Banned Books Week Nonsense Censorship Talk is Ridiculous, Says Library Journal

Banned Books Week is a hoax and fake censorship talk is ridiculous, all the while libraries justify censoring out works they don't like, like about ex-gays.  That's basically what the Annoyed Librarian at the Library Journal said when she discussed censorship versus selection.  I couldn't have said it better myself, so I'm reposting it in full:

• "Another Problem with Banned Books Talk," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 8 September 2014.

Another Problem with Banned Books Talk

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 BY ANNOYED LIBRARIAN; LIBRARY JOURNAL 

One of the many problems with the ALA approach to so-called banned books is that it opens the door to easy criticisms by raging homophobes like this person.

The general gist of the criticism is that while librarians talk a good game about intellectual freedom and are against “censorship” and “banning books,” in fact their entire collection development process effectively bans books that librarians disagree with politically.

Libraries use Collection Development Policies (CDP’s) to determine which books they will purchase with their limited budgets. CDP’s hold that librarians should purchase only books that have been positively reviewed by two “professionally recognized” review journals. Guess what folks, the “professionally recognized” review journals are dominated by ideological “progressives.”

That’s pretty hard to argue with, because she’s right and we all know it. It doesn’t even mention that a lot of times it’s other librarians reviewing the books anyway, thus guaranteeing that the choices will be kept within the profession and that books librarians don’t like won’t be reviewed and thus won’t be purchased.

Considering the way the ALA defines intellectual freedom and censorship, it’s hard not to agree with the homophobic crusader here. Librarians do effectively keep certain kinds of books out of the view of readers. They do it because of their beliefs about what books are good or bad, and those beliefs are occasionally political in nature.

If library patrons ask for a book to be moved or removed from the children’s section, it’s “censorship.” If librarians make sure a book never gets there in the first place through a deliberately rigged collection process, it’s “selection.” Double standards prevail, making librarians look like hypocrites.

It’s a pity that a profession that so upholds intellectual freedom can’t come up with better strategies and arguments than to whine about “censorship” while effectively doing the very thing they complain about.

It must be possible. One could argue that certain types of books are motivated by a kind of hatred that’s inappropriate for children to see.

Will they ask for picture books that show the joy a little birdie experiences when after the West Nile virus deaths of her two daddies, she’s finally adopted by a daddy and mommy?”

Anyone who writes a book where children are happy their parents died of a terrible disease because they hate gay people so much is a pretty horrible person, after all, and keeping the product of their sick minds away from the kiddies is probably a good idea.

But not all homophobic books are necessarily hateful. Fearful, probably, but that never stops libraries from buying books. If there’s a book warning about the dangers of rapid climate change, then there’s a fearful book in the library.

One could argue that some categories of books are just dumb, or that they’re so devoid of scientific evidence that they’re useless books. Praying away the gay is about as useful as praying away the stupid. It just doesn’t work.

But that’s never stopped libraries either. Plenty of libraries have books about UFO abductions in the nonfiction section, and yet the scientific evidence for them is almost nil. Libraries also buy books advocating homeopathy, crystal healing, and other new age nonsense. Same deal.

One could argue that the books are religiously motivated, which is somehow inappropriate for public libraries. Separation of church and state and all that.

But libraries purchase Bibles and Korans and other religious texts. Some public libraries probably purchase religious fiction like the Left Behind books. There’s no good reason they shouldn’t. Religious readers are library users, too. So that argument is out.

One could argue that libraries are about more than intellectual freedom, that they have some other sorts of political values as well. Equality, diversity, tolerance, etc.

The homophobic crusader might reply that not buying homophobic books signals a lack of diversity. After all, the homophobic position is one of the voices out there, if not a majority voice anymore certainly a popular one, and a truly diverse collection would include it in the “marketplace of ideas.”

That one’s hard to refute. Equality and tolerance might work better. Books that claim certain categories of people shouldn’t be allowed to marry or raise children can claim to be among the diversity of voices, but they can’t claim to support equality, tolerance, or even democracy in a lot of America these days.

There are librarians who talk about libraries as places to promote equality and tolerance, but that’s not the “official” line.

The ALA Library Bill of Rights talks about providing books for the “interest, information, and enlightenment of all people,” which sounds promising along those lines, but then immediately says libraries “should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.”

