm caused by the extremist ALA, and she is setting herself up to be confirmed as Librarian of Congress where she will spread ALA's pro-child porn policy nationwide and no one will lift a finger to stop her.

Later she says, "There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent."  As explained above and supported with sources from ALA itself, that is just false.  ALA has no concern in the slightest for the safety of minors.  After ALA ensured a library in Illinois retained Playboy magazine despite an unanimous government asking the library to stop buying the magazine since it was making it available to children, ALA's de facto leader Judith Krug told the Chicago Tribune, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children."

That's the true ALA.  Not the false picture Carla Hayden portrayed to make ALA look good and to mislead Congress into confirming her nomination for Librarian of Congress.

And libraries are true to ALA.  One library in New Jersey had a complaint from a mother about her eleven-year-old boy seeing hardcore pornography in the children's section of the library.  The library reacted by blaming the boy and holding secret meetings in violation of state sunshine laws to insert ALA's pro child-porn policies into its own policy to ensure children could continue to access pornography on the computers in the children' section.  The library even destroyed public records in violation of yet another law to thwart the application of more state sunshine laws.  And the policy changes it made in secret where the exact recommendations of ALA, almost word for word.  I filed suit against this library, the case is still open, and the children still get access to hardcore porn in the children's section.

So when Carla Hayden says, "There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent," that is knowingly and purposefully false.

Again, had she said the truth, that ALA regards minors exactly as adults and allows them to access Internet pornography despite state laws that instantiate libraries preventing that, and despite the US Supreme Court and common sense, she would have shocked the nation and would never be confirmed.


WHAT DR. CARLA HAYDEN GOT RIGHT

Dr. Carla Hayden did get some things absolutely correct and in that regard she was honest.  However, she knows ALA's position is the exact opposite, knows she would look extremist if she stated ALA's true position, and she would never be confirmed as no one wants a Librarian of Congress who intentionally and secretively lowers the barriers between children and inappropriate material.

So Carla Hayden said, "right," when asked if "there are ... things ... in the library that aren't appropriate for everybody that visits the library to see."  Were she truthful, she would have expressed her adherence to the "Library Bill of Rights" and said librarians only provide material, they do not make age distinctions.

Here's what Dr. Hayden got right::
That was in 2003/2004, and at that time the filters that would have been required, um, for libraries to install were found to prohibit access to very important health information and the most notable at that time was breast cancer. And since that time, um, the technology has improved and the filters that are installed to receive federal funding in my, my library, The Pratt Library, and in its state role has installed filters, have improved....
That's right!  Internet filters have greatly improved in a dozen years.  They no longer block breast cancer research, for example.  Carla Hayden is right to say that.

But she is misleading in that she does not reveal ALA tells people the opposite, that filters do not work, and that libraries should not use them.

Here again is that Illinois library mentioned above telling the public that filters block breast cancer:
Bittman said filters would not only limit a patron’s rights, they could ban access to sites college students or people doing research might need to access. Being denied access to the word “breast” might prevent a person from looking up breast cancer, for example, she said.
And that statement was after ALA was forced to admit filters no longer block breast cancer research: "Ross Reynolds (9:05):  Back to you, uh, Barbara Jones, uh, Dean [Marney who won state and federal library filtering cases] says he's got filtering software there that just works perfectly.  Barbara Jones (9:12):  Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days…."

Yet to this day ALA still says, "Filtering in Libraries Causes Patron Needs to Go Unmet."

Carla Hayden, while correctly saying Internet filters nowadays work well, completely ignores that ALA misleads people into thinking they do not.  A third of libraries across the nation follow ALA's erroneous advice and leave children exposed to harm, according to CIPA's author.

And ALA will not change its position on Internet filters even after Carla Hayden said the "technology has improved" and library filters no longer "prohibit access to very important health information [including] breast cancer."

What Carla Hayden said was just for public consumption; it will have no effect on ALA and Dr. Hayden knows that but chose to mislead Congress anyway.


CONCLUSION: SHE WOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED HAD SHE TOLD THE TRUTH

Carla Hayden made materially false statements to Congress to make her ALA look mainstream and herself look like a reasonable choice for Librarian of Congress as a result.  She should not be confirmed.  She would not be confirmed had she told the truth.

