Nashua Public Library Targets Children with R-Rated Films

The Nashua Public Library, Nashua, NH, is targeting local children, now with R-rated movies.  It is doing this in compliance with the American Library Association [ALA] diktat regarding "age" discrimination, not the interests of its own community.  The Nashua Public Library provides another example of the one third of American libraries controlled by the ALA.  And the false cries of "censorship" grow louder:

• "Nashua Library Lifts Age Restriction on Borrowing R-Rated Movies," by Patrick Meighan, Nashua Telegraph, 15 September 2012.

The library director proudly ditches community standards while substituting therefor ALA's child sexualization standards.  She wrote, "The borrowing restrictions violated basic library principles regarding intellectual freedom and I am glad we were able to finally lift them."  Those "library principles" where created by an ACLU Illinois state leader who joined the ALA, created the "Office for Intellectual Freedom," changed forever how librarians would approach children, then worked for decades to force ACLU/ALA diktat on local communities.

The Nashua library director is basically saying community standards no longer apply and anything goes.  Despite the title, it's really your library, but ACLU/ALA's choices:

• "Your Library, Your Choices," by Jennifer Hinderer, Nashua Public Library Blog, 13 September 2012.

Here is more on this topic, including direction the ALA gives libraries on movie ratings:

• "Keeping R-Rated Films from Children is Censorship, According to the ALA and the Fountaindale Public Library That Blindly Follows the ALA," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 25 June 2011.

Nashua citizens, are you going to let this woman control your library?  Are you going to believe her simply because she acts like she knows that she's doing?

Joe Walsh, "Lucky That Way"

—

I'll let you all in on a little secret

If I can share with you a thing or two

If you just act like you know what you're doin'

Everybody thinks that you do

While we're on the topic, as to R-rated films now being available to children, well, Joe Walsh said something that may apply, "Too bad for the children, they are what they see":

Too bad for the children—in Nashua, NH.

If anyone in Nashua including government officials wants my assistance in restoring local control to your own library and removing the ACLU/ALA influence, please contact me.  For example, did you know the US Supreme Court has essentially ruled the ALA's "age" discrimination policies are illusory:

The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.

NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

Telegraph_MikeB @SafeLibraries blogger fires back at Nashua Public Library lifting age restriction on R-rated movies. http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/09/NashuaPublicLibraryTargetsChildren.html 9/17/12 10:01 AM-Monday, 17September2012

SECOND NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

Read the comments below to see how the NH Library Association tacitly admits knowing what the NPL is doing is wrong and choosing instead to anonymously attack the messenger.  So now the NHLA is complicit.

Follow @SafeLibraries

ALA's Anything Goes at Any Age Policy Criticized by University of Missouri Library Science Student

The American Library Association's anything goes at any age policy has been criticized by a University of Missouri School of Information Science & Learning Technologies student.  It is outstanding:

• "American Libraries and Young Patrons," by Garren Hochstetler, Words, Ideas, and Things, 18 March 2012.

It is republished below (emphasis/hyperlinks in original, graphics added) with permission of the author, who adds in an email to me:

[T]he assignment was to articulate the ALA's position on children and intellectual freedom, then respectfully present opposing viewpoints.  The class is teaching us to be critical, not dogmatic.

What an excellent class, obviously with an excellent professor.  Teaching students to think past the ALA "dogma"—that is true intellectual freedom.  I'm going to ask this student to join the library watchdogs.  Anyone else interested?

American Libraries and Young Patrons

[A paper for my Intellectual Freedom class.]

According to the American Library Association's (the ALA's) Library Bill of Rights, "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views [emphasis added]" (1996).  This policy of age non-discrimination has several controversial consequences: minors may view any materials adults may access, parents must take full responsibility for restricting their own children, and librarians may not hesitate to select materials they personally consider inappropriate for minors or adults.

Full Access for Minors

"Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images a legislative body believes to be unsuitable for them.  Librarians and library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether material is not constitutionally protected." (ALA, 2008)

Library Bill of Rights, 1948,
before "age" was added in 1967.

