Showing posts with label Andy Woodworth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Woodworth. Show all posts

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Librarians Admit Banned Books Week Is a Hoax, Bash Trump and Breitbart, Then Censor It All

Gregg Whitmore:
Thoughts? Seems wrong to me on numerous levels...

Library Bans 'Clinton Cash: A Graphic Novel' from Its Shelves
A Florida library denied a woman's request to put a New York Times bestselling graphic novel that criticizes Hillary Clinton on its shelves.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/florida-library-bans-clinton-cash-graphic-novel-from-shelves/
WWW.BREITBART.COM
--
Andy Woodworth: Yeah, linking Breitbart on the Think Tank is never a great move.
Andy Woodworth: Edit: The only reviews I see are on Goodreads and Amazon. A quick check of the library's website shows that they own it as a book, audiobook, paperback, OD eBook, and OD audiobook.
The library isn't wrong to say that they have plenty of copies of that book and in multiple formats; that's certainly true. Whether it should be added as a graphic novel for a book that is already a year old is pretty up in the air. I'm not sure what it adds to the collection other than yet another format for the same material. Personally, I'd add it but only because we have the space. Otherwise, I wouldn't.
Crissy Hensley: The local news version adds that the library has accepted 35 out of 39 of the patron's suggestions in the last 2 years. I wonder if she complained about the other refusals to this extent...
Philip Levie: Or anywhere. Ever.
--
Terry Moore: “We want all the books on the shelves. We want the people to make the decision,” Lhota told WUFT-TV. She wants "all the books" on the shelf. Will she vote for a bond to expand the library to the size of the Western US? Not having every book on the shelf is not censorship, it's Collection Development.
--
Richard Sandstrom: If she was the only person requesting it, no matter what it is, most libraries will say no. It is a matter of limited space, limited budget, and demand. The standard here is to offer to interlibrary loan it to her from a library that does have it.
Michelle Eisele: In this case, the article says she offered to purchase it and donate it to the library and they have said they will refuse to shelve it. On the other hand, it does appear that they have it in 11 other formats, so I can see why they could say no. It's not exactly censorship to not want to shelve the graphic novel version of a book they have already...in that many formats. It does seem a little petty to refuse a donation. I can honestly see both sides of this issue.
Jill Grunenwald: Michelle Eisele donations are not free. They still cost staff time and resources to process.
Richard Sandstrom: Looking into it further, the graphic novel seems popular and based on the statistics I looked up on the county, the library should have a copy. There are several copies of Clinton Cash the book and they seem to be circulating well. Depending on the policy the library may not be able to accept the book, but it is surprising that I do not see it in the catalog. But, that does not mean it hasn't been ordered and I know nothing of the library's internal structure and policies that really do have more to do with this situation than the book itself.
Megan Esseltine Hathaway: Michelle Eisele Donating a book does not give a patron decision-making power over a collection. If the library refuses to buy it for reasons other than cost, denying the request to accept a donation makes sense. We do nto accept donations that come with such stipulations-they are given to the Friends book shop (from which we can snag items for the shelves) or the patron can keep their book and hope we see value in buying the item.
Michelle Eisele: I'm not purely advocating for the patron, I said I could see BOTH sides of the issue.
--
Nicole Renée Gustavsen: Interesting choice of the term "banned" in the title when the lede clearly indicates something different.
Andy Woodworth: Didn't buy it in all available formats, therefore BANNED
Diane Lapsley: Nothing draws an eye like "banned,' except maybe "aliens."
--
JP Porcaro: lol breit bart
--
John Sandstrom: Hopefully the library has a collection development policy in place that justifies their decision.
JP Porcaro: i dont even think you need a policy - librarians are obsessed with policy - a simple "we don't have space for everything" will suffice - policy or no policy doesn't prevent misleading briet bart articles like this
Andy Woodworth: Yes, you do need a policy. You need something you can show people (new staff, stakeholders, community, whatever) that says "here's how we decide things". If you say "we don't have space" and don't have a document that backs you up, it makes you look like you just made it up.
Shawn Bliss: I'm with Andy on this one. Carefully crafted policy is the CYA gift that never stops giving. Especially for public libraries.
Sally Breedlove: Yes, a policy is in place for any decline to purchase
John Pappas: A policy will back up your decisions when breitbart attacks!
--
Sarah Dentan: Declining to add =/= "banning".
Tim Spalding: I hold no brief for this book whatsoever—the point is general—but this sort of argument falls apart, at least at the margins. Consider a bright-line case, the history of South African public libraries systematically declining to buy popular, well-known and much-praised books by black people, or that might seem to undermine Apartheid, even if they had not been explicitly sanctioned by the government. None of us would shrink from saying that they had "banned" them. None of us would say "Not adding isn't banning!" or "But they had collection- development policy!"
--
Gregg Whitmore: Admittedly I'm not familiar with Breitbart , which might be part of the issue. And a good CD policy, multiple formats, money and space are always issues. Having a colleague in Mississippi that has to deal with outside politics constantly thwarting her ideas gave me pause when I read this . As a medical librarian, politics rarely plays a part in my CD policy, but I'm always interested to see what issues other librarians are facing. Thanks all!
David Rachlin: Brietbart is a conspiracy spewing tea party mouthpiece that routinely publishes inflammatory headlines that mask the true story. They purposely try to rile up conservatives with non-stories to take their minds of the real issues in the world.
John Ward Beekman: And the editor is now a major manager of a presidential campaign. No points for guessing which one.
Terry Moore: Pssst, it's the racist one.
--
Janet Genchur Lukas: I once had a director take the swiftboating book on John Kerry off the shelves. He asked me where it came from and I answered that it was a donation. He opened the front door and tossed the book out the door. "it's missing."
Moni Rae: Wow.
John Jack: That is appalling.
--
Ben Kenobii: Sounds more like a collection issue than a political one, huge beat up
--
Alma Chavarria: So you all know Breitbart is a xenophobic, misogynistic, racist website from the alt-right. Right?
--
Edward Pellaeon: Possibly two things going on here. They have the books but they're all checked out or someone is going out of their way to not shelve them. Most likely the former. With enough attention now, we'll see more copies once county and library board get media pressure despite any policies currently in place.
--
Sally Breedlove: I work at this library. Suffice to say there is a lot more to this story. Also we didn't ban it.
Michelle Eisele: Can you share what's more to the story? Because while I was reading the article I definitely had that thought, we're obviously missing a lot here.
