Librarians Library Porn Problem Detailed by the Library Journal's Annoyed Librarian

There are many reasons why the Annoyed Librarian is one of my favorites.  Here's another:

"The Problem of Library Porn for Librarians," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 4 May 2011, emphasis mine, graphics added, reprinted under US Copyright §107 Fair Use:

I can't seem to get away from the issue of Internet pornography in the library, mainly because so many librarians are so recalcitrant about the issue.  So just one last word on the problem of library porn for librarians.

Please don't trot out the old chestnut that we can't define porn, so we don't know what it is.  We know what it is, including the people who view it.  That's why people caught viewing porn in libraries by reporters don't want to talk.  They're ashamed, not of surfing for porn, but of being called about it in public.  And it makes for great news stories.

Usually the issue is considered in terms of the problem of library porn for patrons.  That's important of course, and considering the needs of patrons should certainly be a central concern, at least after considering the needs of librarians.

Some adults don't want to see Internet pornography, and public libraries are the only place that those who disapprove of pornography have to see any.  Bookstores and convenience stores and other places that sell pornographic magazines usually hide the covers.  I see a lot of people working on laptops in coffee shops, and I’ve never seen anyone surfing for porn.

There's no other public space where visual pornography is acceptable.  Even sex stores don't have videos playing in the public areas as far as I can tell.

Let's just ignore these prudes for a moment, these busybodies who expect public libraries to abide by the same conventions as every other public space in the country.  They should know better.

Then there's the argument over porn in children's areas of the library.  This is the only substantive area of disagreement, and the one where the ALA OIF ideology is the most outside the mainstream.  It's illegal to sell pornographic magazines to children, yet the ALA insists that it's wrong to filter pornography in the children's area of libraries.  The vast majority of people up to and including the Supreme Court think otherwise.

Is porn really a problem for children?  This depends on the porn and the child, I suppose.  Pornographic videos aren't really my cuppa, since I much prefer print to video for erotic content, but I've seen a few here and there, mostly when preparing for blog posts about the issue.

It's clear there's a lot of sick stuff out there, and a lot of sick people apparently watching it.  To think that some men (and it's always men) get enjoyment out of some of the depictions and treatment of women in any number of videos makes me wonder about the sad state of their soul, though it doesn't make me wonder why they're watching porn instead of having relationships with real women.

On the other hand, some of it is as tastefully done as possible.  Not much, but some.

Would any of it harm children?  I won't link to examples, but for those of you with children, would you want your child of 5 or 7 or so seeing a video of a man choking a woman while ejaculating on her face?  Or of young women who seem drug-impaired being gang-raped?  Or of young men being gang-raped for that matter.

But let’s say you are one of those librarians who think it's okay for young children to view gang-rape videos because those videos are "Constitutionally protected speech."  For the sake of argument, let's say you're correct, and that this would be just as healthy for children as watching Scooby Doo or whatever it is the kids watch these days.

There's still a problem with library porn, even if we concede the arguments that public libraries should abide by the convention of every other public space in the country and that children shouldn't be exposed to Internet porn.

The problem is for the librarians and the library.  The problem with library porn is that librarians sound like fools defending it, and sounding like fools is never good for librarians.

They especially sound like fools when they start going on about how the Constitution protects people viewing Internet porn in public libraries.  This isn't a settled issue, but given the other rulings by the Supreme Court, it doesn’t seem likely that this would ever be considered a right.

They also sound like fools when they defend public library porn because of an alleged dedication to access to information.  Men who sit in front of library computers viewing Internet porn aren't "accessing information," unless we want to make "accessing information" a new euphemism for getting sexually aroused and possibly doing something about that arousal.

I could definitely see this getting traction with librarians, like those tee shirts that say, "Librarians do it in the stacks," but in general I think it would be detrimental to our cause.

Finally, they sound like fools because no one agrees with them and they have no good arguments for their position.  There's no Constitutional right to view porn.  Communities have standards and libraries as public institutions supported by those communities should abide by those standards just like every other public place.  This is so commonsensical that only a librarian could think otherwise.

The problem about the whole situation isn't that the news media like to hop on juicy library porn stories, as if America's public libraries were full of perverts standing in line to satisfy their porn addictions @ the library.  We know that's not the case.

The problem also isn't when the news media give such exposure to a relatively limited problem when libraries are in such dire straits.

The problem is with librarians who keep feeding reporters the same laughable lines and making libraries and librarians look ridiculous in times when libraries are in such bad shape.  Keep it up and see where it gets you.

.

Will Manley Outs Library Profession as the Only One in the World That Wants Children to Have Access to Pornography; Annoyed Librarian Says Some Librarians Sound Like Smut Peddlars

Will Manley speaks the truth about the library profession.  See "3 Ways to Get Blackballed in the Library Profession," by Will Manley, Will Unwound, #428, 26 April 2011, emphasis and graphics added, excerpted here:

....

1)      Conservative politics….We all know that the library profession is extremely liberal in its political leanings.  To prove this all you have to do is look at the big name speakers at A.L.A. conferences.  How many conservatives have there been among this group in the past 40 years?  Maybe one or two at most.   Librarians would rather be validated than challenged when it comes to politics.  But it goes beyond that.  Many librarians think that conservatives are selfish, stupid, unsophisticated, and ultimately evil people.  Conservatism is not an alternative political viewpoint to the library profession; it is a curse.  The unfortunate issue here is that our many city councils, county boards, and state legislatures are ruled by conservative politicians.  These are the folks who hold our purse strings.  Isn’t it time to stop demonizing them and start dialoging with them?  Don’t even think about it if you want that big promotion.