Before examining what counts and what doesn't count as "constitutionally protected speech," it's important to notice the uniqueness of the ALA's position:  libraries may not restrict materials for minors unless that material is constitutionally unprotected.  Movie theaters routinely deny unaccompanied minors admission to R-rated films even though these films are constitutionally protected speech.  Same goes for selling M-rated video games to minors.  These industries voluntarily restrict direct access by minors to keep the public from demanding that all films and video games be "content appropriate" for minors (Scales, 2009).  The American library industry — so to speak — has deliberately decided not to apply such a policy.

What counts as constitutionally protected speech?  That's a complicated issue.  The First Amendment itself does not mention exceptions, but there is a long history of Supreme Court cases deciding what counts as speech (more than verbal expression!) and what counts as protected speech: most things except obscenity, libel, fighting words, and incitement to immediate crime (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942).  Unprotected speech isn't necessarily illegal speech; it's just that the Constitution isn't interpreted as stopping legislatures from passing laws against unprotected speech, so legislatures usually do.

There is one more major complication:  the same materials can be classified as protected, non-obscene speech for adults but unprotected, obscene speech for minors.  In a late 60's Supreme Court case, it was decided that pornographic magazines could be denied by law to minors while allowed by law to adults (Ginsberg v. New York, 1968).  However, as seen in the long quote above, the ALA insists on waiting for a court of law to classify materials as "obscene" — for everyone — before libraries may deny access to minors.

Criticism of Full Access for Minors

US Supreme Court, 2003, US v.
American Library Association

Do libraries have a legal obligation to offer minors access to all materials which are constitutionally protected for adults?  Despite the ALA's age-agnostic presentation of the issue, the answer appears to be: no, libraries are not legally obligated to provide full access to minors:

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.  Given this interest, and the failure to show that adult library users' access to the material is burdened in any significant degree, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face."  (United States v. American Library Association, 2003)

This does leave open the question of whether libraries may restrict materials more narrowly than local legislative limits, but the simplistic principle of equal access does not stand up to scrutiny.

All Responsibility on Parents

"Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child.  Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's—and only their children’s—access to library resources." (ALA, 2008)

To use a film example again, it's common for video rental stores to deny R-rated rentals to minors by default, unless a parent adds an authorization to the family account to permit a particular child to rent R movies on his or her own.  Librarians following the ALA's code will allow minors to check out any materials from the library by default.  Can parents ask the library to not allow their own children to check out R-rated movies?  The ALA says "no."  Or put more positively, "Visit the library with your children.  If that’s not possible, ask to see the materials your children bring home.   Set aside a special shelf for library materials.  If there are materials on it you don’t approve of, talk with your children about why you would rather they not read or view them" (ALA, 1999).

Criticism of All Responsibility on Parents

Some parents consider the ALA's stance too "retroactive" to give parents informed control over their own children's library access.  Relying on children to hand over all materials to their parents for approval is, well, unrealistic.  Parents Against Bad Books in Schools (PABBIS) proposes a system of "Upfront-Informed Parental Consent" for assigned readings as well as school library collections.  In this system, parents would be given a write-up describing the content and justification for using each book, along with possible alternatives.  Parents would need to sign off on the book or pick an alternative for their own children (PABBIS, n.d.).

While this may work for assigned classroom readings, it's unclear how such a system would work for a library as a whole.  Perhaps parents could give blanket pre-approval for their children to read materials with certain ratings, but require specific consent on anything beyond those ratings.  It would be interesting to know the degree to which librarian opposition to such a scheme is a matter of convenience versus a matter of principle.

Unrestricted Selection

"Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users." (ALA, 2008)

What's @ your library?

Given the policy of full access to library resources for minors, it might be tempting to limit minors by limiting the entire library.  It would be like allowing minors to rent any movie at a video store without parental permission, while simply not carrying anything rated higher than PG-13.  Some parents would no doubt appreciate the existence of such a video store, but our society would be poorer if every video store were of this kind.

Internet access really brings the question of restrictions to the forefront.  While it's possible to subtly limit local resources out of a consideration for minors, the full diversity of the Internet comes as a single package unless librarians take the additional step of applying a filter.  The ALA opposes such filtering:

"So, just as librarians do not monitor the books or periodicals people bring into or check out of the library, allowing people to decide for themselves what they wish to read and study, the Internet empowers users to choose for themselves the information they wish to view.  Librarians can—and do—help guide searches, but they do not advocate limiting access to legal speech, because blocking access to constitutionally protected speech is unconstitutional." (ALA, 2003)

The ALA's position has been that public libraries, as public organizations, are bound by the First Amendment in ways that private organizations — like video stores — are not.