Brittany Turner: Michelle Eisele probably better that she not. May not be authorized to speak on behalf of the library, and probably better that she not open her personal Facebook account up to public records requests (which may have already happened with this post).
Michelle Eisele: I totally understand if she's not able to share, but I'm curious so I just thought I would ask!
Brittany Turner: Michelle Eisele agree... I'm assuming there will be more to come in the media, or on the library's Facebook page if they have one
Sally Breedlove: I'm the Facebook person for my library. We've already gotten people commenting, but I don't work outside of reg. hours. I can't say more, but if this were happening to your library you would know there was a lot of backstory.
Gregg Whitmore: Thanks for the insight, Sally. Much appreciated!
--
Emily Whitmire Sluder: I wouldn't add it just because there would not be much circulation of it, and interest would wane more quickly than say, most other graphic novels.
Glynn Dowrgeun: Right, we have just a few weeks until the election.
Erik Wilkinson: Assume much Emily Whitmire Sluder?
Emily Whitmire Sluder: Haha!!!! I know you're joking! Our adults requesting the Clinton cash book would not want to read the graphic novel. You should have seen the uproar when Janet Evanovich had a graphic novel come out. "You mean it's not a real book?!" And our graphic novel fans usually stick to Walking Dead, game of thrones, um yeah... Clientele differences. Not to say other adults wouldn't like it or current gn fans wouldn't like it. There just aren't enough to justify! Plus to me it is like all the other political books about candidates. Interest wanes.
--
Glynn Dowrgeun: That's not "banning'. That's "declining". A responsible journalist would learn that librarians have to decline crackpot offers of additions to the library all the time. And noncrackpot offers too. Breitbart is, of course, mischaracterizing for maximum sensational effect.
Philip Levie: Breitbart just got shared on my fb. This is one strike towards me unfollowing the Think Tank.
--
Johna Von Behrens: "have even offered to pay for the book and donate it to the library." I dont see the issue here??
Brittany Turner: I have never heard of a library system that adds every donated item to a collection. Collection development policies exist and for good reason.
Alma Chavarria: We have a process that includes reading reviews from professional publications, input from librarians and collection development staff, and consideration on whether a book fits in our collection. Few books get a pass without going through all the steps.
Mike Cendejas: I used to work at a small bible college (sub-50 students) and their policy was to accept any donations from pastors and bump them to the head of the line for cataloging. We had 19 copies of the first Left Behind book. All cataloged and on the shelf.
Mara Connolly: That does not sound like a good use of shelf space!
--
Lara Faekitty: Depends on the quality of the book and demand.
--
Philip Levie: Audiobook on CD, Ebook, Print, AND E-Audiobook available. The librarians thought there would not be demand in GN format beyond this one very squeaky wheel. Move along, non-issue.
--
Lisa Eichholtz: Libraries can't buy everything requested and not adding something to the collection isn't banning it.
--
Ann Clare LeZotte: A local article with a bit more information. https://www.wuft.org/news/2016/09/20/libraries-denial-of-anti-clinton-book-draws-frustration/
Libraries’ Denial Of Anti-Clinton Book Draws Frustration
In mid-August, Ann Lhota, a Newberry resident, requested that the Alachua County Library District purchase “Clinton Cash: A Graphic Novel,
WUFT.ORG
--
Wanda Mae Huffaker: I think I might have thought to myself: " It's a political year. Perhaps, I can find a little room for a display and display every political related book I can. I think I can get it, and every format, every Trump book, every voting book...everything and see if we can get circ up. It might not sit on the shelves. THEN, next year, when interest is down, we will reevaluate what our needs are. It's a win/win, and nobody calls the press".
--
Nishan Stepak: If the decision is based on a disapproval of the ideas expressed and desire to keep those ideas away from public access then it fits the definition of censorship.
Jill Grunenwald: But that's not what is happening here. They already own the same book in multiple formats.
Nishan Stepak: A graphic novel is a different style of presentation than a book. Visual narrative and storyboards have a different process of creation than novels. A graphic novel is much closer to a film than a book. The process of creation is different. A writer of novels for the most part cannot create the visual imagery in a comic or graphic novel. The content is significantly different because of the images.
Megan Esseltine Hathaway: The audience for standard print vs. graphic novel are not the same audience. I would probably not purchase it for my collection, either, without a patron request (I don't get a ton, and am in a position to say yes to most of them).
--
Breitbart News’ Worst Headlines
Media Matters looks back at the some of Breitbart News’ most outrageous and over-the-top headlines during...
MEDIAMATTERS.ORG
Erik Wilkinson: I agree that Breitbart is a shill for Trump, however it's also important to note that MMfA is a pro-Hillary organ (in fact she was one of its founders).
--
Alma Chavarria: What say we look at the fine authoritative source that Breitbart is and ponder whether this site should be instrumental in collection development decisions. Hm?
--
Diane Lapsley: Sure hope they circ a copy of "The Art of the Deal" or there'll be all sorts of hell....
--
Nitko Odvaseg Poslovanja: If they have 11 copies in the catalog and they're not on the shelf, then they're all checked out.
--
Nitko Odvaseg Poslovanja: Yeah. That library system has multiple copies of that book currently available for checkout.
Jack Baur: They don't have the graphic novel.
--
Erik Wilkinson: I remember my public library carrying a a pro-Obama graphic novel back in 2008 so I do not see the harm in providing a timely and relevant one that may be critical of the Clintons. After all, a good library should have something to offend everyone. And as a personal aside, I think that as librarians we should further encourage the publishing of dense, complicated topics in GN format; it serves the public well.
John Ward Beekman: this line from the better-sourced news story makes a troubling point: "After the denial, the library district purchased “A Child’s First Book of Trump,” a satirical picture book that mocks Clinton’s Republican opponent, Donald Trump, Lhota said."
Erik Wilkinson: *sigh...*
Harriet Bedell: "better-sourced"?
John Ward Beekman: WUFT, a public radio station, vs. Breitbart
Harriet Bedell: ok, bc public radio isn't liberally leaning at all. Very subjective. At first I thought WUFT was you trying to cuss me out! lol
John Ward Beekman: liberal "leaning" perhaps, but with that outmoded sense of propriety and commitment to at least attempt objectivity, vs. an avowedly partisan mission.
--
Tim Spalding: One thing I'd get into a collection-development policy: "We may add fewer hot political books than people expect." Because books like that seldom retain interest over the long term.
--
Jen Crouse: Just searched catalog. No longer appears to be there. Odd.
Jack Baur: It doesn't sound like the ever had the graphic novel -- they said that having the audiobook, ebook, hardcover, and movie was enough.
Jen Crouse: Did you search the catalog?
--
Tim Spalding: Final comment:
This is Breitbart bull. But I'd be very interested in a systematic analysis of political bias in library collections. (One could compare similar, but politically differing titles that sold equally across library collections. One could also look at holdings- vs-check-out ratios. There are lots of ways.) My gut tells me bias happens, and that it differs in both direction and magnitude in different places. And while I understand the various defenses, a significant systematic mismatch between patron demand and library holdings--all other things being equal--should be a concern.
--
Jack Baur: If they've got multiple patron requests and people offering to provide copies of the book, I would say they are quickly running out of legitimate reasons to have it, unless they can fall back on a plurality of professional reviews.
Tim Spalding: Library collections are a planned, intentional, curated thing. You can't have a library filled with conservative titles because local conservatives donate books any more than you can have a library filled with liberal titles because liberals donate them.
JP Porcaro: Tim Spalding yea, tim is right re: curation.
as an aside, conservative think tanks spend huge money buying up books by talk radio folks and the like - which in turn, rises them up on the NY time best seller charts - which makes it *seem* at first glance like a legit reason to buy those books. without someone curating the collection (aka, just letting your collection be steered by donations, ofr the ny times list, or the whim of the few folks who fill out book requests). I don't see demand by a few folks as a legit reason to include the book.
JP Porcaro: this is also the reason why I dont include any of the DOZENS of great-looking hard-cover titles that we are constantly getting shipped here, unsolicited, from L. Ron Hubbard's folks. One or two books is enough.
Tim Spalding: JP: There's truth to that, but popularity manipulation is hardly restricted to right-wing outlets. (It's gotten to the point where, if a book is called an "Amazon bestseller," you should *expect* it was so for a day or less. The algorithm is absurdly sensitive to spikes, and, if you time your purchases right, you can make it spike for very little.)
FWIW, even if nobody you or I know would read it, Clinton Cash is no small book.
JP Porcaro: Tim Spalding even a big book isnt necessarily right for every, or even "the average", collection is what im saying- maybe i should have left politics out. i dont trust the 'charts' at all, for sure.
Tim Spalding: JP Porcaro There's no real way to dispute an individual case. It's too mired in empirical questions none of us can really solve. The larger, philosophical question is worth it, however. And, as I've said, I'd love to see a systematic "big data" analysis of political bias in libraries.
(Between the commercial and the library holdings data at my company, I've got more than enough to do that. But, fun as it would be—I *live* for what's now called "big data" analysis—I can't mine my customers' data for that sort of thing.)
Tim Spalding: Aside: I once did such an analysis of LibraryThing users' libraries--picking a dozen paradigmatic "red" and "blue" titles, and then inferring the red- or blue-ness of millions of other titles, as well as of the members collections. The red/blue divide is very real in bookland—most people's collections lined up neatly on one side. I never pushed it live because, well, that sort of thing, even if only seen by you, can get into people's noses like pepper. I envy OKCupid's data team.
JP Porcaro: Tim Spalding that is truly interesting!!! fictional title divides? red folks reading some fiction while blue folks read another?
Tim Spalding: Right. This is unexpected?
JP Porcaro: Tim Spalding not unexpected as much as unrealized. we - myself included - like to live in our little enlightened bubbles.
Tim Spalding: The effect is very strong. I remember early on noticing that "people who like The Mists of Avalon like Our Bodies Ourselves." On one level, it was silly—people don't expect recommendations to cross the fiction/non-fiction divide, unless the subject matter is identical. On another level, I'd seen the two rubbing shoulders on half the bookshelves of my Cambridge, Massachusetts childhood.
--
Jack Baur: Also I'm really disappointed in Chuck Dixon right now.
Jan Arrah: Why? If we're talking about the same CHuck Dixon, comic book writer, his political beliefs have been well known for decades. It's one of the reasons people threw a fit when he was picked to write the Grifter/Midnighter series several years ago.
--
JP Porcaro: as a related issue here: this is partially librarianship's fault. as long as we are out there banging the "banned book!!" drum for books that actually arent "banned" and are widely available everywhere, this is what we get. We get other people bending the definition of a banned book just as we ourselves bend it.
Michelle Eisele: That's a very interesting point. We understand the difference, but they might not always get it.
JP Porcaro: Michelle Eisele in this case, they might actually be even closer to the REAL definition of a banned book than librarians use - our banned books are available in libraries, this book isnt.
Tim Spalding: I think there's an excellent case against stocking this book. But your point is also where I get off the bus. Things seems to boil down as follows: Something is banned ("banned and challenged," but "banned" for public purposes) if a cranky private citizen writes a comment card against an available book, and the library staff appropriately do nothing whatsoever about it. But nothing that trained librarians do in the field of acquisition and weeding, although government employees, can ever quality for a spot on the banned-and-challenged continuum.
JP Porcaro: Tim Spalding I think we are saying the same thing? We librarians call it a "banned" book if we decided it should be there against the wishes of a one/a few people, but we'd never dare call it a "banned" book if we ourselves decided it shouldn't be on the shelves? 
JP Porcaro: which, btw, is my big issue with banned books week.
Michelle Eisele: I actually do think you guys are making the same point.
Tim Spalding: Right. We are. I'm just saying it in a lot more words.
JP Porcaro: oh ha sorry when you said "get off the bus" i thought you meant we weren't saying the same thing
Tim Spalding: Bus, not train. The "librarian common wisdom bus" or something.
Also the way ALA's list is presented as real, verifiable and statistical data, but is really an impressionistic marketing tool. I found that episode very depressing. There are few topics I care more about than freedom of expression, so statistical and methodological sloppiness here steams me up.
Wanda Mae Huffaker: We will never report on ourselves anyway, because we justify everything we do so that we are never wrong. Thus the reason we aren't reported to OIF.
--
Jan Arrah: I'd just like to point out that despite what people seem to think, Breitbart is not alone in the idea of misleading headlines (though theirs is very specific and only talking about the graphic novel..) and yes they used a sensational headline.. but so has every single news outlet I've ever seen and they often have a headline that is COMPLETELY different than the story inside all to manipulate people on the headline alone.
And yes, I think this is a misleading headline.. but then again we do over use the word ban in our society and as JP Porcaro pointed out.. it no longer means what we think it means. I remember not that long ago people getting very annoyed with me for pointing out an anti-gun ad that stated that Little Red Riding Hood was banned in America, but guns weren't that it wasn't accurate.. and people happily stood by banned in THAT case.. (though someone did make a more accurate ad..)