That sounds like library collections are completely neutral collections, but obviously they’re not. Go to your local library and find some aggressively pro-racism books there. What? There aren’t any? Does that mean that there are no local racists around?

The homophobic crusader was discussing the Schaumburg Township District Library, which apparently had pictures of librarians holding up “banned books,” “you know, books that are widely available in virtually every community library.”

She then lists some antigay books that the librarians could also take pictures of themselves holding. Since none of those books are considered “banned” by the ALA, that’s a pointless suggestion, but her point is valid. “Unlike the books the librarians are holding this year, these books actually aren’t in their library. Hmmm, I wonder if they were banned.”

If there are no books in your library’s collection talking about how awful gay marriage is, then your library isn’t providing materials presenting all points of view.

Librarians tend to be true believers about the banned book nonsense, and it’s pretty hard to reason with them but I’m not giving up just yet. The censorship talk is ridiculous, and librarians would be better off promoting what they do in a smarter way.

Librarians should just own up to the fact that they have a broad political agenda, and one that promotes equality while fighting intolerance.

They don’t defend gay penguin books because they really believe all points of view should be represented in libraries. The defend gay penguin books because they believe that gay penguins should be treated equally to straight penguins, and their constituencies have both gay and straight penguins. Or something like that.

They don’t seek out homophobic children’s books because they’re opposed to diverse viewpoints in the library collection. They don’t seek them out because they don’t seek out children’s books that promote intolerance, hate, or inequality.

It’s the same reason they wouldn’t buy racist children’s books, and they probably wouldn’t buy racist children’s books even if a library patron requested the purchase. There are just certain viewpoints that people devoted to freedom, equality, diversity, and tolerance don’t consider worth buying.

So go on talking about censorship and banned books, librarians. I know what you’re really about. You’re really trying to promote intellectual freedom, equality, and tolerance for all types of library patrons. You’re just afraid to say it in your collection development policies.

# # #  30  # # #

Related post:

• "ALA Censors with Gay Abandon," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 August 2009, quoting Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute:

Through its de facto censorship mechanism, cunningly obscured behind the sterile nomenclature "Collection Development Policy," the American Library Association has become a corrupt, hypocritical organization committed to promulgating biased, subversive social and political views on the controversial topic of homosexuality. On this topic one thing's certain: if you're looking for intellectual diversity, stay out of your libraries.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/09/banned-books-week.html

On Twitter: @BannedBooksWeek @LibraryJournal @OIF @ProFamilyIL

Follow @SafeLibraries

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

A man has been banned from "all the libraries on the face of the Earth" for public library masturbation:

• "Man Forbidden From 'All Libraries on the Face of the Earth,'" by Stephanie Jones, The Journal Times (Racine, WI), 14 March 2013.
• "Wisconsin Man Banned From 'All the Libraries on the Face of the Earth' As Condition of $1,000 Bond; Tyree S. Carter is Accused of Openly Masturbating in the Racine Public Library Last Week; A Witness Told Investigators Carter Was Out in the Open, Not Trying to Conceal His Act," by The Associated Press, New York Daily News, 15 March 2013.

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

SafeLibraries School of Law

Constitutional/Criminal Law Final Exam

FACTS:

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

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

The library has seen persistent problems.  Consider this from 24 September 2005 Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI): "Father Wants to Make Sure Porn Can't Be Seen at Library; Panel Creating Proposal on Teens' Computer Use":

The Racine Public Library is hosting a public forum to discuss its Internet Acceptable Use Policy, a discussion that comes on the heels of a citizen's complaint about teens using public computers to access adult Web sites.  ....  Java Orr of Racine became concerned when he was at the library several months ago with his 6-year-old daughter and he saw a male teenager downloading and viewing pornographic material on a computer in the adult services area.  Orr said when he brought his complaint to library officials, he was told nothing could be done to prevent the youth from viewing the material.  Orr took his fight to keep children from viewing pornographic material at the Racine Public Library to the public.  He spent hours in front of the library petitioning residents to sign his Child Friendly Library Act, which he intends to get the Legislature to pass a bill on.  So far he has more than 500 signatures on the petitions.  His goal is 1,000.  "The bill would prevent children, including young adults, from gaining access to obscene or pornographic material," Orr said.  ....  "I'm hoping to hear what the public wants," [Racine Public Library Director Jessica] MacPhail said.