2)      Organized religion….The library profession is very wary of organized religion, because religious morality is the banner that many book censors wave.  Many librarians disdain organized religion because they think it is repressive, judgmental, irrational, evangelical, and overly structured.  If you are a librarian it is okay to freely talk about your spiritual quest as long as you do not mention that you belong to an organized church.  It’s also very okay to be openly atheistic and agnostic because this shows you are a thinking person who has overcome an early childhood attachment to superstition.  If you have to be an avowed member of a formal religion, Buddhism seems to be your best bet.  Buddhism seems to be the cool religion right now.  Protestantism and Catholicism definitely are not.  If you are a member of a formal Christian Church keep that part of your life in the closet for the good of your career.

3)      Censorship – Perhaps the most career limiting move that you could make in the library profession is to refuse to toe the line with the anything goes philosophy of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom.  I am still getting criticism heaped on me for a series of articles that I wrote in the 1990s advocating that filters be put on children’s room computers to block out pornography.  Really!  I’m pretty sure that the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography.  Why?  Because everyone is afraid of being called a censor.  It is the death nail in the career coffin.  The irony of all of this is that the library profession touts itself as the champion of intellectual freedom.  If that’s true why can’t we freely express our dissenting views of an "anything goes" philosophy of intellectual freedom…or conservative politics…or organized religion for that matter?

And why are librarians afraid to be called a censor?  That would be courtesy of former de facto ALA leader Judith Krug and her bringing her ACLU leadership policies and enforcement tactics to the ALA. 

Librarians Should Take Back Control of the Office for Intellectual Freedom From the Porn Pushers

Look in the comments on Will's post to see comment after comment by librarians speaking out to agree with Will.  Judith Krug, may she rest in peace, has passed on and the new leader of the OIF is a poor substitute.  The deputy director is a plagiarizer and an unethical astroturfer.  (Administrative Assistant Bryan Campbell is honest but I'll leave that for another story.)  Maybe now is the time for librarians to do what they know is right and take back control of the OIF from the Krug/ACLU acolytes.

See also:

• "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries" at http://tinyurl.com/WillManley
• "The Conservatives Among Us," by Will Manley, American Libraries, 30 November 2010

The Annoyed Librarian Outs Smut Peddling Librarians

By the way, the other top library blogger also pointed out that the ALA is "pro-porn."  See:  "Libraries and Porn Privacy," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 27 April 2011.  "But if librarians insist on sounding like smut peddlers, the articles will keep coming.  If this is the hill librarians want to die on while they pretend they’re protecting free speech, then so be it."  That's the Library Journal post, by the way, where the Annoyed Librarian agrees with my view of the ALA in the Brooklyn Public Library porn matter saying, "Safe Libraries Guy argues that the problem is the ALA urging libraries to disregard federal law.  He does have a point there."  Lawyers take note.

And see how the Annoyed Librarian mocks "library porn mavens" in still more evidence of the ALA's anything-goes policy:

The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet porn at the taxpayer's expense. An Internet filter for porn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core porn magazines for their public library. It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library. The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it.

"Library Porn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007, emphasis added.

I get a lot of criticism for saying the ALA pushes porn on children.  But I make that statement based on solid evidence including that presented by the likes of Will Manley and the Annoyed Librarian.  For example, just search on what the Annoyed Librarian has said about the ALA's love for porn.

A First Amendment Right to Porn in the Public Library?

The Annoyed Librarian is so funny.  Look at this.  Here is the ALA's First Amendment:

Library Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and view publicly subsidized pornography in their local library.

Speaking of librarians "acting like smut peddlers," "Smut!" by Tom Lehrer is the ALA's anthem.

Will Your Community Stop the ALA From Targeting Children?

"[T]he library profession is the only profession in the world that

wants children to have access to pornography."

Will Manley said that.  Any questions?  Any community want the ALA anywhere near your public libraries and your children while it continues along its current path?  Will librarians finally move to deradicalize the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom?  Anyone want to write a guest blog post for SafeLibraries to say what it's like in your own libraries? 

.

Library P-rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P-rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma

No P-rn Librarian

A public library director has removed p-rnography from library computers by using Internet filters that will only be disabled after patron request and library review to ensure the site complies with library policy.  P-rnography is not part of library policy.  The director advises that the American Library Association [ALA] intentionally misleads local communities.

Short URL for this page: http://tinyurl.com/ALAdogma

The library director provides a road map for legally removing p-rn from a public library.  He has done it, with the backing of his state's Supreme Court, and despite the usual ALA misinformation designed to convince people to act as the ALA would act.  See:
"LJ BackTalk: The Internet Is Not All or Nothing," by Dean Marney, the Director of the North Central Regional Library, Wenatchee, WA, Library Journal, 1 November 2010.

"If parents do not see the public library as a safe place for their children, they will not allow them to go there.  This would mean fewer patrons in the library and possibly could affect the library’s funding."  Source:  "Do Librarians Have an Ethical Duty to Monitor Patrons' Internet Usage in the Public Library?," by Anna May Wyatt, Journal of Information Ethics 15 (1): 70-79, Spring 2006.

Library Director's Wake Up Call to Communities About Outdated ALA Dogma

Here's library director Dean Marney's wake up call to local communities about outdated ALA dogma:

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.