Criticism of Unrestricted Selection

Once again there is an absolutist legal question to clear up before discussing matters of degree.  Can libraries self-impose content restrictions on constitutionally protected materials for adults?  A judgment by Washington state's Supreme Court touched on this in the context of Internet filtering for adults:

"The principle that a library has no obligation to provide universal coverage of all constitutionally protected speech applies to Internet access just as it does to the printed word in books, periodicals, and other material physically collected and made available to patrons." (Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District, 2010)

It remains to be seen whether a higher court will affirm or overturn this decision.  A strong answer either way would be helpful because the ALA insists that restrictions on protected speech are unconstitutional, while the ALA's critics want local communities to have a say in where to draw the line for public libraries.

Conclusion

Extremes are easy.  Conservative patrons worry about a policy of "anything goes."  The ALA worries about a policy of "anything someone doesn't like goes away."  It can seem like the only way to avoid one extreme is to embrace the other.  This makes the status quo unstable and contentious.  Sacrificing the principle of absolute age equality may be a necessary step toward keeping libraries free for adults and as open for children as their parents want it to be.

References

American Library Association. (1996).  Library bill of rights. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill

American Library Association. (1999).  Strategies and tips for dealing with challenges to library materials. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/challengeslibrarymaterials/copingwithchallenges/strategiestips

American Library Association. (2003).  Libraries and the Internet toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/iftoolkits/litoolkit/sampleanswers

American Library Association. (2008).  Free access to libraries for minors. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/freeaccesslibraries

Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library District, No. 82200-0 D. Washington. (2010). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1523482.html

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).

Parents Against Bad Books in Schools. (n.d.)  Upfront-informed parental consent. Retrieved from: http://www.pabbis.com/upfront.html

Scales, P.R. (2009).  Protecting intellectual freedom in your school library: Scenarios from the front lines. Chicago, IL: ALA Publishing.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

Follow @SafeLibraries

Keeping R-Rated Films from Children is Censorship, According to the ALA and the Fountaindale Public Library That Blindly Follows the ALA

Keeping R-rated films from children is censorship?  It seems the American Library Association [ALA] says so, and it seems the Fountaindale Public Library in Bolingbrook, IL, has ceded local control of the library to the ALA.  At least that's my understanding of the following report:

• "Should Kids Be Allowed to Rent R-Rated Movies From the Library?; The Fountaindale Public Library Does Not Prohibit the Renting of R-Rated Movies for Children, Per American Library Association Policy. But Should They?," by Brian Feldt, Bolingbrook Patch, 25 June 2011.

Does your local library cede control to the ALA?

The following resources will enlighten your own evaluation of the issue:

• "Library Dvds Raise Eyebrows; In Most Cases, Kids are Free to Check Out R-Rated Movies," by Nin-Hai Tseng, Orlando Sentinel, 17 May 2007.

  Librarians say the restrictions McCreary is advocating may be well intentioned but pose an issue over censorship.

• "Movie Ratings are Private, Not Public Policy," by Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, Illinois Library Association Reporter, March 2004.

  Use of the MPAA ratings system to restrict young people's access to films and videos is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights and an impermissible prior restraint on free expression.

• "Questions and Answers on Labeling and Rating Systems," by American Library Association, American Library Association, 16 January 2010.

  Cataloging decisions, labels, or ratings applied in an attempt to restrict or discourage access to materials or to suggest moral or doctrinal endorsement is a violation of the First Amendment and the Library Bill of Rights....

• "What's In a Label?," by Marcia Sarnowski, Winding Rivers Library System, 22 December 2010.

  Some may argue that this type of labeling is a service to parents as it helps them protect their children from visual or printed content they may find objectionable.  ....  Only a court has the authority to decide, for others, what is obscene or harmful to minors.

See also:

• "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries"

• "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"

Here's my comment I added to that article in the Bolingbrook Patch:

Over 40 years ago, an ACLU Illinois state leader who created the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom singlehandedly changed the way librarians dealt with children.  No longer would they provide them with age appropriate material.  Suddenly it was anything goes, and for 40 years that person has been driving the message into American libraries.  That's why the Fountaindale Public Library is in the position it is in.  That's why it is admitting it will follow the ALA policy.