Or this in the same media source dated 30 July 2005 and entitled, "Porn Access at Public Library Criticized; Dad Wants Material Kept from Youths":

After observing what he calls pornographic material being downloaded and viewed by a teenager at a public library, a Racine man is now on a mission to change the law.  Java Orr said in an interview last week that while visiting the Racine Public Library three weeks ago with his 6-year-old daughter, he observed a male teenager downloading and viewing pornographic material on a computer in the adult services area.  Orr said that when he brought his complaint to library officials, they said nothing could be done to prevent the youth from viewing the material.  "It's insane that kids can actually see and read about this kind of sexual material at a public library," Orr said.  "Furthermore, that my child or any other child can easily walk by and witness it."  Orr is taking his fight to keep children from viewing pornographic material at the Racine Public library to the public.  In the past week, Orr has spent hours in front of the library petitioning residents to sign his Child Friendly Library Act, which he hopes will get attention from the Legislature.  He has gathered more than 500 signatures and has set a goal of 1,000.  "The bill would prevent children, including young adults, from gaining access to obscene or pornographic material" at a public library, Orr said.  ....  [Racine Public Library Director Jessica] MacPhail said a separate youth services area in the library provides five computers equipped with filters to weed out such material.  She said that area is used primarily for children through eighth grade.  ....  MacPhail said the Racine Public Library does post its Internet access policies for the public.  The policies state ... it is unacceptable to use the library's Internet equipment to send, receive or display text or graphics that may reasonably be construed as obscene by community standards.

LAW:

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

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

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

QUESTIONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the library policy is to exclude obscene material, but also to claim the decisions as to what is obscene "is made through legislation and interpreted by the courts," what effect might that have in fact and on any legal proceedings?  Has the library covered itself from liability?  With millions of pornographic web sites and the library's requirement that only a court can determine what is obscene, has the library set up an impossibility that effectively nullifies its claim to preclude obscenity by policy?  If the library, in setting up such an impossibility, is following the requirements of an out of state organization, has it effectively ceded control of the central policy of the library to that outside organization?  When answering, consider the American Library Association's guidance to public libraries entitled, "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy":

Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually "harmful to minors." The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides.  Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.  Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or "harmful to minors."

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

ANSWER:

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

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/03/LawSchoolExamQuestion.html

Follow @SafeLibraries

Finally, a Sensible Lawsuit Against a Librarian

The Annoyed Librarian hits the mark again, and I highly recommend following her.  My title of this post is a direct quote from her work.  Please read her work and the comments/links I have added below:

• "You Can View the Website If the Librarian Thinks You Should," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 13 March 2013, with comments added by me:

It’s always a little weird to see librarians acting all unlibrarianish. Last week there was the library employee in St. Louis who left a comment on this blog that notified the world of the library card holding status of a specific person named in a news article. So much for privacy!  [SafeLibraries:  Elided comment 16 March 2013.]

Now comes the result of a lawsuit against yet another public library in Missouri motivated by some pretty bizarre librarian behavior.

Someone at the Salem Public Library wanted to read about Native American religions, Wiccans, and other crazy topics that no God-fearing Salemite should ever want to know anything about, but she couldn’t get past the computer filters, which were apparently set to block “occult” sites.

The librarian wouldn’t remove the filters, so she sued. Finally, a sensible lawsuit against a librarian.  [SafeLibraries:  I completely agree.]

The ACLU victory statement has the best quote:

The resident had originally protested to library director Glenda Wofford about not being able to access websites about Native American religions and the Wiccan faith. While portions of the sites were unblocked, much remained censored. Wofford said she would only allow access to blocked sites if she felt patrons had a legitimate reason to view the content and added that she had an obligation to report people who wanted to view these sites to the authorities. The resident’s attempts to complain about the policy to the library board of trustees were brushed off.

To which I can only reply, wow.  [SafeLibraries:  And I reply that given the usual threats from the ACLU that libraries including school libraries should allow porn, once in a while ACLU takes the correct action, and this is one of those cases.]  That’s the strangest reply to a library patron I’ve heard of in a while. It’s not like the patron was trying to stream some Wiccan porn in the children’s section of the library. (If there is such a thing as Wiccan porn, I imagine it would involve a lot of slutty witch Halloween costumes.)