The FTRF, by the way, is an ALA creation.  They do "deserve challenge" for "outdated" "dogma and fundamentalism" and now there's a library directory saying so.  He is saying what many others are thinking but afraid to act upon.  I have had many librarians talk to me in whispers.  I hereby encourage other library directors and librarians to speak out like Dean Marney or, for the more timid, to contact me discreetly and perhaps I'll post your writing here anonymously.

Example of Outdated Dogma that Filters Do Not Work

For an example of that outdated dogma, see "Why Internet Filters Don't Work and Why Libraries Who Filter are Wrong," by Sarah Houghton (formerly Sarah Houghton-Jan), LibrarianInBlack, 7 May 2010.  See the many comments written by "Dan Kleinman"—that's me—and see how the Librarian In Black responds. Outdated and dogmatic are the right words.  [NOTE ADDED 9 JANUARY 2015: This top ALA censorship expert now known as Sarah Houghton is so against censorship that she removed my comments, see this later version (link), then eventually completely deleted the post.  This is another major double standard or hypocrisy.]

It is notable that Sarah Houghton, ALA's leading expert on Internet filters, helped create false claims of sexual harassment against another librarian, thereby destroying his career, and was the only member of the three fakers not to admit to the fakery.  See:

• "TeamHarpy Faked Sexual Harassment, Hurting True Efforts to Stop It," by Dan Kleinman, Sexual Harassment of Librarians, 26 March 2015.  
• "#TeamHarpy: Another Ugly Story of ‘Progressive’ Vigilantism," by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, 27 March 2015.
• "My Public Statement Concerning My Libel Claim Against Lisa Rabey and Nina De Jesus #TeamHarpy,"by Joe Murphy, Library Future, updated 25 March 2015.

Court Provides Lesson for Public Libraries—Legal P-rn May Be Legally Removed

Here's what the Washington Supreme Court said in Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District:

Here, if a library patron wants to access a web site or page that has been blocked by FortiGuard, he or she may send an e-mail to NCRL administrators asking for a manual override of the block.  The site or page is reviewed to ascertain whether allowing access would accord with NCRL’s mission, its policy, and CIPA requirements.  If not, the request is denied.  If the request is approved, access will be allowed on all of NCRL’s public access computers.

....

Most importantly, just as a public library has discretion to make content-based decisions about which magazines and books to include in its collection, it has discretion to make decisions about Internet content.  A public library can decide that it will not include p-rnography and other adult materials in its collection in accord with its mission and policies and, as explained, no unconstitutionality necessarily results.  It can make the same choices about Internet access.

A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons’ use.  We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons.

Let that be a lesson for any public library and community struggling with how to control p-rn in the public library even when that p-rn is legal.  Legal p-rn may be removed legally by Internet filters.  The ALA may be outdated and dogmatic in promoting its "anything goes" views on local communities, but those communities can now see through the propaganda and apply community standards, not ALA standards, and do so legally.

Local Law May Preclude P-rn and Libraries Acting Outside the Law May Be Reined In by Local Governments

Look at the local law that created your library.  It shows the library was created for a purpose.   P-rn is usually not part of that purpose.  If your local library is allowing p-rn, it may be acting outside the law, or ultra vires.  In such a case, the usual veil of autonomy no longer applies.   You see, libraries are intentionally made autonomous precisely to prevent political control.  But where the library acts outside of the law, then the local government may act to require the library to adhere to the law.

So, not only may local libraries act to preclude p-rn in the libraries, but local governments may act as well.   It all depends on the law and the circumstances, of course.

The US Supreme Court Also Allows Libraries to Preclude P-rn

Even the US Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of p-rn in the public library.  In US v. ALA, the Court said:

US Supreme Court, 2003

To fulfill their traditional missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons.  ....  Internet access in public libraries is neither a "traditional" nor a "designated" public forum.  ....  Internet terminals are not acquired by a library in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves.  Rather, a library provides such access for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality.   The fact that a library reviews and affirmatively chooses to acquire every book in its collection, but does not review every Web site that it makes available, is not a constitutionally relevant distinction.  The decisions by most libraries to exclude p-rnography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online p-rnography any differently.  Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not.  While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review.  Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything made available has requisite and appropriate quality.   Concerns over filtering software's tendency to erroneously "overblock" access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories software users intend to block are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled.  ....  The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.

All Members of the Court agree, but the ALA does not.  Let me add that the ALA advises local libraries how to skirt US v. ALA by using CYA language.  So which institution should be authoritative in your own community, the US Supreme Court or the ALA that advises skirting the Court?

Parting Words from Dean Marney: Safe Libraries are a Dirty Little Secret

Dean Marney is really admirable, especially since he is willing to oppose the ALA dogma.  See what he says here:

In their ruling, they say that just as libraries don't buy all books that are available, especially those that are p-rnographic, so they're not obligated to provide access to every Internet site.

Director Dean Marney says the ruling affirms his district's policy of making libraries safe places for all of its patrons.

Dean Marney: “I think this has been libraries' dirty little secret forever, that we've had to deal with this; that we can protect kids, we can protect employees, stay true to our mission.”

Washington state librarian Jan Walsh says the ruling may convince other libraries that don't use filters to adopt them.

Source: "Washington Supreme Court Says Libraries Can Filter Internet Computers," by Doug Nadvornick, Northwest News Network, 6 May 2010.

A dirty little secret!  Safe libraries for children and employees!  Imagine that!