She made statements about Internet filtering and about concern for child safety that are truthful but that go directly counter to the misinformation ALA currently uses to mislead communities into facilitating child pornography nationwide.  Those statements should be used to counteract ALA's ability to mislead communities, to shine light on what libraries are supposed to be, not what they have become under ALA's worldview.

But Carla Hayden chose to mislead Congress as she did.  She should not be confirmed.  Another nominee should be found, one who is honest and who is not looking at the Librarian of Congress position as a means to further spread the extremist, pro-child porn policies of the American Library Association.


NOTE ADDED 28 MAY 2016:

Updated link to US v. ALA.


NOTE ADDED 30 MAY 2016:

As I noted in the story above, ALA changed its child porn facilitation policy online to no longer tell librarians they are not judges so they should ignore child pornography viewing.  I believe this was done as a result of my conversation with ALA's OIF leader just days ago who continued to defend the policy to me.  It could also be the result of pressure from other child porn whistleblowers, or a combination thereof.

I BELIEVE THIS WAS DONE TO SUPPORT THE CONFIRMATION OF CARLA HAYDEN.  I BELIEVE ALA IS HIDING ITS DECADES-LONG CHILD PORN FACILITATION POLICIES AND WILL RESTORE THEM AFTER CARLA HAYDEN IS CONFIRMED.  I BELIEVE CARLA HAYDEN HAS EVERY INTENTION OF MAINTAINING THE CHILD PORN FACILITATION POLICY, ONLY SHE WILL APPLY IT TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND ANYTHING ELSE OVER WHICH SHE CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE SHE HAS POWER TO CONTROL.

As I am obviously the leading critic of the confirmation of Carla Hayden, ALA has an interest in making people ignore what I say.  I have been talking about ALA's child porn facilitation for a long time, even right here in this post.  ALA has quietly changed the online policy to remove the offending language WHILE LEAVING IN THE OLD DATE OF LAST CHANGE so when people see the policy does not say what I said it says, and they see the old date of last change, they will disbelieve me.

And here is the effect of that effort to mislead the public about what I am saying about Carla Hayden right here in a story about me on Wonkette since the guy looks for what I quoted and instead finds the new, days-old ALA language, then I'm mocked -- and I cannot respond here as Wonkette blocked me from responding:


CONCLUSION:  ALA MAY HAVE WITHIN THE PAST FEW DAYS GIVEN THE APPEARANCE OF ENDING ITS CHILD PORN FACILITATION, BUT THAT AFFECTS THE CARLA HAYDEN CONFIRMATION IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER.  WHILE CARLA HAYDEN WAS ALA PRESIDENT RIGHT UP UNTIL HER NOMINATION BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, ALA HAS ALWAYS FACILITATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN LIBRARIES NATIONWIDE AND CARLA HAYDEN CHAMPIONED THOSE POLICES AS ALA's PRESIDENT.


NOTE ADDED 23 JUN 2016:

See also:



URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/05/carla-hayden.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @LibraryCongress @RoyBlunt

Thursday, April 25, 2013

How to Filter Public Library Computers: Bradburn v NCRL Shows Libraries Need Not Approve Unblock Requests

It is legal to filter public library computers.  Libraries must unblock the filters upon request, in certain circumstances.  Must they do so unconditionally and without first ensuring compliance with library policy?  No.  Libraries may take the time needed to evaluate whether the site to be unblocked complies with library policy.


"Incredibly Important Decision for Public Libraries Throughout the Nation" - No Need to Unblock Porn Sites

I publish below, for the first time anywhere, the full text of the court order allowing librarians to review computer filter unblock requests to ensure compliance with library policy.  It is "an incredibly important decision for public libraries ... throughout the nation."

In other words, public libraries may not only legally block pornography, but they need not unblock such Internet sites!  The Bradburn v. NCRL Order, shown below in full, evidences this very clearly.


ALA Claims Case Has Little Value

On the other hand, the American Library Association argues the Bradburn case is of little value and only applies to that one library district:
While the lawsuit was pending, the library changed its filtering software and amended its filtering policy.  Six years after the initial filing of the lawsuit, the federal district court ruled in an unpublished decision that the library's filtering policy did not violate the constitution, in part because the branch libraries are "relatively small in size and only one has a partition separating the children's portion of the library from the remainder of the library."  As an unpublished decision reviewing one particular set of facts in one library system, the decision has limited precedential value.