Source of the above, started 20 November 2016:

Source of archival copy, collected 25 November 2016:
(where ALATT = ALA Think Tank)
The archival copy shows all the typical Facebook graphics, notations, and indentations that I removed from my republication above for readability/searchability reasons.

I know of no other source for this post/document that the ALA people censored.  I'm happy to resurrect it and make it available for public discussion.

As stated, the above discussion has been censored from the ALA Think Group public Facebook group.  It now appears as follows—note the statement in the lower left (and the "revolution" graphic of the Black Lives Matters hate group that ALA pushes into public schools):

"This post has been removed or could not be loaded."
Actually, it was censored by ALA censorship police.
I was able to obtain a copy, before it was censored, of course.  I republish it as a courtesy to those seeking to expose how the American Library Association [ALA] harms communities.  It contains admissions and statements that go against the usual picture of good librarians caring for school children and communities.  These librarians are instead mocking patrons and otherwise showing they are social justice warriors, not civil servants acting in the public good, actively working to shape what patrons see.

Not all, of course.  Some librarians did indeed stand up for patrons and for common sense.  But the group counterattacks scare off many.  Even the first comment was to attack the messenger for posting a Breitbart News link.  I myself, a volunteer librarian, have been blocked from seeing, let alone commenting upon, this "open" Facebook group run by ALA heavyweights.

Why this matters: The censorship was done by the very same people who claim it is censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material in public schools.  It was done for the purpose of censoring their admissions that so-called "Banned Books Week" is a hoax.  As one candidate for ALA President put it (and the guy who blocked my access, self-arrogated free speech proponents that they are):
this is partially librarianship's fault. as long as we are out there banging the "banned book!!" drum for books that actually arent "banned" and are widely available everywhere, this is what we get. We get other people bending the definition of a banned book just as we ourselves bend it.
Exactly.  He also said,
We librarians call it a "banned" book if we decided it should be there against the wishes of a one/a few people, but we'd never dare call it a "banned" book if we ourselves decided it shouldn't be on the shelves?
which, btw, is my big issue with banned books week. 
Another librarian said,
Something is banned ("banned and challenged," but "banned" for public purposes) if a cranky private citizen writes a comment card against an available book, and the library staff appropriately do nothing whatsoever about it. But nothing that trained librarians do in the field of acquisition and weeding, although government employees, can ever quality for a spot on the banned-and-challenged continuum.
Correct.  And that's how books about ex-gays are banned by ALA and children's Rush Revere books by Rush Limbaugh are banned, even during Banned Books Week.  See:
It also exposes just how much librarians hate conservative ideas, Donald Trump, and Breitbart News.  Seething hatred.  Just read it.  No wonder they deleted it.  No wonder I resurrected it.

It also exposes how librarians practice their own brand of censorship that never makes it into ALA's "Banned Books Week" hoax list, as the one librarian pointed out, like the library director who threw Jerome Corsi's New York Times #1 Bestseller out the front door for obvious political reasons, then said it is now missing:
I once had a director take the swiftboating book on John Kerry off the shelves. He asked me where it came from and I answered that it was a donation. He opened the front door and tossed the book out the door. "it's missing."
Unfit for Command; Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry never appeared on any ALA Banned Books Week annual list.

Each year the American Library Association fakes stories about Banned Books Week and leaves out its own censorship.  The first commenter on the ALA Think Tank post above, who immediately went negative by questioning why anyone would link to Breitbart and mocked the library patron for claiming the Clinton Cash graphic novel was "BANNED," worked directly with ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" to increase the efforts to dig up false censorship cases.  No book's been banned since 1963, for example, so all censorship cases ALA has uncovered since BBW started in 1982 by ACLU/ALA's Judith Krug are false censorship cases.  All of them.  Yet ALA keeps digging for more:
Here we see the very same people involved with that Banned Books Week hoax are themselves censors when they need to hide their own censorship and their own hatreds.  They admit Banned Books Week is a hoax, bash the President and conservative media, then censor the whole conversation.  Only the got caught at it.

Do not believe the ALA hoax any longer:


More on the Banned Books Week hoax that Thomas Sowell calls National Hogwash Week here.

—
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Sunday, January 8, 2017

RIP Nat Hentoff: He Exposed the Shame of the American Library Association

RIP Nat Hentoff.  He is a "[r]enowned anti-censorship authorit[y]."
Below are articles written by Nat Hentoff about the "bizarre" and "shameful" American Library Association [ALA].  In one he revealed he reached out to Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, for his help defending jailed Cuban librarians. Ray Bradbury responded by publicly "plead[ing] with Castro and his government to take their hands off the independent librarians and release all those librarians in prison...."

But ALA would do no such thing.  It's de facto leader, Judith Krug of the "Office for Intellectual Freedom" [ALA OIF], "said at an ALA meeting about supporters of the caged librarians, 'I've dug in my heels ... I refuse to be governed by people with an agenda.' The Cuba issue, she continued, 'wouldn't die,' though she'd like to 'drown it.'"  It's why Nat Hentoff said ALA should be ashamed.

Yet just the day before Nat Hentoff died, ALA OIF published a blog post:
This blog post touts "Operation 451" that is specifically named in honor of Ray Bradbury who authored Fahrenheit 451.

So ALA OIF ignores Ray Bradbury when it comes to his call to free jailed Cuban librarians, but uses Ray Bradbury to falsely promote itself and its false claims of "age" discrimination (that's the 5 in "Operation 451") and "censorship" or "book banning" for keeping kids from inappropriate material.

"Operation 451" is written by two vitriolic librarians who work for ALA OIF here and there.  Sarah Houghton is ALA OIF's library filtering expert who lies about filters not working, whereas the FCC's Lisa Hone said filters work well and libraries should reconsider opposition to them, and Carla Hayden testified before Congress to become Librarian of Congress and said filters work well and libraries should block Internet pornography.

Sarah Houghton also lied about a male librarian being a "sexual predator."  The two other members of "#TeamHarpy" who all faked sexual harassment claims apologized for the lies but only after about a year and a half and only after the destruction of the man's career.

Sarah Houghton, however, has never apologized.  That would damage her perceived credibility as a library filtering expert for ALA OIF.  Instead, ALA OIF is now touting her "Operation 451" effort in its blog post—even where it totally went against the wishes of Ray Bradbury vis-à-vis the jailed Cuban librarians and true censorship.