Others Say the ALA is Misleading the Public

Dean Marney is not the only person telling communities that the ALA is misleading communities.   Here are a few others:

P-rnHarms.com Logo

Pat Trueman, former chief obscenity prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-p-rnography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep p-rnography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries out of having filters."  Mr. Trueman now runs National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

Kenneth Warren, Lakewood Public Library Director, "dropped his membership from the [ALA] group after it suggested libraries erect privacy screens for public-access computers[, believing, i]f you need privacy, you should get your own computer."  Privacy screens are known to be worthless.

Then there's the Library Journal's Annoyed Librarian, much beloved within the library community:

We're talking about libraries providing publicly subsidized p-rn.  The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet p-rn at the taxpayer's expense.  An Internet filter for p-rn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core p-rn magazines for their public library.  It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library.  The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it.  That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise.  Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to p-rn.  Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to p-rn is a public good?

Annoyed Librarian

You simply have to read the above and the remainder of her comments on the issue of access to p-rnography in public libraries.  If I wrote those words myself, I would reprint them here.  Please read in its entirety:  "Library P-rn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007. 

Conclusion

It is perfectly legal to legally block/remove legal p-rnography from public libraries and to use Internet filters for doing so.  It is perfectly legal to determine if a request to unblock a certain web site meets the library's selection policy.  When challenging the ALA's influence in your own libraries, you will be in good company despite the guilty-until-proven-innocent effort that will be made to immediately cast you as a censor.  Point out how the ALA misleads communities.  Show how library directors are standing up to denounce the ALA for its outdated dogma.  Use the above as examples, though there are many more.  Consider taking the "Library P-rn Challenge."  Don't let the ALA redefine censorship.  Read US v. ALA.  Local communities should control local public libraries, not the ALA.  Get ready for the ALA onslaught that may even include silent payments to local citizens.  SafeLibraries will provide assistance upon request.

  Further Reading on Legally Removing Legal P-rn from Libraries

Newspaper Cartoon About Ease of
Getting P-rn in Public Libraries
Cartoon by Ackerman in The Oregonian

The following are worth reading on the topic of removing legal p-rn legally from public libraries:

• "Court Rules No P-rn in Library; Washington State Supreme Court Rules Public Library Internet Filters are Constitutional; Local Control Trumps ALA; ACLU Threats to Sue are Empty." 
• "Library Director Extols Internet Filtering; P-rn Should Be Excluded From Libraries; Dynamite Reading For Library Directors, Trustees and Patrons." 
• "Sensible Censorship: Surfing for P-rn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service." 
• "Library P-rn Challenge." 
• "Public Breaks Into Applause for Library Board that Unanimously Voted for Internet Filters to Stop P-rn Viewing in Public Library." 
• "4664 Successfully Petition for Filters on Public Library Computers." 
• "IT Experts Say Library Filtering Easy to Configure." 
• "Somona County Wants Internet Filters; Library Director Sandra Cooper Defies Grand Jury Claiming 'Slippery Slope'; Local Library Policy Plagiarizes ALA." 
• "One Child Assaulted Per Month in Libraries Without Internet Filters; Suit Should Be Brought Against the American Library Association." 
• "ALA Ruse Keeping P-rn Widely Available and Media Inaccuracies Force Council Bluffs, Iowa, Citizens to Endure Public Library P-rn." 
• "Go To Hell, ALA, Says Trend Setting Library Director; Wants to Implement Monitoring Software to Watch Computer Screens From Afar." 
• "Library Held Hostage Using Filtering System as Ransom." 
• "Library Admits Filters Work and People Want Them; Boulder Public Library Defies ALA." 
• "Demonstration Proves Library Filters Work; San Jose Councilman Pete Constant Counters Library Director's False Claims." 
• "Library Director Lies to Stop Filters; Desperate Move to Mislead Public Contradicts the Library's Own Policy." 

Note

This post is about legally removing legal p-rn from public libraries.  I take no position as SafeLibraries on whether legal p-rn should be opposed generally.  I have, however, publicly opposed illegal p-rn.  Legal, illegal, there's a difference—one's illegal.  I oppose anything that's illegal.  Don't most people?

Further, in specific cases, I will support communities attempting to remove legal p-rn from public libraries.  Indeed, that is the very genesis of SafeLibraries many years ago.  I am fair, though, so sometimes I will support libraries being wrongly accused.

About the Author

I'm Dan Kleinman.  I began opposing ALA policy almost a decade ago when the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom policies forced inappropriate material into the hands of my kindergartner.  The school principal eventually removed the material from the public school library stating she found it twice as bad as I had reported.  Now running Safe Libraries and Sexual Harassment of Librarians, I educate people and politicians about who controls public libraries and what can be done to restore local control.  I am consulted nationwide for my expertise in how the negative aspects of ALA influence can be mitigated, and I appear in numerous media reports.  I write regularly and ask people to consider subscribing to SafeLibraries.  Guest posts are welcome.  I track library crimes on Delicious and broadcast my latest crime additions on my SafeLibraries Twitter.  I may be reached at SafeLibraries@gmail.com.

My efforts and those of my late partner, Mark Decker, have been rewarded by the ALA naming SafeLibraries as one of its "prominent" opponents, if not the top one.  See "Intellectual Freedom Manual, Eighth Edition," Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 2010, p.383 [ALA's online version naming SafeLibraries].  Also see:

• "SafeLibraries Changing Library Profession According to Speaker at ALA 2010 Annual Conference; SafeLibraries Welcomes Media Requests for ALA Balance"
• "ALA Chills Free Exercise of Democracy by Publicly Attacking Mom and Pop Groups Who Dare to Oppose ALA Influence That Endangers Children"
• "Booklist Webcast - Defending the Right to Read: Celebrating Banned Books Week Featuring Special Guest Judy Blume"

I am available for media interviews.  This is especially important as the ALA plans a huge propaganda campaign in September 2011 for the 30th anniversary of "Banned Books Week."  I can provide balance with a smile and with solid legal and factual support.  Hint, no books have been banned in the USA for almost 50 years.