The real question is whether the citizens in Bolingbrook, IL, want to protect their children legally and with common sense, or cede control over to the ACLU-inspired ALA policy.

Yes, "access to a wide range of materials is a right granted to all—even kids."  However, the does not mean public libraries get to violate common sense and the law just because of the ALA's bully pulpit.  See US v. ALA, a case the ALA lost big in 2003.

Further, the ALA argues MPAA movie ratings should not be given credence in public libraries since the MPAA is not a local organization the community controls.  So tell me, then, why should the ALA policies hold sway when it is also not a local organization the community controls?

Patch, how about polling the Bolingbrook citizens on whether or not they wish to allow children to borrow R-rated films?  I think we all know which way that would go.  Now it's time for the ALA policy to go.

I ask anyone interested to contact me for information and possible assistance.

NOTE ADDED 27 JUNE 2011:

For a reason unknown to me, the link to the relevant article has gone dead.  Therefore, in respect of US Copyright §107 Fair Use, and for discussion purposes, I hereby reprint the article, hyperlinks from original:


Government

Should Kids Be Allowed to Rent R-Rated Movies From the Library?

The Fountaindale Public Library does not prohibit the renting of R-rated movies for children, per American Library Association policy.  But should they?

By Brian Feldt | June 25, 2011 

Imagine you're a parent. Or maybe you already are a parent and have young children—kids that impressionable and vulnerable to today's society, especially when it comes to the music and movie industry.

You try hard to shield your kids from the vulgar or inappropriate messages that some movies and music contain. But you can't shield them from everything.

And the Fountaindale Public Library isn't exactly helping your cause.

Per the library's policy, librarians are prohibited from blocking the rental of R-rated movies by minors. Not even when the movie in question is obviously not meant for a youngster.

The issue was raised last week at the library's board of trustees meeting, where an upset mother took issue with the library's practices.  The mother said her 15-year-old son was able to rent Fight Club from the library without any word of warning or message to the parent.

Had she not seen the movie in her son's book bag, she never would have known it was even rented.

Fight Club, a popular movie starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, is rated R for "disturbing and graphic depiction of violent anti-social behavior, sexuality and language," according to The Classification and Rating Administration.

But library officials said the most they could do is have a strong discussion with its new director—Paul Mills, who will begin work July 5.

Peggy Danhoff, the librar's board president, said the issue was "very close to her heart," but said for the time being, the library is sticking with American Library Association policy.

That policy reads: "Recognizing that librarians cannot act in loco parentis, policies which set minimum age limits for access to nonprint materials and equipment with or without parental permission abridge library use for minors."

What does that mean?

This, according to an ALA interpretation of the policy:

    "... The 'right to use a library' includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer.  Every restriction on acces to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chonological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.


    ... Parents—and only parents—have the right and responsibility to restrict access of their children—and only their children—to library resources.  Parents who do not want their children to have access to certain library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.  Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between a parent and child.


    Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors.  Librarians and library governing bodies have a public and professional obligation to ensure that all members of the community they serve have free, equal, and equitable access to the entire range of library resources regardless of content, approach, format, or amount of detail."

Danhoff said the library does its best to make sure kids aren't renting inappropriate movies by putting R-rated movies in the adult section, located on the third floor—far from the children's section on the first floor or young adult and teen section on the second floor.

And per ALA policy, it acknowledges and supports the exercise by parents to guide their own children’s viewing, using published reviews of films and videotapes and reference works that provide information about the content, subject matter and recommended audiences.

But putting a stipulation on teens or young children's library cards would be a form of censorship, not to mention technologically impracticable for the library, Danhoff said.


What do you think?  Should public institutions such as libraries help parent children by monitoring what they watch and rent?  Or should ALA policy stand?  And access to a wide range of materials is a right granted to all—even kids.


Weigh in by leaving a comment below.


NOTE ADDED 7 SEPTEMBER 2011:

Here is relevant information that the ALA's Judith Krug supported communities deciding R-rated movie policies for themselves!