NCRL Director
Dean Marney
The Bradburn Case Gives Deep Insight on Judicial Thought

Yes, there may be limited precedential value, but it provides a deep insight into how courts might look at the issue.  Evidencing how well the judge analyzed the case, the ACLU would not even appeal its loss:
As the NCRL library director, Dean Marney, concluded:
Director Dean Marney said, "Common sense and taxpayers are the winners in this case.  The courts have affirmed that public libraries have the right to be libraries.  Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child pornography or to become illegal casinos.  Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages."
Source:


Winning Library Director Outs ALA "Dogma"

Further, the NCRL library director, Dean Marney, has specifically outed the ALA as promoting false "dogma" to push its way (similar to what CIPA author Ernest Istook exposed about ALA misleading communities).  See:


ALA Forced by Bradburn/Marney to Admit Library Filters Work

So effective was Dean Marney in making and winning his point that even the ALA itself was forced to admit he was right, library filtering software now works effectively, and false breast cancer blocking claims are old excuses.  Under the circumstances, seeing the ALA spinning again is no surprise.  See:


Dean Marney Takes On ALA Propaganda Directly

Perhaps the most authoritative voice on the Bradburn case was the very man who exposed the ALA dogma and forced the ALA to admit filters work and it is time to stop using the old excuses.  He had direct interaction with the ALA in its American Libraries magazine after ALA promoted its false message that the Bradburn case means very little, and ALA now makes it official diktat.  Quite the contrary, the case sets an example for municipalities throughout the entire nation.  As Dean Marney said, "To say the case doesn't matter now just doesn't make sense."

Let's hear from Dean Marney himself responding to the ALA's attorney Theresa Chmara who is trying to minimize the impact of the case.  (By the way, notice Dean Marney and I both responded to the ALA, and ALA censored my comments with ad hominem remarks about defamation and unsolicited advertising, which I did not do.  And "FTRF" is a creation of and part of the ALA.):
RESPONSE TO ‘WHY RECENT COURT DECISIONS DON’T CHANGE THE RULES O

Theresa Chmara's "Why Recent Court Decisions Don't Change the Rules on Filtering" is correct in stating that the courts in ALA v. CIPA and Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library have affirmed that "to fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons."

Bradburn et al v. NCRL is an incredibly important decision for public libraries in Washington State and throughout the nation.  The Washington State Supreme Court and the Federal District Court each affirmed that an Internet Use Policy, fairly applied and offering web site unblocking alternatives, is a reasonable approach to collection management and one that fully meets constitutional standards.  We at North Central Regional Library are proud to offer such a policy, indeed a policy that protects kids, adults, and employees from a hostile environment while offering quality resources to a wide range of patrons having diverse interests.

It is interesting that Ms. Chmara does not mention that the FTRF was involved in Bradburn virtually from inception.  Before the case was filed, the ACLU, representing Plaintiffs, briefed the FTRF.  The former president of the FTRF and a past Board Member were factual witnesses in the case.  To say the case doesn't matter now just doesn't make sense.

Ms. Chmara says the federal opinion wasn't published.  Does that matter?  The Washington Supreme court's opinion certainly was.  Does Ms. Chmara genuinely believe the federal decision will have no impact on the important national discussion occurring on the subject?  Both Bradburn decisions are extremely important and should inform the decisions of other libraries considering the deployment of filtering software.

People often ask why we fought the Bradburn case to affirm our Internet Policy.  I have no trouble telling them that it wasn't a choice–we care about our mission, we care about the people that use our libraries, and we care about our staff.

Dean Marney
Director
North Central Regional Library
Wenatchee, WA 98801

Submitted by Dean Marney (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 12:43.

No Need for Governments to Pierce the Veil of Autonomy

To governmental leaders seeking to rein in their local libraries acting outside the law (by behaving as open public fora instead of quasi public fora, etc.), which you may certainly do without piercing the veil of autonomy, don't Dean Marney's words bring warmth to your hearts and ideas to your minds?  "Both Bradburn decisions are extremely important and should inform the decisions of other libraries considering the deployment of filtering software."