This post is dedicated to a certain good-hearted public library director who needs help in telling others how and why legal p-rnography may be legally excluded from his/her library; the ALA will not help him/her.  Hopefully, I will be instrumental in yet another library acting to legally protect children.

==========

Hat tip to AndyW of LISNews for making me aware of this matter.  Please read his critical comments at "Access in the Hands of an Aggressive Filtering Policy," by Andy Woodworth, LISNews, 11 November 2010.


The above is all my opinion, but I do provide extensive and diverse sources for people to decide for themselves (and I keep them updated).


NOTE ADDED 17 NOVEMBER 2010:

This blog post has appeared on P-rnHarms.com at Library P-rn Removal Roadmap and can be seen here:

SafeLibraries Featured on P-rnHarms.com: "Library P-rn Removal Roadmap"

It is also linked here: "Libraries Dangerous for Children - Craigslist Contributes to Sexual Deviance in Restrooms," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP = Wisconsin Speaks Up, 15 November 2010.


NOTE ADDED 22 JANUARY 2011:

Short URL for this page: http://tinyurl.com/ALAdogma

NOTE ADDED 28 MAY 2011:

See also:

• "Libraries Allowing P-rn Are Wrong; Donna Rice Hughes of Enough Is Enough Explains Why."

NOTE ADDED 13 FEBRUARY 2012:

Dean Marney confirms his opposition to the dogma, and you can hear him speak on the topic here:

• "Viewing P-rn in Public Libraries Spurs Debate," by Ross Reynolds, KUOW 94.5 FM Puget Sound Public Radio, 1 February 2012 interview with ALA OIF Director Barbara Jones and Library Director Dean Marney.

Dean Marney's arguments are so persuasive that he even gets the ALA to reverse its years-long false misinformation on library filters:

• "ALA Admits Library Filters Work; Barbara Jones Bursts Her Own Breast Cancer Bubble," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 3 February 2012.

NOTE ADDED 28 FEBRUARY 2012:

And now the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, Ernest Istook, is also pointing out the ALA's dogma:

• CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library P-rnography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected

NOTE ADDED 10 APRIL 2012:

The jig is up for ALA/ACLU excuses allowing p-rnography on public library computers:

• "Order Granting NCRL's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Closing File," Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District, No. CV-06-0327-EFS, United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 10 April 2012 (URL= http://tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins).
• "RURAL LIBRARY WINS P-RN BATTLE AGAINST SEATTLE ACLU," News Release, North Central Regional Library, 10 April 2012.
• "Eastern Wash. Library Wins P-rn Battle Against Seattle ACLU," by KING 5 News, KING 5 News, 10 April 2012, hyperlinks in original:

A federal judge has ruled that an Eastern Washington library system is not violating the state constitution by using filters to block internet p-rn on library computers. 

Judge Edward F. Shea, Eastern Washington Federal District Court, ruled in favor of the North Central Regional Library.  The case was brought against the rural eastern Washington library district by the ACLU of Seattle.  The ACLU accused the library district of having an overly broad filtering policy. 

The ruling followed a decision handed down from the Washington State Supreme Court in May, 2010.  The Supreme Court found that the North Central Regional Library, the largest library district in the State of Washington, did not violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution with its policy of filtering the internet. 

"Taxpayers are the winners in this case," said Library Director Dean Marney.  "Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child p-rnography or to become illegal casinos.  Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages." 

The NCRL, which represents 28 libraries in the central part of the state, has admitted the filtering policy puts them in the minority.  Other libraries have taken the stance of non-censorship, citing First Amendment rights.

Hey, it's legal!  Media, stop calling it "censorship."  It's not censorship!  The jig is up!  There is no First Amendment right to p-rn in public libraries!  Libraries know this, especially now, let alone since US v. ALA in 2003, so saying otherwise is simply and intentionally false.

Wanna join people stopping libraries from misleading their communities on p-rn in public libraries, etc.?  Join the Watchdogs!


NOTE ADDED 26 JULY 2012:

After months of essentially ignoring Dean Marney's decisive victories in Washington state and federal courts, the ALA has finally issued a statement.  It basically says Dean Marney's victories apply only to his libraries and no others, so do not use Internet filters or there may be grave legal consequences.  I will be writing way more about this ALA deception soon, including about the possible unprofessional and unethical conduct of its author, but in the meantime, see:

• "Why Recent Court Decisions Don’t Change the Rules on Filtering," by Theresa Chmara, Esq., American Libraries, 24 July 2012.

NOTE ADDED 8 JANUARY 2015:

I am updating hyperlinks, and I added an inline note about ALA's top filtering/censorship expert censoring out my comments then eventually deleting her post.  ALA is always right because there is never opposition because they don't report on it or delete it when they can.


NOTE ADDED 9 SEPTEMBER 2016:

I am updating hyperlinks and changing wording accordingly.

As an aside, the American Library Association was directly involved in a federal lawsuit that went on for nearly two years in an effort to silence me and drain me of time and money.  ALA even taught librarians to file fake lawsuits as it could run up costs for child p-rnography whistleblowers up to $500,000.00 to mount a defense. Ultimately I prevailed.  But it goes to show just how hard ALA is working to keep you from reading the above.