Outside of porn, which is blocked by law [SafeLibraries:  See how to legally remove legal porn from libraries here], libraries don’t usually block Internet searches. Most of them don’t even seem to want to block porn [SafeLibraries:  And that is a direct result of the ALA intentionally misleading American communities, according to the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act]. And here this librarian wanted to block religion sites.  [SafeLibraries:  Unlike hundreds of libraries intentionally accepting materials of a religious nature from the ALA, but having to do only with Islam.  So much for separation of church and state, right?]

To have the constrained sensibilities of the library director determine what everyone can research is a little bizarre. [SafeLibraries:  When it comes to Wicca, perhaps, but when it comes to ex-gays books or books having a Christian flavor, library directors regularly block such material.]  Add to that the total lie about having an obligation to report people to the authorities. [SafeLibraries:  Right.  The ALA even advises librarians not to call the police.]  Obviously that was meant as intimidation, and by librarian standards it’s pretty intimidating.

It’s no wonder the library lost the case, because the librarian’s behavior was pretty much indefensible. The library apparently knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on because they removed the filter months before the legal judgment came.

I was curious about where such a library might be found, and was unsurprised to discover Salem is a town of fewer than 5,000 people in the middle of nowhere. I couldn’t imagine that particular sort of unlibrarianish behavior happening in St. Louis or Columbia.

Are there other libraries that block non-porn sites? Or where the librarians only let patrons view websites if they feel patrons have a “legitimate reason”?

I’d never heard of this sort of librarian reaction to non-porn Internet searches before. However, plenty of libraries in effect keep their patrons from reading books on certain topics the librarians don’t like by just not buying the books. The ALA might call it censorship, others might call it selection, but either way it’s done all the time.  [SafeLibraries:  And to illustrate the point, check out the dichotomy of librarians arguing about "intellectual freedom" here: "Anti-Gay Books and Your Library" and read the comments carefully.  Notice one librarian, Miss Ingrid, aka The Magpie Librarian, literally uses repeated personal attack (even repeatedly mocking the name of an author) and flat out censorship and record redaction to attempt to coerce other librarians to join the "struggle" by keeping books with which she disagrees out of libraries.] 

The website challenge by a librarian seems unlibrarianish to me, but maybe that kind of thing happens all the time to websites and books, and we just don’t find out about it.  [SafeLibraries:  Indeed a parallel is all the porn viewing in public libraries and related crimes that are simply not reported.]

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/03/Finally.html

Follow @SafeLibraries

Time to Ban Patrons Instead of Filtering Porn in Public Libraries; Guest Post by "Adult Services" Librarian

When I first started at my small town library two years ago, I was so thrilled to begin work as a real reference librarian.  That more people in town had dropped out of high school than attended graduate school did not bother me—I had arrived on my beacon of light powered by ideals from Library School.  That librarians could empower patrons to be just like Ray Bradbury and educate themselves through their local Public Library excited me.  Accessing information, whatever information they want, is our mission as librarians after all, and I vowed to dutifully serve my role as conduit.  

There's No Right to Porn in Public Libraries

Although I've never helped a patron search for pornographic materials, as the second in command at my library, I've encountered several situations over these two years where patrons have viewed graphic images on our public stations.  Most recently, I had to ask a patron to leave who was watching loud and explicit pornographic videos.  That it was offensive even to me, a bleeding heart hippie and liberal, is beside the point.  What is upsetting is that some people believe accessing pornography at the public library is a right.  

The Annoyed Librarian on the Problem of Library Porn for Librarians

The Annoyed Librarian said it well: 

[Librarians who defend pornography access]… 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. 

Source: "The Problem of Library Porn for Librarians," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 4 May 2011.

I heartily agree.  As much as I despise the argument disgruntled patrons use when I tell them they have fines ("my taxes pay your salary!"), I think this is one instance where most patrons of a small town library would agree with me: no one wants their 75 cents of town taxes going towards a neighbor's public sexual satisfaction.  Maybe there should be public adult only libraries, I'm not sure.  But I am confident public institutions that require its employees to monitor computer usage would not want to face a sexual harassment lawsuit from one of its employees because she was forced to sit at a desk in view of naked genitalia.  Let alone from one of its loyal conservative patrons with young children.  