ALA Deception On "Years of Litigation and Significant Legal Expenses"

In another example of how deceptive is the ALA, look at the next paragraph in "Libraries and the Internet Toolkit;  Legal Issues: CIPA & Filtering" from the ALA:
In summation, libraries considering the use of filtering software should consult their legal counsel prior to any such deployment.  Libraries that employ filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses.
Well, that one NCRL case was years of litigation.  One.  But what the ALA does not advise is that there are considerably more cases that occur as a result of not filtering and the harm that the resultant pornography brings to the community, including—sexually harassed librarians.  Sadly, ALA never helps them.

By the way, the ALA attorney says libraries must "allow adults to disable filters."  CIPA does not allow that.  Only librarians may disable the filters.  It is just more deception.


Librarian Sexual Harassment Cases Mean Libraries Should Consider Using Filters

Such sexual harassment cases are more frequent and result in far greater harm and liability than someone who cannot get his porn at taxpayer expense.  But the ALA, seeking to mislead local governments, only fear mongers about "years of litigation and significant legal expenses" while completely leaving out much more frequent and serious librarian sexual harassment cases due to a lack of filtering.  See a few examples of the sexual harassment cases ALA does not reveal while it uses scare tactics on filtering cases:

So there we see a number of sexual harassment cases, and for big money, but the ALA does not disclose these when it threatens filtering lawsuits will be a drag.  Indeed, libraries should consider using filters just to prevent sexual harassment cases.


Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bradburn case sets a national example of the means by which public libraries may legally and effectively filter out pornography.  In contrast, ALA misleads by minimizing the effect of Bradburn and using fear tactics on municipal liability.

Most importantly, the message for municipalities, as Dean Marney says, is that you too can be "proud to offer ... a policy that protects kids, adults, and employees from a hostile environment while offering quality resources to a wide range of patrons having diverse interests."


Bradburn v. NCRL

Below is that Bradburn v. NCRL Order, published in full text here and nowhere else, hyperlinks removed and caption and footnotes repositioned.  (Here is a PDF version of the original Bradburn v. NCRL Order I have published below, also at tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins):





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON


SARAH BRADBURN, PEARL 
CHERRINGTON, CHARLES HEINLEN, 
and SECOND AMENDMENT 
FOUNDATION,

                         Plaintiffs,

               v.

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY 
DISTRICT,

                         Defendant.

__________________________________________


NO. CV-06-0327-EFS


ORDER GRANTING NCRL'S MOTION 
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING 
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT, AND CLOSING FILE

__________________________________________

     Following the Washington Supreme Court's certification ruling, the question remaining from the parties' summary judgment motions, ECF Nos. 28 & 39, is whether Defendant North Central Regional Library District's (NCRL) internet-filtering policy is overbroad or a content-based restriction thereby violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  After reviewing the submitted materials, considering the relevant authority, and hearing from counsel during an October 25, 2011 hearing,[1] the Court is fully informed.  For the reasons given below, the Court grants NCRL summary judgment and denies Plaintiffs summary judgment.

A.  Facts[2]

     With the assistance of federal funding, NCRL provides Internet access at its twenty-eight libraries.  Because Congress mandates that a library receiving federal funds in order to provide Internet access must restrict patrons' Internet access to obscene and child pornographic materials, NCRL utilizes a filter (FortiGuard) to restrict its patrons' Internet access to such materials.  See 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f) (Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which also permits a library to restrict additional materials).  According to both its Internet Public Use Policy and Collection Development Policy (collectively, "Policy"), NCRL sets FortiGuard's filtering parameters to filter web pages and sites that depict hacking, phishing, proxy avoidance, malware, and spyware; display nudity; promote sexuality; or allow gambling.  Not all of the blocked web pages and sites contain constitutionally-unprotected speech.  Therefore, as a result of the FortiGuard filter, constitutionally-protected speech is blocked and patrons, even adult patrons, are unable to view the material.

     To help reduce the number of mis-blocked web pages and sites, NCRL allows patrons to submit requests to unblock a specific web page or site.  If NCRL believes that a blocked web page or site is appropriate for viewing by all of its patrons, it adjusts FortiGuard's parameters so that the web page or site is unblocked for future Internet use.

     Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Policy under both the Washington and U.S. Constitutions.  On September 30, 2008, the Court certified the Washington-constitutional question to the Washington Supreme Court.  ECF No. 97.  On June 7, 2010, the Washington Supreme Court answered the certified question, finding that "a public library may, consistent with article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution, filter Internet access for all patrons without disabling the filter to allow access to web sites containing constitutionally protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron."  ECF No. 110 at 31.

     Now remaining for the Court to address is whether NCRL'S decision to not disable the Internet filter at the request of an adult patron violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

B. Authority and Analysis

     The First Amendment commands:  "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."  U.S. Const. amend. I.  The government can violate the First Amendment in many ways, including enacting a statute that is overbroad or impermissibly regulates the content of speech.[3]  Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 244.  The government restriction may either restrict speech itself or restrict access to the speech:  both forms of restrictions may violate the First Amendment.  United States v. Playboy Entm't Gp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000).

     The parties agree that NCRL, a government entity, restricts its patrons' access to speech on the Internet.  The parties disagree as to what level of judicial scrutiny the Court is to apply to NCRL's access-to-speech restriction.  As explained below, based on U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions, the Court concludes it must apply rational review to the Policy.

     First, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that public-forum analysis is not used to determine whether a public library has appropriately exercised its collection-decision-making authority.  United States v. Am. Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. 94, 205 & 215-16 (2003) (hereinafter "ALA").  Second, the Ninth Circuit held that rational review is used where the "government provides a public service that, by its nature, requires evaluations of and distinctions based on the content of speech."  Ass'n of Christian Sch. Int'l v. Stearns, 362 Fed. Appx. 640, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished opinion).

     As a public library, NCRL pursues the "worthy missions" of facilitating learning, research, and recreational pursuits.  ALA, 539 U.S. at 203.  It is undisputed that to fulfill these missions, NCRL is not required to provide "universal coverage" and enjoys "broad discretion to decide what material to provide to [its] patrons."  Id. at 204 (internal citation removed).  Plaintiffs argue that NCRL's broad discretion is limited to its written materials because the grant of this discretion is based on a library's space and fiscal limitations.  However, these limitations are not the only rationale for granting a library broad discretion to make "content-based judgments when deciding what private speech to make available to the public."  Id. at 204.  A library's "need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends [also] on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; [and] it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source."  Id. at 208.  Given the vast, ever changing, and almost unlimited amount of information available on the Internet, the Supreme Court recognized that "libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not."  Id.  Accordingly, NCRL is required to evaluate its patrons' Internet access based on the speech's content.  Therefore, the Court subjects NCRL's filtering process to rational review.

     Scrutinizing the undisputed facts under rational review, the Court finds NCRL's use of FortiGuard to filter its patrons' Internet access and its decision to not disable the filter upon an adult patron's request complies with the First Amendment.  It is reasonable for NCRL to develop an Internet policy that can be implemented consistently throughout its twenty-eight libraries, and it did so by implementing the Policy.  NCRL'S libraries are relatively small in size and only one has a partition separating the children's portion of the library from the remainder of the library.  Blocking Internet sites and pages that contain constitutionally-protected material deemed suitable only for adults helps ensure that the environment at NCRL libraries is consistent with its mission of providing learning and research opportunities for individuals of all ages.  This is a legitimate government interest.

     And NCRL's practice of requiring a patron to request that a particular web site or page be unblocked is an efficient and rationale way for NCRL to determine whether that web site or page is consistent with its policies and mission, especially in light of the Internet's continuous change.  NCRL simply does not have the resources to have its staff review the vast and limitless amount of sites and pages on the Internet to determine whether they are consistent with its policies and mission.  NCRL'S unblocking-request process reasonably accomplishes its policies and mission, while at the same time complying with CIPA.

     The Court acknowledges that this process may frustrate some adult patrons.  However, without the funding provided by CIPA, NCRL likely could not provide any Internet access to its patrons.  This would be a great disservice to the NCRL patrons, many of whom live in rural areas where reliable, affordably-priced Internet access may be difficult to obtain.

C. Conclusion

     Because NCRL's Policy, including not disabling the Internet filter at the request of an adult patron, is reasonable, there is no overbreadth or impermissible content-based First Amendment violation.  For the above given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

     1.   NCRL's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED.
     2.   Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.
     3.   Judgment is to be entered in NCRL's favor with prejudice.
     4.   This file shall be CLOSED.