Also added the following:

It is notable that Sarah Houghton, ALA's leading expert on Internet filters, helped create false claims of sexual harassment against another librarian, thereby destroying his career, and was the only member of the three fakers not to admit to the fakery.  See:

• "TeamHarpy Faked Sexual Harassment, Hurting True Efforts to Stop It," by Dan Kleinman, Sexual Harassment of Librarians, 26 March 2015.  
• "#TeamHarpy: Another Ugly Story of ‘Progressive’ Vigilantism," by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, 27 March 2015.
• "My Public Statement Concerning My Libel Claim Against Lisa Rabey and Nina De Jesus #TeamHarpy,"by Joe Murphy, Library Future, updated 25 March 2015.

NOTE ADDED 29 MARCH 2023:

Text updated to add a hyphen into the p word to bypass the censors.

Obama Nominee Carla Hayden is Unfit for Administration Post; Dionne Mack-Harvin May Go to Jail for Following Hayden's E-Rate Advice

Dionne Mack-Harvin may be going to jail, along with some members the Brooklyn Public Library Board of Trustees.  Ethics charges may be brought against the attorney members of the board as a result.  Why?  For E-Rate fraud and conspiracy to commit E-Rate fraud.

Dionne Mack-Harvin obviously chooses to allow the matter of a potential $2.5M fraud to drop by ignoring it.  I have asked her for an interview and the production of documents that may reveal the truth, but she has chosen not to respond.

Here is something she cannot ignore:  people who defraud the E-Rate program go to jail.  People who conspire to defraud the E-Rate program also go to jail.  Dionne Mack-Harvin may be guilty of both, in my opinion.

And who may be ultimately responsible?  Carla Hayden, President Obama's choice for the National Museum & Library Services [IMLS] Board, and former American Library Association [ALA] President.   Carla Hayden's ALA recommended, on her orders as ALA President, the very means the Brooklyn Public Library used to defraud the federal government.  And now Carla Hayden is nominated to be a member of the same federal government she advised libraries nationwide to defraud.  To this day the ALA makes the same recommendation.

In 1997, a publisher was held liable for a crime committed by someone who read a book it published on how to commit crime then who followed that advice and killed three people.  Similarly, Carla Hayden published advice on how to circumvent the E-Rate law, libraries follow that advice, and some may now face criminal charges.

I do not blame the Obama administration one iota for nominating Carla Hayden.  I am hoping, however, that people will consider the evidence I am bringing to the fore, connecting the dots as it were, about the unfitness of Carla Hayden to serve in the post for which she was nominated.  I hope Carla Hayden withdraws from the offer or is otherwise prevented from forcing her past actions and inactions on the entire nation.

What is E-Rate?

What is the E-Rate program?  Please read "Overview of the E-Rate Program" in the "Information" filing in U.S. v. Rowner, Case No. 08 CR-20047-01-02 CM/JPO (D. Kan. 23 April 2008).

US v. Rowner E-Rate Fraud

US v. Rowner.  What is that?  That is the case where people were found guilty of defrauding and conspiring to defraud the E-Rate program.  That is the case that supports my speculation that Dionne Mack-Harvin and members of the board of trustees may go to jail.  Here are media clips on the matter:

• "NJ Businessmen Sentenced to Jail for E-Rate Fraud," by Grant Gross, IDG News Service, 5 February 2010.
• "Two New Jersey Executives Each Sentenced to 27 Months in Jail for Roles in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the Federal E-Rate Program," by US DOJ, US Department of Justice, 4 February 2010.
• "Two More Indicted on E-Rate Fraud Charges; Six People and 12 Companies Have Now Pleaded or Been Found Guilty in the DOJ's Ongoing Investigation Into Fraud at the E-Rate Program," by Grant Gross,  IDG News Service, 25 April 2008.

Look at the specific offenses committed:  please read "Plea Agreement Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B) [Benjamin Rowner] (07/10/2008)" from U.S. v. Rowner,

Public Libraries May Be Committing E-Rate Fraud

Bearing that in mind, consider how public library directors and public library boards of trustees may be acting in substantially the same manner so as to obtain substantially the same goal.  Consider $2.5M may have been fraudulently obtained by the Brooklyn Public Library.  Consider $0.5M may have been fraudulently obtained by the Brownsville Public Library.  Consider they are the tip of the iceberg.

The American Library Association Aids and Abets E-Rate Fraud

Consider further the role of the American Library Association [ALA] in this fraud.  The ALA actually recommends taking action that it is aware may be illegal, but couches that action with language about checking with local attorneys:

Again, we must caution, however, that the options described above are untested in the courts and in the FCC, and there is no guarantee that they necessarily would be deemed legally sufficient.  Libraries considering these or other options, therefore, must consult their own legal counsel for an analysis of any specific policy. 

See:  "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Legal FAQ," American Library Association, 20 October 2009, emphasis in original.  

What makes this really bad is the ALA took on itself the responsibility of guiding libraries on the proper response to US v. ALA, and that response is to violate the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law, then tell libraries to get their own legal advice.  

ALA President Carla Hayden

Who initially made this recommendation at the ALA?  Former ALA President Carla Hayden.  She was the ALA President when US v. ALA was decided.  She promised the ALA would guide libraries on how to respond to the law:

In the wake of the CIPA decision, the priorities of the association are to:

• Provide libraries with authoritative information regarding their choices and CIPA requirements, as they evaluate options and make decisions regarding the new legal requirements.  ....