While one library was fending off an attempt to restrict minor access to R-rated videos, the Dayton, Ohio public library has attempted to balance the tension between access and parental discretion.  The policy resulted from a petition request signed by "several hundred parents at odds with the library's open access philosophy[.]"  The policy allows parents to sign a form requesting their children not have access to R-rated films.  However, the originator of the petition, a father objecting to his son's viewing of an R-rated video checked out of the library, was unhappy with the policy because he had asked the library "to require explicit permission to take out R-rated movies and they haven't done that[.]"  Judith Krug, director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom commented: "If it is in the best judgment of that library and its board that a modified restricted access policy is a necessity, then they've done it properly: that is, the burden has been placed on the people wanting to restrict their children."

"Democracy and the Public Library: Essays on Fundamental Issues," by Arthur W. Hafner, ed., Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1993, pp. 304-305, citations omitted.


NOTE ADDED 28 FEBRUARY 2012:

I can't wait until the ALA cries "censorship" that the movie "Perks of Being A Wallflower" got R-rated by the MPAA!

• "Say It Ain't So, Emma Watson! 'Perks of Being a Wallflower' Gets R Rating From MPAA," by Nadine Cheung, Cambio, 27 February 2012, hyperlinks in original:

'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' has been given an R rating by the MPAA, which could alienate underage fans of Emma Watson and Logan Lerman.

According to IMDb, the rating was issued for the movie's "teen drug and alcohol use, and some sexual references." Summit Entertainment, plans on appealing the rating, and with no release date set just yet, it has plenty of time.  Director Stephen Chbosky, who also wrote the book from which the movie was adapted, has always intended for the flick to be rated PG-13.

If the movie is true to the novel, the R rating doesn't come as such a surprise, though.  The mature subject matter of 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' helped put the title at No. 3 on the American Library Association's Top Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books of 2009.

Still, we're crossing our fingers that the movie can be edited for a PG-13 rating. Are you excited for Emma and Logan's forthcoming release?  Would the R rating prevent you from being able to see it?

NOTE ADDED 18 MAY 2012:

The ALA has doubled down on its stance regarding R-rated movies and the MPAA:

• "Is It Time To Rate Young Adult Books for Mature Content?  A New Report Finds that Nearly All Young Adult Bestsellers Contain at Least Some Profanity," by Jason Koebler,  U.S. News & World Report, 18 May 2012:

  There's also the question of who would label the books.  [Beth] Yoke [of the ALA's YALSA] says that the MPAA's film ratings are done in an arbitrary and opaque way.
  
  "Having a big, nebulous organization decide what your kid can or can't read is not really a democratic process," she says.

Meantime, the ALA is a "big, nebulous organization decid[ing] what your kid can or can't read," namely anything, no matter how inappropriate, is it calls book ratings "censorship":

• "Time for Book Ratings on YA Books, Says Dr. Sarah Coyne of Brigham Young University, While ALA Calls it Censorship"

NOTE ADDED 22 JULY 2012:

• "Kids' Sexual Behavior Influenced by Movie Scenes," by HealthDay News, KDFW FOX 4, 19 July 2012.

NOTE ADDED 16 SEPTEMBER 2012:

• "Nashua Library Lifts Age Restriction on Borrowing R-Rated Movies," by Patrick Meighan, Nashua Telegraph, 15 September 2012:

  Under a change in policy, you no longer have to be at least 18 to check out an R-rated or unrated movie at the Nashua Public Library.
  
  The age requirement was never a formal policy adopted by the library board of trustees, said Library Director Jennifer Hinderer. Rather, it had been put in place in late winter 2008 by the former director in response to a parent’s complaint, Hinderer said.
  
  There was already no age restriction in checking out other materials, such as books or magazines, Hinderer said. When she became library director early in 2010, Hinderer had on her “to do” list bringing the policy for checking out DVDs or VCR tapes in line with other materials.
  
  The change also makes the policy consistent with the “right to read” and “right to view” principles outlined in the American Library Association’s “Libraries, an American Value.”
  
  In her blog, npl documents.org/libraryblog, Hinderer links to the document. She also explains the reasons for the change.
  
  “The borrowing restrictions violated basic library principles regarding intellectual freedom, and I am glad we were able to finally lift them,” Hinderer wrote Thursday.
  
  She explains that families and individuals should make choices about what is acceptable to view, not library staff.
  
  She also noted it isn’t illegal for someone younger than 17 to view an R-rated movie. Rather, the ratings are guidelines adopted by the Motion Picture Association of America, which theaters have agreed to honor.
  