     IT IS SO ORDERED.  The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.

     DATED this   10th      day of April 2012.



             s/ Edward F. Shea            
            EDWARD F. SHEA 
            United States District Judge


     [1] Duncan Manville appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Sarah Bradburn, Pearl Cherrington, Charles Heinlen, and the Second Amendment Foundation.  Thomas Adams appeared on NCRL's behalf.

     [2] The parties agree that the detailed undisputed facts contained in the Court's prior Order, ECF No. 96, still apply.  Accordingly, the Court only provides the basic facts herein.

     [3] The freedom of speech has limits as certain types of speech, such as defamation, obscenity, and pornography produced with children, are unprotected by the First Amendment.  Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 245-56 (2003).

Q:\Civil\2006\0327.post.certif.frm

Friday, February 3, 2012

ALA Admits Library Filters Work; Barbara Jones Bursts Her Own Breast Cancer Bubble

Barbara Jones is the leader of the American Library Association's [ALA] so-called Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF].  On 25 January 2012, she made the oft-repeated false statement that Internet filters block access to breast cancer web sites and do not work. [EN 1]  The ALA does this as a means to convince people not to block pornography in public libraries, because breast cancer might be accidentally excluded.  Nevermind that the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] was involved in a legal matter finding filters no longer block health-related information. [EN 2]

On 26 January 2012, I responded that she was lying about breast cancer being blocked. [EN 3]

Then, on 1 February 2012, library director Dean Marney [EN 4] was asked about blocking breast cancer and he responded in no uncertain terms that claims of breast cancer blocking are false. [EN 5]

Surprise!  Barbara Jones was on the very same radio broadcast with Dean Marney, and she contradicted herself [EN 6] from just a few days previously, handing me and Dean Marney a major success in our efforts to educate communities about the ALA's misinformation.  She admits, finally, that the breast cancer excuse is outdated.

And librarians know it is a lie. [EN 4] [EN 7] [EN 8]


ALA Admits Library Filters Work; 
Says Librarians Are the Biggest Impediment

Barbara Jones even admits that library filters work but that librarians don't know how to set them properly! [EN 9]  Breaking news!  ALA admits library filters work!!  Then the ALA blames librarians for misusing them.

But even in admitting they work, she still misleads saying, among other lies, "There is still constitutionally protected information being filtered out," by which she means pornography or the like.  As we all know by now, legal porn may be legally excluded from public libraries, and it was the ALA itself that lost on this very issue in the US Supreme Court back in 2003. [EN 4] [EN 10]

If anyone ever again says public library filters block breast cancer sites, know immediately that they are lying, and they are likely misleading in other areas as well.  Given my success (along with Dean Marney, mainly,) in turning the ALA on this issue, consider following me if you want accurate information about how the ALA misleads communities into leaving their own citizens open to harm.


Consider Subscribing to SafeLibraries for Politically Incorrect Library News

I am happy to be the only source bringing you this significant, high importance, well sourced news of major admissions by the ALA's OIF leader that library filters work, old breast cancer excuses don't, librarians don't know how to run filters correctly, etc.  But why am I the only news source doing so?  Where is the Library Journal?  Where is the ALA's American Libraries?  Where is LISNews?  Have any of them reported on, for example, the news I broke in "Know the ALA"?  Of course not.

People, consider subscribing to my news feed (at Twitter or Facebook) for library stories not politically correct enough to be reported elsewhere.  After all, if the ALA OIF finally admits filters work, doesn't its whole house of cards fall down?