Local Library Trustees Asked to Filter Out Porn to Protect Children

The trustees at my soon to be former library are being petitioned by a group of parents to purchase filtering software to prevent patrons from viewing pornographic images.  This is a valid reaction, because our current policy gives patrons a warning to end their pornography viewing behavior before they are banned (temporarily, typically three or six months).  This group of parents is upset that their children were privy to sexually explicit content and harsher action was not taken immediately against the offending patron (he got a warning and his sessions for the day were terminated).   

But Filtering Software is Imperfect

Current filtering software is very imperfect and requires someone to continually adjust "the filter as needed when sites that should be allowed are being blocked."  I can't imagine how my library (or anyone else's for that matter) would be able to justify a poorly staffed reference desk but a position that would be able to vigilantly un-block sites like "child sex abuse information" or "breast cancer facts."  LibraryFiltering.org (from which the previous quote was taken) also warns: "do not rely upon patron complaints to tell you whether your filter is working because experience shows that most patrons do not complain when a site is blocked."  

Porn Viewing?  Then Ban Patrons Instead—First Strike, You're Out

I think it is a fair solution (considering limited human and financial resources) to ban patrons from the library when they violate a clearly stated computer use policy—first strike, he should be out.  Viewing pornography is a personal choice, and looking at it in a public space forces it on others.  Perhaps if we look at it as a form of visual rape, maybe we won't have so many librarians crying injustice.  

After the Thrill is Gone

What can you do when your dreams come true

And it's not quite like you planned?

Throughout my two years at my position as Adult Services and Reference Librarian, I can now see my slow transition away from my initial thrill in helping people access information.  In my first month on the job, I vividly recall helping a patron set up a Facebook account; he wanted to locate an old girlfriend and "heard this was the best way to find her."  Of course, Facebook requires an email address, so I helped him set up that account first, spending two hours with him over two days.  As a one woman department, there were undoubtedly other patrons who could have used my assistance, but since I was away from my desk for so long, I'll never know—I should have referred him to the monthly Social Networking Workshops I used to teach.  

It only occurred to me weeks later that I could have been abetting a stalker, but since I was so passionate about helping teach people how to access the online world, I did not judge his request for assistance.  I do, however, question my title: Google "adult services" and you'll know what I mean. 

A librarian submitted for publication the above on banning patrons instead of

using filtering software in public libraries.  I am publishing it

anonymously for her protection.  I am happy to

present fresh, new ideas like this.

Join the Watchdogs.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Occupy Begins Lawfare Against NYPD with Vexatious Litigation Involving Ersatz OWS Library; I Offer to Assist New York City

@OWSLibrary on Twitter

The "Occupy" movement has launched its lawfare against New York City and the New York City Police [NYPD]:

• "Occupy Wall Street Sues City for Ruining 'People's Library' During Zuccotti Park Raid," by Alexander Nazaryan, New York Daily News, 24 May 2012.
• "Occupy Wall Street Sues Bloomberg and New York City Over Library Destruction," by Nick Pinto, The Village Voice, 24 May 2012.
• "Occupy Wall Street Sues NYC Over Confiscated Books," by Joseph Ax (Reuters), The Chicago Tribune, 24 May 2012.

I hereby offer assistance as an expert on library propaganda, including that of the ersatz OWS "Library."  I will help oppose this lawfare and help prove the vexatious nature of the litigation, thereby entitling the litigation's victims to increased damages.  NYC, NYPD, please contact me.  My assistance will be based generally on information contained in the following posts I have written, and much more:

• "Occupied ALA Ignored Cuban Librarians; OWSLibrary is Not a Real Library and People Knew It Would Be Removed," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 November 2011.
• "Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 December 2011.
• "Library Propagandizes Children for Occupy Oakland," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 November 2011.

See also:

• "What is an American Library?," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 21 November 2011.

NOTE ADDED 10 APRIL 2013:

And the case is over, having settled out of court, but that doesn't stop the anarchists from claiming victory:

#winning
— The People's Library (@OWSLibrary) April 9, 2013

And despite the title using the word "library," the story makes it clear it really was not, saying, "Called the People's Library, the collection included novels and history books"—so it was just a "collection" of books:

• "Suit Settled With Occupy Wall St. Over Seizure of Library at a Park," by Colin Moynihan, The New York Times, 10 April 2013, p. A19.