In order to accomplish these goals, a variety of long and short-term efforts will be pursued by ALA, its committees, divisions and offices. These activities include:

• Providing information on options available to libraries, including the choice of either applying or not applying for federal funds subject to CIPA provisions....

See : "CIPA Decision Response: A Statement from ALA President Carla D. Hayden and the ALA Executive Board," by Carla D. Hayden, American Library Association, 25 July 2003.

She later restated her responsibility: "'The ALA is committed to providing practical, real-life assistance to our members, as well as developing best practices and ideals for the profession,' said ALA President Carla Hayden."

But guidance was never delivered.  Instead, recommendations were made to skirt the law with the "caveat" to hire lawyers in case the ALA recommendations are wrong.   The ALA recommended the very means the Brooklyn Public Library used to skirt the law:  "The Internet terminals could then offer adult patrons the option of Internet access with the filter enabled or disabled.  ....  Upon the patron's assent, the terminal could provide unfiltered Internet access."  When I called the FCC, I was specifically told allowing patrons to unfilter computers for themselves violates the law.  In seven years since 2003 when US v. ALA was decided the ALA cannot call and make the same determination?  The Brooklyn Public Library uses this ALA means to evade the law.  It knows it is wrong as it says in writing something different that it allows in practice:  "adults may request that the filtering technology be disabled, and they need not explain the reason for the request."  Requesting unfiltered access is legal; clicking an on screen button to obviate the requirement to request access violates the law.

In addition, notice Carla Hayden gets top billing from the White House as a "veteran of the Chicago public library system."  As CBS 2 Investigator Dave Savini exposed:

Online pornography is so clear and evident at Chicago libraries that we could actually see a patron looking at porn simply by standing on a city street and looking through the window. ....  [T]here are no guidelines against viewing pornography at Chicago libraries.  Even convicted sex offenders can use those computers to access sexually graphic images.

Worse, the Chicago public library system actively covers up crimes by not calling the police.  Oh yes, they have a policy to call the police, but the practice is otherwise:

The 2 Investigators obtained three years of internal incident reports from Chicago public libraries.

They reveal sex crimes ranging from flashers to inappropriate touching, and sex acts in bathrooms and men viewing child pornography online.

One-third of the offenses involve people masturbating while at computers.

Other reports include a registered sex offender caught masturbating, another sex offender and his friend trying to take a boy's picture and a man looking at porn while carrying a knife and handcuffs.

"A lot of parents let their children go to the library and do their homework and they have no idea what is going on up there," Hanson said.

Police are called in some cases, but not others.

A couple disrobing in a locked bathroom stall was arrested, but some men caught masturbating in plain sight were simply asked to leave for the day.

"Maybe some people make light of things, but what happens when a child gets abducted and gets killed?" Hanson asked.

Now here comes the stiff arm, the same stiff arm I expect from Carla Hayden:

We repeatedly tried to get an interview with Chicago Public Library officials. Instead, a spokesperson gave us a statement saying the library policy "... Is to call the Chicago Police Department when anything criminal happens."

Also, when staff members fail to properly handle incidents and don't call Chicago Police, they are retrained.

CBS 2 Investigators talked to registered sex offender Michael Connelly about viewing pornography in a Chicago library.  He says what he did was legal.

The source of the above quotations is "How Safe Are Our Kids In Public Libraries?  Convicted Sex Offenders Have Free And Legal Access To Pornography At Chicago Libraries," by Dave Savini, CBS, 21 December 2006, now available in archived format.

What could be worse than not calling the police?  How about thwarting the police, by covering up for a registered sex offender, no less:

The officer then stated he is a registered child sex offender. I had seen this man many times before in the library but had no clue. [Connelly] was later released and not charged with anything because [I was told that] although viewing obscene material in public is against the law, it is perfectly legal in a library -- in plain view of children and adult patrons.

The police were not allowed to retrieve the sites [Connelly] was looking at due to privacy issues with the library, so there was no way to prove that the images were of minors. ....

There are multiple reports of people fondling themselves, [of fondling] children, and even child abductions by these predators in our libraries. There are laws already in place to prevent these things from happening but are not being enforced inside of a library because of the first amendment right of "free speech."

Source:  "IFI's Smith Interviewed for Chicago's CBS Investigative Report on Criminal Activity in Neighborhood Public Libraries, by Illinois Family Institute, 21 December 2006, emphasis added.

Besides all that, Carla Hayden has been a fierce critic of the USA PATRIOT Act:

Hayden was so vocal in her fight against this part of the Patriot Act that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft personally telephoned her and promised to declassify reports related to FBI surveillance. Undaunted, Hayden was instrumental in leading the ALA to team with the American Booksellers Association for a signature drive and petition to Congress to revise this section of the Patriot Act. For this effort, Ms. Magazine named her one of its ten Women of the Year for 2003.

Source:  "Carla D. Hayden," by Carol Brennan, Answers.com, undated.

Be that as it may, her opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act is shared by a variety of organizations.  So that does not concern me as much as her activities for which the ALA is the lead organization, such as in advising on filtering public libraries.

Liberty Counsel Missed One

Liberty Counsel published a report "document[ing] the beliefs, words and actions of more than 100 radicals that Obama has hand-picked to 'change' our nation."  See "Liberty Counsel Report Documents Obama’s Radical Nominees and Appointments," by Liberty Counsel, LC.org, 27 January 2010.