End Notes
  1. "Libraries, Sexual Content and the Internet: Striking a Balance Between Rights, Access, and Comfort," by Barbara Jones, Huffington Post, 25 January 2012:
    Research shows time and again that filters end up blocking content that is not only legal but is important for adults to be able to view.  ....  An ideal example is the word, "breast," which many filters block.  The problem is that in addition to blocking what might be offensive content, the filter also blocks "breast cancer."  And so the only solution is for parents, teachers, librarians, and other community leaders to work with Internet users.  Filters won't do it for them.
  2. ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007:
    75.  In addition to analyzing the content of Web pages, dynamic filters also take the context of the page into consideration, to ensure that the determinations are as accurate as possible.  For example, many companies will develop templates that provide additional context to teach the software how to recognize certain contexts – for example, to block the word "breast" when used in combination with the word "sexy," but not when used in combination with the words "chicken" or "cancer."  The software analyzes context, in part, by utilizing statistical pattern recognition techniques to identify common features of acceptable and unacceptable Web pages, depending on the context in which the content appears.  Cranor Testimony, 10/23 Tr. 243:5-244:6; Whittle Testimony, 10/31 Tr. 201:4-17, 204:17-205:2 
  3. "ALA OIF's Barbara Jones Misleads Entire Nation to Think Library Porn is Not a Problem While Library Filters Are," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 January 2012:
    "An ideal example is the word, 'breast,' which many filters block.  The problem is that in addition to blocking what might be offensive content, the filter also blocks 'breast cancer.'"  Now this lady has gone from misleading people to flat out lying.  She is lying.  She is in the very position to know better, and she chooses instead to lie, so she is purposefully lying.  Even the ACLU admits filters are 95% effective and no longer filter out health-related information: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf
  4. "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2010:
    The outdated tenets about using technology to manage the Internet, promoted by the Freedom To Read Foundation (FTRF) and American Library Association (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom, express dogma and fundamentalism and deserve challenge.
    ....
    Filtering offers a technological solution for a technological problem.  If your filter is inadequate, find a better one.
  5. "Viewing Porn in Public Libraries Spurs Debate," by Ross Reynolds, KUOW 94.5 FM Puget Sound Public Radio, 1 February 2012 interview with Barbara Jones and Library Director Dean Marney:
    Ross Reynolds (7:13):  Now I've heard that some computer filtering can be problematic because, for example, it won't allow you to go to a breast cancer web site 'cuz it's got the word "breast" in the search.

    Dean Marney (7:23):  Ross, that drives me crazy because when people bring up that as an example and I wanna go, if their filter is blocking breast cancer, they've got the wrong filter.  'Cuz that's, maybe that was like maybe that was 50 years ago but it's not the state of the art now.
  6. See End Note 5:
    Ross Reynolds (9:05):  Back to you, uh, Barbara Jones, uh, Dean says he's got filtering software there that just works perfectly.

    Barbara Jones (9:12):  Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days, but, um, we're currently working on a case and I can give really, um, really current examples ….
  7. "Librarians are Guardians of a Trust," by Jo Ellen Ringer, Notus Public Library Director and Guest Writer, SafeLibraries, 10 April 2011:
    There are two issues here: "proper" (based on local standards, not ALA standards) expenditure of public tax dollars in our communities, and using the trust given to librarians in wise ways.  Education and information are the twin missions of any library.  Are we meeting those goals?  Pornography, violence, bomb-making are not for the public good, nor do most taxpayers wish to support this with their taxes.
  8. "Minneapolis Library Workers Go Public with Cybersmut Complaint," by American Library Association, American Libraries, 21 February 2000:
    "We feel harassed and intimidated by having to work in a public environment where we might, at any moment, be exposed to degrading or pornographic pictures," read a February 12 Minneapolis Star Tribune letter to the editor signed by 47 employees of the city's Central Library.

    Siding with a February 5 editorial by a patron outraged that MPL won't intervene when users display sexually explicit Internet sites, the letter urges the installation in high-trafficked areas of "sophisticated filters" which, "contrary to the 'official' line of the ALA . . . allow searching of topics such as 'breast cancer.'"
  9. See End Note 5:
    Ross Reynolds (9:55):  Are the filters getting better?

    Barbara Jones (9:59):  Um, filters have gotten better because people have more control.  However, um, a lot of librarians don't know how to set these controls, and some of the controls actually don't work.  Um, nothing is as good as the human brain.  There is still constitutionally protected information being filtered out.  I do have evidence to show this.
  10. United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003):
    [P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights....

    In any case, the suggested alternatives have their own drawbacks.  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.  Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography.  To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so. 



NOTE ADDED 7 SEPTEMBER 2013:

I have updated some links that had gone missing with archived links.

Also, see how Children's Internet Protection Act author Ernest Istook describes how ALA purposefully misleads people in a propagandistic fashion:

NOTE ADDED 8 APRIL 2015:

Updated link in Note 5.