  A cinema may ban teens younger than 17 not accompanied by adults from watching an R movie, but it wouldn’t break the law if it permitted them to do so, Hinderer said.
  
  Hinderer posted the blog Thursday night. As of Friday midmorning, she hadn’t heard any complaints, although she expects some parents and individuals won’t like the policy change.
  
  The change brings the library in line with policies at most other public libraries, said Janet Angus, director of the Merrimack Public Library.
  
  Anyone with a valid library card can check out anything in the circulation, she said.
  
  “We’ve never had any age restrictions,” Angus said.
  
  It’s the job of parents to monitor what their children are checking out, Angus said.
  
  Likewise, neither the Rodgers Memorial Library in Hudson nor the Wadleigh Memorial Library in Milford place age restrictions on checking out DVDs or other materials in their collections.
  
  In browsing the “feature film” section of the library’s collection, not many salacious titles jump out. For example, a teenager without a parent now could check out such R movies as the Alfred Hitchcock movie “Frenzy” or the Russell Crowe adventure movie “Gladiator.”
  
  Then there’s the Spaghetti Western titled “For a Few Dollars More” starring Clint Eastwood. One of the more salaciously titled DVDs is “Born into Brothels.” But a critic’s comments on the cover proclaims the movie to be about “the resiliency of childhood.”
  
  Library patrons asked Friday disagreed about whether the change was good.
  
  Joyce, a woman who browsed the movie section with a preschool-age child, said the change didn’t bother her.
  
  It’s the parent’s job to monitor what a child watches or brings into the home,” said Joyce, who declined to give her last name but who said she’s a Nashua resident.
  
  That holds as true to a child’s TV watching habits as to rented or borrowed movies, she said.
  
  “Look at what comes on TV now,” Joyce said.
  
  Shelly Simpson, also a parent, disagreed. She thinks carding teens who want to rent R movies is the right approach.
  
  “I used to sneak R-rated movies past my parents all the time,” said Simpson, 28, the mother of a 3-year-old.
  
  Prohibiting teens younger than 18 from renting R movies would “make the job easier for parents,” Simpson said.
  
  Video rental stores card people renting movies, she said.
  
  “It depends on how their parents brought them up,” said Barbara Lambert, parent of daughters ages 23 and 24.
  
  Some teens are mature enough to handle R movies with serious themes, such as “Schindler’s List.” But she worries many children have become desensitized to violence with so much of it on television.
  
  Censorship is the job of parents, not the library staff, said Mary Maloney, a mother of four children ranging in age from 14 to 27.
  
  Patrick Meighan can be reached at 594-6518 or pmeighan@nashua telegraph.com. Also, follow Meighan on Twitter @ Telegraph_PatM.

NOTE ADDED 12 AUGUST 2023:

Many dead links were updated to an archived version.

Follow @SafeLibraries

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? 

.

Anything Goes for America if Seattle Public Library Director Susan Hildreth's Nomination is Confirmed for the Institute of Museum and Library Services

Susan Hildreth

"Anything goes" is coming to American libraries if the nominee for the Institute of Museum and Library Services [IMLS] Director is confirmed.   Susan Hildreth has been nominated for this post.  N1, N2, N3.  She is the American Library Association's [ALA] Freedom To Read Foundation [FTRF] Treasurer.  She is also the Seattle Public Library's director.  She should not be confirmed.  Here's why:

Susan Hildreth's ALA is an Anything-Goes Organization Out of the Mainstream

The ALA, in which Susan Hildreth is prominently positioned, is an "anything goes" organization.  As Will Manley of the ALA put it:

It would appear that in the case of keeping children away from Internet p[]rnography, it is the library profession, not the Supreme Court, which has distanced itself from the mainstream.  Our profession's 'anything goes' view of intellectual freedom simply does not square with the values of the communities we serve.  N4.

Will Manley asks:

Why is there such a disconnect between our profession and everyone else on this particular issue?  More specifically, how could we have allowed ourselves to be put in such a publicly disadvantageous position as defending the right of children to access p[]rnography?  The answer is simple and ironic.  Our profession preaches intellectual freedom but does not tolerate its practice within our own ranks.  Librarians imbued with common sense and good political judgment are afraid to espouse even a moderate position that advocates the limited use of filters.  There is a great fear within librarianship of being branded a censor.  No librarian wants to be wounded by that bullet.  That's why we can never really initiate an open and honest dialogue among ourselves on issues involving even the most obvious need for limitations of intellectual freedom.  As a result, the extremists always dominate, and we end up with an "anything goes" official policy that distances the library profession from mainstream America.  N4.