Follow @SafeLibraries

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? 

.

Some Might Cry Censorship, But That’s Nonsense

"Some might cry censorship, but that's nonsense." Just ask the Annoyed Librarian about Water for Elephants in the Bedford (NH) High School:

"Live Free or Die?," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 21 February 2011.

.

ALA Blowhards

The Annoyed Librarian discusses another annoyed librarian and American Library Association [ALA] "blowhards."  Here is an excerpt from "Another Annoyed Librarian," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 9 December 2009, (and be sure to read the comments) emphasis mine:

The November issue of Against the Grain ... published "The American Library Association and Professional Limits:  The Case for Saying Less," by Steve McKinzie. McKinzie argues that:

"By passing numerous political resolutions on non-library related questions, by heading the recommendations of the ALA’s Social Responsibilities Roundtable, and by indulging its desire for political relevance — by saying, in short, so many things about so many topics — the association squanders precious political capital.  That’s right.  Such actions inevitably undermine the ALA’s unique and valuable role — its voice for librarianship and its advocacy of libraries."

He was prompted for action by the latest Council resolutions about health care legislation, which apparently library associations have some special expertise on that it's important to share with everyone else.

My argument is that such ALA political posturing just makes the ALA in particular and librarians in general look silly.  The ALA Councilors should speak to some non-librarians sometime to judge the response.  When I tell non-librarians about some of the more irrelevant resolutions, the response is always the same.  Why would anyone care what the librarians have to say?  When we speak about library-related issues, we speak with authority.  When we speak on issues of no direct concern to libraries, we're just blowhards.

McKinzie makes a similar point, asserting that "Everyone has had the experience of witnessing the phenomena of someone whose boldly brazen posturing does more harm than good," and contrasting this with the "voices you heed — not because you necessarily agree (often you don’t) — but because you respect their understanding and their advocacy."

When library associations speak about non-library issues, why would anyone respect what they have to say?  For McKinzie, it's the divergence from the ALA mission and purpose that makes these pronouncements irrelevant and endangers our credibility on relevant issues.

There's also the loss of political capital.  By speaking so often on any possible topic, the ALA makes it less likely anyone will take them more seriously when they speak on library related topics.  He concludes that "ALA must, in a sense, regain its focus, remember why we are here and what we are about.  Most importantly, the association should employ its precious political capital for the promotion and advocacy of libraries and librarianship — that and nothing more."

I agree, and I have previously said something similar:

• "ALA Trifecta: Socialized Medicine, Gay Marriage, and Animal Cruelty Depictions," 4 August 2009.
• "ALA Supports Animal Cruelty Depictions; What Does This Have to Do With Libraries," 15 July 2009.

And think about that sentence where McKinzie says, "Everyone has had the experience of witnessing the phenomena of someone whose boldly brazen posturing does more harm than good."  Banned Books Week, anyone?

Speaking of the Annoyed Librarian and BBW, remember:

• "Annoyed Librarian Rips ALA for Banned Books Week 'Nonsense' and for an 'Incoherent and Self-Serving' Definition of Censorship," 30 September 2009.

.

Annoyed Librarian Rips ALA for Banned Books Week "Nonsense" and for an "Incoherent and Self-Serving" Definition of Censorship

The Library Journal's blogger named the "Annoyed Librarian" has ripped the American Library Association [ALA] for the "nonsense" going on this week called "Banned Books Week." (Remember, Thomas Sowell calls it "National Hogwash Week.")

And censorship? The ALA has an "incoherent and self-serving" definition of the word, says the Annoyed Librarian. "The ALA's definition of censorship has no relationship whatsoever to what everyone else in the entire world understands by the word. It's incoherent and self-serving."

Read this right now! I've written about the Annoyed Librarian before, and this story is just more excellence from her. Enjoy:

"Celebrate 'Banned' Books Week!," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 30 September 2009.

As Dan Gerstein has said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."

Stifle free speech? The ALA does that. Let someone merely complain about a book, and that person is shouted down as a "censor." People are allowed to object. Libraries have policies in place to handle such objections. All final decisions come from the library. The library is presumably acting appropriately. It is simply wrong to attack people for filing objections in the manner libraries provide for filing those objections.