Andy Woodworth is the other librarian who works directly with ALA OIF.  He helped ALA OIF to mislead teachers and parents by way of the "Banned Books Week" hoax.  His previous contribution before this latest "Operation 451" hoax is to guide librarians on how to defeat parents trying to keep children from reading inappropriately sexualized material.  Advice includes, "simply pacify the opposition until the campaign is over," "get them to quiet down or get out of the way," use "a diversion and delay technique,""[s]imply bury their claim in great stories...."  He adds, specifically with respect to people complaining about Internet pornography in libraries despite the law, "The last technique you can use is to simply ignore them.  ....  One thing that you should never do is openly debate, criticize, or demean the person bringing up the lie."

So Sarah Houghton and Andy Woodworth, both major players in ALA OIF's misleading of parents and teachers, are used to promote "Operation 451" in honor of Ray Bradbury.  But ALA OIF ignored Ray Bradbury when he called for Cuba to release jailed Cuban librarians and stop its censorship.

You see, ALA OIF is concerned about the "censorship" of parents parenting and teachers teaching, but not real censorship.  Real censorship is of no concern to them.  And they use Ray Bradbury's name to promote themselves, via two librarians who actively work to mislead as many people as possible, including one would destroyed a man's career with false claims of sexual harassment.

So with the passing of Nat Hentoff goes the memory of just how shameful is ALA OIF, and I didn't want that to happen.  Since ALA controls via bullying/peer pressure so many public libraries and school libraries, people should know they are being intentionally misled by people who abuse Ray Bradbury's memory to promote themselves and their efforts to spread harm as far and as wide as people will allow out of ignorance of ALA OIF's true intentions and actions.  ALA ignored Ray Bradbury in the past on real censorship issues, so using his memory now to promote false "censorship" issues is truly grotesque.  ALA really is just as "bizarre" and "shameful" as Nat Hentoff says it is.

Stay tuned as I write about ALA's facilitation of child pornography in public libraries and how, after I and a few others caught them at it, ALA has dug in its heels and made the problem worse by, among other things, moving to destroy evidence of its child porn facilitation.

Here are my favorite Nat Hentoff stories about the American Library Association:
In April 2003, the security police of Fidel Castro arrested and imprisoned 75 journalists, members of opposition parties and owners of independent libraries. The charge: “crimes against national sovereignty.” The librarians had been making available to Cubans books that were banned in the state’s libraries for containing “terrorist” material. Among them were a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a document for all human beings).
During the one-day trial, Castro’s judges ordered that all printed volumes confiscated during the raids of the libraries be burned. I obtained copies of those incendiary court rulings that then, and now, characterize the Cuban “revolution.” Immediately, Amnesty International designated all the 75 inmates “prisoners of conscience.” There continues to be more of them — some, as always, in dire need of medical attention they have yet to receive.
At first, I had expected immediate protests about the caged independent librarians from the American Library Association. The core credo of this largest national library association in the world has been “the freedom to read” — for everyone everywhere.
Why should you care? Because banning books and imprisoning librarians mean banning literature, ideas — thought — and critically wounding freedoms that should be as essential as oxygen to citizens and a society.
In the many columns I’ve written since about the abandoned Cuban librarians, I’ve cited the ALA’s refusal to demand the release of these librarians. In June 2003, for one of many examples, Michael Dowling, then director of the ALA’s International Relations Office, said: “There has been no definitive evidence that books are banned and librarians harassed.” There had been international press on the raids.
As my documented stories on these and future imprisonments went on, I was targeted by the director of Cuba’s National Library, Eliades Acosta: “What does Mr. Hentoff know of the real Cuba?”
My public reply: “I know that if I were a Cuban, I’d be in prison.”
Polish and Latvian library associations did call for the release of the prisoners of conscience. But in 2005, the state library association of Cuba stingingly replied to the Latvian protest resolution: “it is too late … to attempt to trick the world in this manner.”
The ALA, annoyed by the continued criticism, occasionally expressed “deep concern” about the allegations but declined to mention the silenced freedom-to-read librarians in Castroland.
Also, in 1995, as a longtime admirer of Ray Bradbury, including his classic novel of censorship by fire, Fahrenheit 451, I sent him some of my columns and the burning Castro court rulings that Bradbury’s novel had prophesied. Publicly, Bradbury then said:
I plead with Castro and his government to take their hands off the independent librarians and release all those librarians in prison, and to send them back into Cuban culture to inform the people.
No comment from Fidel or the ALA. Last year, on May 19, the Mario Chanes de Armas Independent Library was raided by Cuban State Security police, who confiscated 360 books I do not know the whereabouts of the director of that purified library, who had telephoned this news under the regime of Raul Castro.
But, in yet another appeal to the ALA on March 11 last year, the American-based Friends of Cuban Libraries sent a letter to then-president of the ALA Camila Alire, “asking for your urgent and compassionate aid in saving the life of a fellow library worker, Guillermo Farinas (director of the Dr. Roberto Avalos library).
“Mr. Farinas has refused to consume food or fluids since he began a hunger strike” at his home in Santa Clara for the release of 26 Cuban prisoners in poor health, including “Ricardo Gonzalez, the director of the Jorge Manach Library, and Ariel Sigler Amaya, who was condemned to a long prison term for, among other alleged crimes, gathering books for a library collection.” Both have been named prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International.
As for this hunger striker, Guillermo Farinas, he “is growing weaker, and Cuba’s official newspaper Granma has indicated that the government will make no effort to save his life after his health declines to the point of unconsciousness.”
Therefore, “on an urgent basis, we ask you to please contact the Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, Mr. Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, to request that efforts be made to save the life of Guillermo Farinas. The e-mail address of the Foreign Ministry is: cubaminrex@minrex.gov.cu.”
The Parliament of the European Union recently passed a resolution expressing concern for Mr. Farinas: “We hope the American Library Association will rapidly join the worldwide effort to help in saving his life.”
This plea for the life of Guillermo Farinas was ignored by the American Library Association.
Next week: What happened to the acute discomfort of the Castro government and the American Library Association after — on Oct. 1, 2010, the BBC reported: “The European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov human rights prize to Cuban dissident Guillermo Farinas. In July, Mr. Farinas, 48, ended a hunger strike after Cuba’s communist government announced it was freeing 52 political prisoners.” (But the EU and Farinas are aware that more remain in the Castros’ prisons and that the raids on independent libraries continue.)
The prize is named after the late, brave Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov. Those who nominated Farinas called him “a beacon of hope for dozens of journalists and activists who are currently in prison.”
And the prizewinner dedicated the human-rights award to the people of Cuba. He said they struggle for “an end to the dictatorship.”
The people of Cuba should be reminded that on April 26, 2005, Canek Sanchez Guevara — the grandson of the murderous Che Guevara, still a hero to Fidelists around the world and in the United States — spoke in Stockholm of “the obsession (in Cuba) with surveillance, control, repression, etc. And freedom is something entirely different.”
The American Library Association should invite Che Guevara’s grandson to address one of its conferences to enlighten its governing council on how to end its obsession with ignoring the persistently persecuted Cuban independent librarians.