Has an out-of-the-mainstream extremist just been nominated for IMLS Director?  She is from the FTRF, after all.  But let us look at the library that she directs to examine this issue further.  She likely has more sway there as director than in the ALA as treasurer of the FTRF.

Susan Hildreth's Library Approves Internet P0rnography and Opposes Filtering

Susan Hildreth directs the Seattle Public Library.  The library refuses to use Internet filters to cut back on the p0rnography that may attract crime.  N5.  In fact, the library welcomes p0rnography: it's—"okay"!  A shocking statement, yes, but here is the basis for that observation:

"Each individual to have access to constitutionally protected material," Seattle Public Library Spokesperson Andra Addison said.

In Seattle, it's open access to everyone. As long as it's legal, it's okay, even if it's explicit. They're not about censorship, they're about protecting user privacy and confidentiality.

"The library believes it's the right and responsibility of parents and legal guardians to determine and monitor their own children's use," Addison said.

And that's where it comes down to choice: choice for parents, choice for the library.  Libraries try to walk that line, especially since there is a wide range of what people consider explicit.  But all will tell you, filters can be a false sense of security.

"You can be vigilant, and you can be proactive but you cannot prevent it," Rosemary said.  N6.

Susan Hildreth's Outdated Dogma on Internet Filters and Public Library P0rn

Dean Marney

A "false sense of security"?  Does Susan Hildreth believe that?  Yes.  As she put it, "Internet filtering is not 100 percent effective at all.  They're not able to deal with all the wild and crazy sites that are put up at every minute of the day."  N7.

Is it true that filtering is not effective and that legal p0rnography may not be kept out of libraries?  Of course not.  It may be what Susan Hildreth believes, the person nominated to lead the IMLS, but it is not true.  Ask library director Dean Marney, for example.  He revealed that the ALA uses outdated dogma to control local libraries, and good filters work fine.  See, "Library P[]rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P[]rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma."  N8.

Susan Hildreth is using outdated dogma as well.  She won't change when she gets to the IMLS.

The Seattle Public Library Run by Susan Hildreth is Riddled with Crime

And what has come of Susan Hildreth's anything-goes policy?  This is an important question because, as IMLS Director, she may bring the ALA's anything-goes, out-of-the-mainstream and outdated dogma to the national stage.  How has the Seattle Public Library been affected by this policy with which Susan Hildreth agrees?  It has been riddled with crime, that's how.  Look:

KIRO7 Library Misconduct
Click for Video

KIRO Team 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne discovered security has already ejected 432 patrons in the first four months this year for offenses like assault, drug dealing, intoxication and lewd conduct.
....
In all, 1,323 conduct violations were substantiated just in 2008, a disproportionate number at the Central Library branch.
....
According to Seattle Library Administrator Marilynn Gardner, nobody has to worry about safety at any branch.  N9.

Right.  Nobody has to worry about safety in a library with thousands of incidents, N9, and where management believes viewing p0rnography is "okay," N6.  No wonder Seattle librarians think there's a "sort of 1984 atmosphere at the library these days."  N10.

The library simply refuses to use Internet filters to prevent p0rnography, N5; indeed, it believes p0rnography in the public library is "okay."  N6.  And the crimes continue by the hundreds.  N11.  Hundreds!  Does anyone see a problem with that?  Does anyone want Susan Hildreth to use her position as IMLS director to bring that to American libraries?

Loss of E-Rate Funding Never Restored; Hildreth Says Go Fish to the Poor

For those who do not know, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Internet filters in public libraries are perfectly legal.  N12.  To get E-Rate funding for "Internet Access," all you need do is use Internet filtering.  The Seattle Public Library used to get money for "Internet Access," but 2003 was the last year as a result of the library's refusal to use Internet filters.  N13.  At least that's better than the nearby King County Library System that is defrauding the E-Rate program of over $1,000,000.  N14. 