I read the report only so much as to see if Carla Hayden is in it, and I take no stand on it otherwise.  Hayden is not in the report.  Liberty Counsel missed one!  See, "Obama's Appointees and Nominees," by Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, undated (circa 27 January 2010).  This report has 72 pages and 862 footnotes—and I thought I heavily linked my research!  I urge Liberty Counsel to consider investigating what I have reported, then add Carla Hayden to its list.

Carla Hayden in the IMLS:  The Fox Minding the Henhouse

This same Carla Hayden has just been nominated by President Barack Obama to have a big say over what goes on in American libraries.  Now the ALA solution of do nothing and skirting the law is coming to the United States government.  Now the Chicago Public Library anything-goes policy is coming to the United States government.  It is like the fox minding the henhouse.

As library law expert Mary Minow has noted, "[U]nder ... the Children's Internet Protection Act, ... the library and IMLS may come to an agreement to bring the library into compliance."

Under Carla Hayden, the IMLS will never bring any library into any compliance.  She was the ALA President at the time the ALA lost US v. ALA and she promised to provide guidance to libraries.  Not only did she not do that, but she advised libraries how to skirt the law.  She then used CYA language to protect the ALA.  Carla Hayden will never bring any library to comply with any filtering law.  She must not be allowed to join the IMLS.

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors is a book that advises how to be a hit man.  Someone read the book then murdered three people.  Paladin Press, the publisher of the book, was sued for "aiding and abetting" the murderer.  Rice v. Paladin Enterprises held the publisher liable for the triple murder.

On the night of March 3, 1993, readied by these instructions and steeled by these seductive adjurations from Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors , a copy of which was subsequently found in his apartment, James Perry brutally murdered Mildred Horn, her eight-year-old quadriplegic son Trevor, and Trevor's nurse, Janice Saunders, by shooting Mildred Horn and Saunders through the eyes and by strangling Trevor Horn.

Libraries are readied by Carla Hayden's instructions and steeled by her ALA's seductive adjurations from "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Legal FAQ," the substance of which is reprinted on many library web sites.  As a result, children remain exposed to the very harms the law was enacted to stop.

As I read through the case, I found further similarities, and I urge others to take a look as well.  For example, see this:

However, while even speech advocating lawlessness has long enjoyed protections under the First Amendment, it is equally well established that speech, which, in its effect, is tantamount to legitimately proscribable nonexpressive conduct, may itself be legitimately proscribed, punished, or regulated incidentally to the constitutional enforcement of generally applicable statutes. 

[T]he First Amendment does not necessarily pose a bar to liability for aiding and abetting a crime, even when such aiding and abetting takes the form of the spoken or written word.

....

The cloak of the First Amendment envelops critical, but abstract, discussions of existing laws, but lends no protection to speech which urges the listeners to commit violations of current law.  ....  It was no theoretical discussion of non-compliance with laws; action was urged; the advice was heeded, and false forms were filed.

In this E-Rate matter, the false forms filed would be any of these.  "Action was urged; the advice was heeded, and false forms were filed."  This is the very documentation I have asked the Brooklyn Public Library to produce but it has remained silent.

Also, like Paladin Enterprises, Carla Hayden and the ALA intended to assist libraries in skirting the law.  Oh you just have to read the Rice case for yourselves.  The similarities are striking.

Conclusion

Carla Hayden is unfit for the post to which she was nominated.  She promised to guide libraries on following E-Rate law.  Instead, she recommended skirting the law (by advising libraries to allow adults to unfilter computers for themselves) while advising libraries to get their own attorneys.  As a result, some libraries have been skirting the law as the ALA recommends.  Some libraries go further than the ALA recommends, like the Brownsville Public Library which illegally obtains E-Rate funding for Internet access but does not filter "adult" computers.   The result is libraries nationwide continue to endanger children by the very means the E-Rate law was designed to curtail and the US Supreme Court approved.  And it can legitimately be laid at the feet of Carla Hayden.

Carla Hayden must not be confirmed to an administration post having control over libraries nationwide, unless the anything-goes Chicago Public Library is your model library, and unless advising people to skirt a law that protects children is your own goal.  Given that a publisher that published information on how to commit crimes was held liable for the crimes committed thereby, Carla Hayden may similarly be held liable for E-Rate fraud in some future case.

Regarding the Brooklyn Public Library, it appears the library is acting in a manner that may result in the jailing of several of its members along with the return of huge amounts of money fraudulently obtained.  The recent US v. Rowner E-Rate fraud and conspiracy jailings strengthen this opinion.  If Dionne Mack-Harvin continues to evade my request for an interview and the production of documents, I will consider following up on this other request: 

Anyone with information concerning violations of the E-Rate program or other related anticompetitive conduct is urged to call the Antitrust Division's Chicago Field Office at 312-353-7530 or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

Dionne Mack-Harvin may go to jail for following Carla Hayden's E-Rate fraud scheme that has become standard ALA policy.  Incidents like this will only increase with Carla Hayden in the IMLS.

That's my opinion, backed up with reliable sources.  What is your opinion?  Are people supposed to accept defrauding the federal government just because it the local public library that is doing it?  Should the ALA continue to advise libraries to skirt the law?  Should ALA policy become national policy?  Please comment below.

Best Wishes to President Clinton

President Clinton is recovering from a serious heart procedure.  I wish him a speedy recovery, and it will be important for him to continue to follow his cardiologist's advice as the years go on and despite his feeling better. 

It was President Clinton who signed the Children's Internet Protection Act into law in 2000.  President Clinton, get well soon.

.