The American Library Association - the largest organization of librarians in the world - continually declares that it fights for everyone's "Freedom to Read!" and its Library Bill of Rights requires its members to "challenge censorship." Yet the leadership of the ALA - not the rank and file - insistently refuses to call for the immediate release of the independent librarians in Cuba - designated as "prisoners of conscience" by Amnesty International. They are serving very long prison terms because they do believe in the freedom to read - especially in a dictatorship.
Among the many organizations demanding that Fidel Castro and his successors release these courageous Cubans - who have opened their homes and libraries to offer books censored in the Cuban state libraries - are such groups as the library associations of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. All these librarians, finally freed from Communism, agree with their colleagues in the Polish Library Association, who say in their declaration, "The actions of the Cuban authorities relate to the worst traditions of repressing the freedom of thought and expression."
Also calling for the liberation of Castro's many prisoners of conscience, including the librarians, are the Organization of American States, Amnesty International and Freedom House.
However, the top officials of the American Library Association - as well as the majority of its Governing Council - speak derisively of these "so-called librarians" in Castro's gulags.
It's true that these prisoners, many brutalized and in failing health, in their cells, don't have master's degrees in Library Science; but as poet-novelist-educator Andrei Codrescu told last year's ALA Midwinter Conference: "These people have been imprisoned for BEING librarians!" Why dismiss them "as 'so-called librarians' when clearly there is no one (in that dictatorship) to certify them."
So bizarre is the ALA leadership, along with a cadre of Castro admirers on the Governing Council - in its abandonment of their fellow librarians - it refuses to post on its "Book Burning in the 21st Century" Web site the extensive, documented court transcripts of the "trials" that sent the librarians to prison. Those judges ordered the "incineration" of the prisoners' libraries, including works by Martin Luther King Jr. and George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
But these sentencing documents are verified on the Web sites of Amnesty International, the organization of American States, and Florida State University's Center for the Advancement of Human Rights. Officials of the ALA - conjuring up a fake conspiracy by the Bush administration to overthrow Castro by using the independent librarians - disdain this verification of the book burnings. They insist, for example, that the Florida State University Web site is funded by grants from the U.S. government.
Yet, that Rule of Law and Cuba Web site project doesn't get a dime from the U.S. government. Says director Mark Schlakman: "We place a premium on our independence."
Recently, I left a long, non-adversarial, detailed message for the president of the ALA, Leslie Burger, director of the Princeton, N.J., public library. I asked for her reasons and the ALA's for this refusal of support for the imprisoned librarians. (Some are in cage-like enclosures.) I have received no response from her; but, indicating she will not speak to me, Michael Dowling, director of ALA's International Relations Office, fielded my call by referring me to the ALA's 2004 expression of "deep concern" for Castro's prisoners, which carefully omitted any mention of the independent librarians among them.
But, acting out of "a moral obligation," the small Vermillion, S.D., public library has made the independent Dulce Maria Loynaz Library in Havana a sister library - sending books to it, including a collection of freedom writer Mark Twain. (Other libraries and readers around the world send books to the independent libraries.)
As for rank-and-file American librarians: In January 2006, American Libraries Direct - an online newsletter of the ALA's own magazine, American Libraries - published a poll of its members in which 70 percent answered "Yes" to the question: "Should ALA Council pass a resolution condemning the Cuban government for its imprisonment of dissident 'independent librarians'?"
A key ALA official, Judith Krug, heads its office of Intellectual Freedom. In my many years of reporting on the ALA's sterling record of protecting American librarians from censorship, I often quoted her in admiration. But now, she said at an ALA meeting about supporters of the caged librarians, "I've dug in my heels ... I refuse to be governed by people with an agenda." The Cuba issue, she continued, "wouldn't die," though she'd like to "drown it."
The agenda, Ms. Krug, is freedom. "Every burned book," wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "illuminates the world." But ALA's leadership refuses to bring light to the cages of these Cuban prisoners of conscience. The ALA's membership booklet proclaims "the public's right (everywhere) to explore in their libraries many points of view on all questions and issues facing them."
An issue facing all members of the ALA is their leaders' shameful exception of the Cuban people's freedom to read.
RIP, Nat Hentoff.

—
URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2017/01/rip-nat-hentoff.html

On Twitter: 
@ALALibrary +EveryLibrary @EveryLibrary @Nick_Hentoff @OIF @TheLiB +Village Voice @VillageVoice @WAWoodworth

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Monday, December 12, 2016

Librarians Guide to Defeating Parents By EveryLibrary

Responding to Opposition: Training Guide by EveryLibrary

So how do we stay on message in the face of our critics? You should realize that, no matter how great your campaign message, your library campaign is going to have its critics.  It doesn’t matter how much the library is loved, the anti-library groups will almost always have some voice in your community.

Responding to Opposition

There are most likely groups of people in your community with the opinion that the library isn’t needed.  There are people who will think that the library should be run by volunteers.  There are people who will believe that the library is doing something malicious with their money.  Finally, there are most likely groups of people who just plain and simply don’t want to pay more taxes no matter what for.

While you should expect to always have opposition, you shouldn’t always expect to have a fight on your hands.  There are ways to quiet the opposition enough that they don’t pose a risk for your campaign.  Remember, you don’t need them to be completely quiet, you don’t need them to love the library, you don’t even need them to vote for the library.  You just need them to not get in the way, vote against, or sabotage the campaign.  Your goal is only to turn them from an active opposition to a passive opposition.

Online or IRL?

Before we begin, I should point out that many of these techniques work for oppositional messages in the comments of blog posts or news articles as well as in real life.  It’s the way that you structure your response that is important and it works across media platforms.  In either case, I want to make sure to note that you should never directly attack your opposition by calling them out by name or specifically responding to just them. Instead of directly attacking your opponent, you should build a message that can be repeated often enough that their message simply gets buried.  You can have your supporters post variations of the same counter message or dozens of positive stories on a blog post until the negative comments are buried.  Whatever you do, don’t validate them or fuel their anger, mistrust, or hatred by attacking them.