Okay, so some get the attention of the press. Hey, it's a free country. Free speech advocates are not suggesting people should self-censor, are they? It appears to me that the ALA argues people should be shut up or should decide to shut themselves up on their own. As former 40-year ALA leader Judith Krug said, "'What we're dealing with is a minority of people who are very vocal....' 'These people are small in number but they start screeching, and people start getting concerned.'"

There's the harm. The ALA attacking parents for "screeching" and "censoring" in an apparent effort to embarrass them into self-censoring themselves. It's a propaganda technique called jamming. Don't let the jamming stop you. Don't let Banned Books Week fool you.

We often hear, "Is it within the rights of one parent to demand that the other not be allowed to expose their children to certain ideas or issues?" No, but it's a straw man argument; that's not what is happening. Libraries make the final decisions. I have never heard of "screeching parents" making decisions in libraries. Have you?

.

ALA Censors with Gay Abandon

"The Corrupt American Library Association Censors with Carefree Abandon"
by Laurie Higgins
Illinois Family Institute
12 August 2009

In the fall of 2008, I wrote two articles describing how absurdly imbalanced public high school book collections are on the topic of homosexuality. I mentioned in those two articles that Deerfield High School had approximately 65 books that espouse liberal views on homosexuality and not one that espouses conservative views. At New Trier High school in Winnetka, it's even worse: it's approximately 120 liberal books to 0 conservative.

Now the organization "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays" (PFOX) has issued a press release taking a West Bend, Wisconsin library to task for its refusal to include in its book collection any books written by or about men and women who have decided no longer to engage in homosexual acts or identify as homosexuals, while at the same time carrying numerous books that espouse positive views of homosexuality:

"Despite public opposition, the West Bend Community Memorial Library continues to stock gay books for children and teens while neglecting books by ex-gay authors.

"Many of the gay books promote homosexual behavior to youth and are the subject of protests by concerned parents, whose request to have the books moved to the adult section were denied.

"'Our requests that the Library balance some of its homosexual material for children with material written by ex-gays or with a heterosexual slant have been ignored,' said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX).

"'Apparently, the West Bend Community Memorial Library is not interested in diversity,' said Griggs. . . . According to its own policy, the Library has a 'professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in developing collections.'

"'For a library to provide children's books which promote homosexuality while denying ex-gay books smacks of censorship and indoctrination of youth with a one-sided ideology,' said Griggs."

Furthermore, PFOX is asking the American Library Association (ALA) to condemn the violation of ALA principles that such censorship represents. There are two chances of that happening: slim and fat.

In July 2009, the American Library Association held its annual convention right here in Chicago. It might surprise IFI readers to learn that one of the pressing issues addressed at this convention for librarians was same-sex marriage. This issue is of such pressing concern to the ALA that a resolution was put forward that has the ALA formally endorsing same-sex marriage. I hope this disabuses the naïve among us of the delusion that the ALA is an unbiased, politically neutral organization committed to providing "leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all."

Here is a "must-read" article about the event from the delightfully sardonic "Annoyed Librarian" who wrote about the resolution in his or her blog post "ALA 2009: ALA Council and Same Sex Marriage." (Please send this link to the librarians in your schools and community libraries.)

ALA ideologues are prepared to defend their de facto censorship practices. Their defense centers around their "Collection Development Policies" (CDP's). The term sounds so stupefyingly boring that no one thinks to look closely at them and how they actually affect library book collections--but we should.

Fortunately, two university librarians have provided cynical, saucy, and trenchant analyses of CDP's which you can read here and here.

It's not just the ALA whose bias is showing. A cursory look at the ideological biases of those who publish, review, and recommend books to school libraries and who sit on award committees will illuminate why such imbalances exist at virtually all public school and community libraries.

Secular publishing companies are largely staffed by liberals. Schools of education and departments of library science are notoriously liberal. Organizations that review and recommend books are notoriously liberal. And committees that award literary prizes are largely composed of individuals who hold liberal views on social issues, including homosexuality.

These various groups, along with English departments in colleges, universities, and high schools, are embarrassingly hypocritical when it comes to their public statements about intellectual freedom and diversity. When it comes to the topic of homosexuality, they are intellectually incestuous, politically motivated, narrow-minded, intolerant censors.