Sources of Opposition

It’s extremely important to know who your opposition is and why they don’t support the library.  This is something that should ideally be done during the surfacing phase of your campaign but new opposition can show up at any time.  Luckily, in the case of libraries, you have something up your sleeve.  We at EveryLibrary have heard just about every possible opposition message to libraries, from the most ridiculous, to the most reasonable.  Here are some of the most heard opposition messages that we have heard;
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that (homeowners/small business owners/residents) can’t afford to pay.
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • We don’t need a new library
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • Libraries are irrelevant because I never use them
What you also need to recognize is that some people will never change their view or opinion no matter what you say or do.  Attempting to convince them otherwise will be a huge waste of resources and not something that your campaign can not afford to do.  It is far more important to go out and engage the people who are already on your side and get those voters to the polls in greater numbers than the opposition can. You can be much more effective talking to people who are on the fence than those who have already made up their mind.

The desire to respond to the opposition directly can be difficult to resist.  Instead there are ways that you can use the opposition to build your supporter base.  You can actually turn your opposition’s messages against them and use those messages to convince your supporters to get to the polls.  You can use the public debate to educate the public about the issues and build greater support.  This paper will outline how to do just that.

Listen

The first thing that you should always do when handling discussions from people who have concerns about library ballot measures is listen to them.  Since nearly all opposition stems from a place of fear, you need to handle their concerns with respect and show a concern and understanding about what they are afraid of.  Don’t directly oppose their position as that will give them a sense of validation and you will remain actively opposed.  Instead, you should listen and respect their opinion and don’t be afraid to ask meaningful questions.  Once you have their source of fear, you can alleviate it.

Repeat

Once you know what their fear is, the first thing you should do is repeat it.  You should not directly counter their argument with an opposing viewpoint since this will be perceived as combative and people will fight back until they feel that they won.  By repeating their concerns or fears you prove that you understand them and that you respect their ideals and the repetition will be almost immediately calming.
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that small business owners can’t afford to pay.
  • I understand the great burden placed on small business owners….
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • The internet is a great source of information…
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • I understand that taxes are high…
  • We don’t need a new library.
  • We know that people love the old library and everything that it provided to the community…
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • That’s an excellent suggestion and our volunteers are very valuable…

Question

Sometimes the opposition is unclear about their messaging, or what they are saying doesn’t make sense.  If you can’t figure out what their fear is, don’t be afraid to ask questions.  You can usually get to the root of the issue by kindly asking questions and addressing the root issue.  Most people will feel that you genuinely care if you are asking questions and you can help move them over from active to passive opposition.

Get back to the message

Here is where that message box comes in and where you can see how useful it is.  Since you should have already brainstormed and/or recorded as many of the opposition’s messages, you will be able to develop “and” statements to craft your counter message.  The “and” statement is what you use after repeating their concern.  This is how you are working to solve the same issue that they are concerned about.  This is how you show that you are actually on their side and that you both have the same concerns.  It is very important that you use an “and” statement and not a “but” or a “yes but” statement.  You should never use a “no” statement because you are not disagreeing with them.  You are trying to show that you agree and that you are both actually on the same side.
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that small business owners can’t afford to pay.
  • I understand the great burden placed on small business owners AND that’s why we provide so many resources that make being a small business owner easier
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • The internet is a great source of information AND that’s why we want to increase the community’s access to it and add value to what you get from it.
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • I understand that taxes are high AND that is why it’s so important to me to provide services to the community that help bring the cost of living down and the value of the community up.
  • We don’t need a new library.
  • We know that people love the old library and everything that it provides to the community AND that’s why it’s so important to us that we continue to provide the services of the old library and the kinds of services that you deserve in a modern age.
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • That’s an excellent suggestion and we love our volunteers AND that’s why the library uses as many volunteers as we can to streamline our processes and free up our paid staff to provide the best services we possibly can

Reinforce Your Message

You can reinforce your message by using examples of how you’re achieving your “and” statement.  These examples should be concrete and provable.  You should never lie and say that your library provides something that it doesn’t or something that you can’t prove that it provides.  This is also where that message box comes back into play. You can use your opposition’s messages to research your examples so that you have them in mind before the discussion even begins.  It’s always best to give more than one example, but you should probably never offer more than three in order to avoid the appearance of “I gotcha.”
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that small business owners can’t afford to pay.
  • I understand the great burden placed on small business owners AND that’s why we provide so many resources that make being a small business owner easier. FOR EXAMPLE, we often have programming on hiring staff for small business owners and we offer patent and trademark classes to teach small business owners to protect their property.
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • The internet is a great source of information AND that’s why we want to increase the community’s access to it and add value to what you get from it.  FOR EXAMPLE, we offer high speed internet access along with databases that provide a level of well researched and scientifically supported articles that you just can’t find for free on the internet.
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • I understand that taxes are high AND that is why it’s so important to me to provide services to the community that help bring the cost of living down and the value of the community up. FOR EXAMPLE, we provide opportunities for teens and youth to volunteer and become engaged citizens and we provide storytimes for new parents to help the children with early literacy and get them ready for school.
  • We don’t need a new library.
  • We know that people love the old library and everything that it provides to the community AND that’s why it’s so important to us that we continue to provide the services of the old library and the kinds of services that you deserve in a modern age. FOR EXAMPLE, with a new library, we can provide for programming space to support our growing community and we can provide access to even more materials.
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • That’s an excellent suggestion AND that’s why the library uses as many volunteers as we can to streamline our processes and free up our paid staff to provide the best services we possibly can.  FOR EXAMPLE, we love having our volunteers take on roles that free up staff to work on higher level tasks such as budgets, training, and working with high level technology issues.

Arm Your Campaign

These counter messages are your campaign’s weapons against the opposition so while these answers work well, they are not formatted for your community of voters and you will need the right weapon at the right time.  Everything that we have used here are simply common examples and you will need to do some opposition research and continuously revisit and use your message box with any of the opposition messages that you come across.  Most importantly, you need to practice with your weapons to get back on message.  This means taking some time with your campaign committee and volunteers and doing role playing games where one person plays the opposition and you respond to their claims by getting back to your message using the correct format.  Record some of the best responses, distribute them to your campaign members, and make sure that everyone has them memorized and is well trained on responding to the opposition.

The Opposition’s Outright Lies

Sometimes the opposition lies.  There is not a whole lot you can do about that.  We have seen it happen in a number of campaigns and the problem with lies is that because they are not based on fact, there is very little evidence to the contrary.  But there are a few things that you can do about it in order to simply pacify the opposition until the campaign is over.  Remember that you are simply trying to win the election and you don’t need to discredit or prove the liars wrong, you just need them to be quiet until the campaign is over.