Below is an excerpt from a 2008 article written by four women on the staff of the Cooperative Children's Book Center of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison followed by their biographies, which reveals just how influential ideologues are in determining what books libraries purchase. This will also clarify why West Bend, Wisconsin community members are having so much trouble getting ideas into their local libraries:

Over the past few years there has been a welcome increase in young adult novels dealing with gay and lesbian themes and topics, and 2007 proved to be the best year yet, not only in terms of quantity but in terms of quality as well (emphasis added). We were pleased to see several newcomers pen their first novels for young adults with LGBTQ themes. Among these are published adult authors writing for the first time for teenagers, including Peter Cameron (Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You) and James St. James (Freak Show). First-time novelists M. Sindy Felin (Touching Snow) and Perry Moore (Hero) both got off to a great start with their original, finely crafted stories.

Established authors Julie Peters, (grl2grl) and Ellen Wittlinger (Parrotfish) expanded the genre by offering a variety of LGBTQ characters, including transgender teens. And Nancy Garden, a pioneer in the field, published a collection of short stories (Hear Me Out) that shows the changes that have occurred in the lives of gay and lesbian teens over the past six decades. This year also marked the twenty-fifth-anniversary edition of Annie on My Mind (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), which was so groundbreaking when it came out-the first gay/lesbian love story with a happy ending. We have come a very long way, indeed, since John Donovan published I'll Get There: It Better Be Worth the Trip (Harper & Row), the first gay novel for teens, in 1969.

In addition to Annie on My Mind, 2007 was an anniversary year for another landmark young adult novel. S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, now a classic, came out in a fortieth-anniversary edition. Both of these books were important precursors of things to come.
. . .
In fact, one of the things that struck us profoundly this year was the fact that publishing reflecting the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning youth has, in just a few years, grown exponentially, and in that growth we are seeing more new voices and greater diversity of experience than we see within any single component of multicultural literature.

Kathleen T. Horning
Kathleen is the director of the Cooperative Children's Book Center of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kathleen T. Horning is a librarian who has served on many ALA award committees and is the former chair of the Newbery Award Committee. Kathleen is a past-president of the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) of the American Library Association (ALA), and a past president of the United States Board on Books for Young People (USBBY). She has served on ALA/SRRT's Rainbow List, ALA/ALSC's Notable Children's Books Committee and an earlier Newbery Award Committee. She chaired ALA/ALSC's first Committee on Social Issues in Relationship to Materials and Services for Children. Kathleen frequently lectures to librarians on issues in evaluating literature for children and young adults, and she was named the 2010 May Hill Arbuthnot Honor Lecturer for ALA/ALSC.

Merri V. Lindgren
Merri is a librarian at the Cooperative Children's Book Center of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Merri is a regular contributor to the Wisconsin State Journal, writing a monthly column about books for children and young adults. Merri was a member of the American Library Association ALSC/YALSA 2008 Odyssey Award committee and is serving on the ALA/ALSC 2010 Caldecott Award Committee. She served on the 2001 Charlotte Zolotow Award committee and chaired the 2002, 2006, and 2007 Charlotte Zolotow Award committees.

Tessa Michaelson
Michaelson is a librarian at the Cooperative Children's Book Center of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Tessa is the producer of the weekly CCBC podcasts. Tessa is chair of the 2010 Charlotte Zolotow Award Committee, and served as a member of the 2009 Zolotow Award Committee.

Megan Schliesman
Schliesman is a librarian at the Cooperative Children's Book Center of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Megan served on the American Library Association/ALSC 2005 Newbery Award Committee and is chairing the ALA/ALSC 2011 Laura Ingalls Wilder Committee. She has also served on the 1998, 1999 and 2002 Charlotte Zolotow Award committees, chaired the 2003 and 2008 Zolotow Award committees, and will chair the 2009 committee. Megan manages the CCBC Intellectual Freedom Information Services and "What IF . . . Questions and Answers on Intellectual Freedom" forum.

Through its de facto censorship mechanism, cunningly obscured behind the sterile nomenclature "Collection Development Policy," the American Library Association has become a corrupt, hypocritical organization committed to promulgating biased, subversive social and political views on the controversial topic of homosexuality. On this topic one thing's certain: if you're looking for intellectual diversity, stay out of your libraries.