One of the biggest lies that we have seen crop up around election time is that of porn in the library.  Often, these library detractors will try to use examples of porn issues in other libraries, a lack of filters on the computers, and language and content in YA materials to “prove” that the library WANTS to expose kids to porn.  Of course, we know that there is no truth to this ideology but there is typically very little you can do to disprove it.

Solutions for Opposition

While you’ll find that there are people in the community who are serious in their opposition to your library, there are a few things you can try to do to either get them to quiet down or get out of the way.  We are going to use the porn in the library discussion as our example in the these three solutions.
  1. One technique would be to simply use the same Agree, And, For Example format that we discussed earlier.  In the example of the individuals concerned about porn we can use this-
-Thank you for bringing this to our attention, we also want our children to be safe and secure while they are in the library so we take your claim very seriously AND we are going to do something about it. FOR EXAMPLE, we are going to look into a committee to seriously look into the exposure of porn to children in the community.
  1. You can invite them more into the campaign to be a part of the solution.  You can talk about how the library really needs the resources that the win for the library would bring in order to ensure that the library can protect the kids.  With the money you can purchase better filters and take staff time to look at the collection development policy or build a committee specifically to protect the children.  Of course, if you make these campaign promises, you will need to deliver on them if you win.
  2. Another solution is to side-step the campaign and form a committee to look into the issue.  In this case, you might even invite the detractor to be a part of the committee.  You can set the schedule of meetings and the timing of the outcomes of the committee to occur AFTER the Election Day.  This is a very common political ploy used often in campaigns that utilizes a diversion and delay technique to work around election days or long enough until the voters have forgotten about the issue.

Build Your Story

Sometimes you might find that you can build your story.  What this means is that you find people in your community who can tell the opposite story.  You will need to identify community members who can show up to meetings and tell a personal account of the opposite experience.  In the case of porn in the library, you can have community members show up to meetings and talk about how their kids are not exposed to adult material on the computers or that their kids found value in the books they read at the library and that they could then have a meaningful conversation about the issue with their children.  They can tell stories of being responsible parents who monitor their children in public spaces.  If you use this technique, never mention or directly oppose or attack the person making the original claim.  Simply bury their claim in great stories that tell a counter account of their experience.

Ignore Them

The last technique you can use is to simply ignore them.  Sometimes, if you ignore the lie it simply doesn’t gain enough momentum and traction and goes away.  This is risky, but if you know enough about the detractor or who they know in the community, you can make an informed guess as to whether or not they can get enough support of their claim to become a problem.  The detractor may simply go find something else to lie about somewhere else in the community.  This is usually because they are trying to build a name for themselves or play a “hero” role in the community and they won’t be able to gain that role if nobody steps up to be the villain.

One thing that you should never do is openly debate, criticize, or demean the person bringing up the lie.  They can use your open debate to validate themselves and their claim.  If you criticize or publicly demean them, they can make the claim that you are simply trying to put them down because they are close to “the truth.”  You will become the villain that they are looking for and they will make the case that they are the hero.


Source of above (except the title):
  • "Responding to Opposition: Training Guide," by Patrick Sweeney or Andrew Woodworth, EveryLibrary, 21 October 2015 (free subscription required to view; republished under Fair Use Copyright rules for educational, nonprofit purposes).
Note:  The title of this post, "Librarians Guide to Defeating Parents By EveryLibrary," was written by SafeLibraries.  The "guide" itself was written by EveryLibrary and labels parents as "biggest liars" and "detractors":
One of the biggest lies that we have seen crop up around election time is that of porn in the library.  Often, these library detractors will try to use examples of porn issues in other libraries, a lack of filters on the computers, and language and content in YA materials to “prove” that the library WANTS to expose kids to porn.  Of course, we know that there is no truth to this ideology but there is typically very little you can do to disprove it.
Previously, the American Library Association's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" labeled any parent who ever complained about anything as a "censor":
So whether parents are labeled as "liars," "detractors," or "censors," librarians as being trained, as this EveryLibrary "guide" proves again, to defeat parents.

By the way, ALA opposes labeling books—but labeling parents is a useful means for bullying, ridicule, and sending the message to other parents that they should not themselves dare challenge anything whatsoever.  It's a propaganda technique called "jamming."

The last section of the above "guide" called "Ignore Them" is about SafeLibraries as just months before one of the authors besmirched my efforts to stop the sexual harassment of librarians and convinced other librarians to ignore me.  He is an "ignore them" expert:
EveryLibrary even actively censors me to hide my exposing how ALA is involved in the sexual harassment of librarians, child pornography, and homophobia.  Yes, EveryLibrary deleted proof ALA hides its homophobia.  See 1) before, 2) after censorship.

EveryLibrary is a federally registered 501(c)(4) "Social Welfare Organization."  One wonders what attacking every single parent who complains about anything such as pornography in libraries has to do with "Social Welfare":

Source: EveryLibrary at YouTube:
https://youtu.be/4p9qcPmgrZk?t=3m50s
Indeed, since EveryLibrary assists in attacking parents who seek libraries that comply with the law and/or community standards instead of with ALA diktat, such as allowing Internet porn including child pornography in public libraries despite the law, then EveryLibrary may be in violation of 501(c)(4) "because planning and sponsoring illegal acts are in themselves inconsistent with charity and social welfare...."

If you are helping to spread Internet pornography and child pornography in public libraries and school libraries by organizing attacks on those seeking to end such things, where's the charity and social welfare in that?  Why should the public subsidize that?

SafeLibraries is happy to present EveryLibrary's "guide" for librarians on how to defeat parents.  Knowing the tricks of the librarians seeking to enable libraries to violate the law, the identity of the tricksters, and the potential for influence on local librarians may help parents who seek redress of their government in accordance with the law and despite the diktat of ALA or the organized bullying of EveryLibrary.


NOTE ADDED 17 JANUARY 2020:

As EveryLibrary has grown, it still leads librarians and others on how to defeat parents.  However, it appears to have censored "Responding to Opposition: Training Guide," by Patrick Sweeney or Andrew Woodworth, EveryLibrary, 21 October 2015.  I can no longer find it on the Internet.  That is a tactic American Library Association itself uses, such as when its so-called Office for Intellectual Freedom, with which Andy Woodworth collaborated on Banned Books Week, removed a model policy telling librarians to ignore child pronography, after I and others exposed it, of course.

So EveryLibrary has something to hide.  I just happened to have made the only remaining copy about three years ago, shown above.

Anyone or any politician getting pressure from EveryLibrary AstroTurfed campaigns should know EveryLibrary acts with dirty hands:


—
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)