Does anyone in the Seattle community know that the Seattle Public Library is intentionally turning down funding it used to get, simply because p0rnography is "okay"?  Has Susan Hildreth, struggling for funding for the library, N15, done anything to restore the lost E-Rate funding?  No.  Instead, the library will shut for a week.  N15.  Apparently, ALA politics trumps local interests.  "[F]or those who aren't familiar with our digital collection, this is a good time to learn how to download books, movies and music, since they will be available during the closure," said Susan Hildreth.  N15.

Librarians, always decrying the "digital divide," N16, suddenly advise people to "learn how to download."  N15.  Will poor populations have computers at home to download during the week?  She could have obtained E-Rate funding by properly filtering the computers but chooses instead to shut the library for a week.  It's just more evidence of Hildreth's ideological bent.  Obviously she cares more about the p0rn people than about the poor people.  Is that IMLS material?

Susan Hildreth Frightens Librarians Into Silence

Remember from above how Will Manley revealed librarians are afraid to speak out for fear of what the ALA might do?  Guess who Seattle Public Library librarians fear?  IMLS director nominee Susan Hildreth:

[M]any librarians feel unrepresented by management, and some fear retribution for speaking their minds against new policies and restructuring.

....

When asked why she didn't include a librarian on the committee to provide perspectives of what day-to-day SPL employees need or believe should be added to service, Hildreth says she didn't want an internal perspective to influence the committee.  "That's why we don't have [library] board members on the committee," she says.

The advisory committee isn't the only place where librarians feel silenced, though.  In recent months, SPL employees have taken to anonymously posting comments on blogs to air their grievances about recent shifts in policy and what they perceive as a newfound institutional inattentiveness to the needs of many patrons.  SPL employees stormed the web in protest when the December 30 edition of American Libraries magazine praised Hildreth and the library board for being "inspiring" and "ambitious."

The Stranger

A number of librarians have contacted The Stranger anonymously because they think the public needs to be informed that they are unhappy with SPL leadership.  Common complaints include anger at the creation of a new level of middle management while entry-level positions are cut and hours are shortened; a lack of librarian input on planning, restructuring, and budget decisions; fear of retribution for negative comments (even if the comments are delivered internally, through proper channels); a lack of communication with the library board; and a long-term plan to replace qualified librarians with volunteers and paraprofessionals.

....

Librarians have their own hopes for [Mayor] McGinn.  The mayor doesn't have much official power over the library-he approves the budget and appoints new members to five-year terms on the five-person library board-but they would like him to advocate for them.  One librarian says, "It's hard for someone in my position not to fantasize about the mayor pulling Susan Hildreth aside at some future meeting and saying, 'I hear your staff is not at all happy with how things are being run lately.  Not enough communication?  Something about bullies?  Might [be worth] watching.'  It'd be nice to imagine there was pressure, however subtle, from above, for her to clean house a bit."  N16.

Wow.  Her own librarians are afraid of Susan Hildreth, and now she's going to be the IMLS director.  Wow.

Conclusion

How ALA and ALA Affiliate Bullies
Get It Done

If Susan Hildreth becomes IMLS director, ALA politics will trump national interests, just like they trumped local Seattle interests with Susan Hildreth at the helm.  She can clearly steer national funding the ALA's way.  N17.  I am certain she will steer national policy the ALA's way as well.  Communities may suffer as a direct result.

I strongly oppose approving Susan Hildreth as IMLS director, and I urge people to contact their leaders [U.S. Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121].  For example, urge Senator John McCain to oppose Susan Hildreth as IMLS director.  Especially tell members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee before December 1.  N18.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will be holding a full committee markup at 10am on Wednesday, December 1.  On the agenda for this markup, among other issues, the committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Susan Hildreth to be the director of the Institute for Museum and Library Sciences (IMLS).  N18.

And, given what Will Manley (and The Stranger) said about librarians being afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled a censor (like the ALA labels all library patrons who raise concerns, N19), comments below may be left anonymously.  Here's your chance.  Speak out before the ALA policy that has made the Seattle Public Library crime riddled and fear wracked becomes national policy.  The ALA monitors this blog so your comments will be noticed.

End Notes

N1:  "President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 9/29/10," by Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 29 September 2010.

N2:  "Hildreth To Be Nominated as IMLS Director," by David Rapp, Library Journal, 30 September 2010.

N3:  "President Nominates Former Public Library Association President for IMLS Director," by Jenni Terry, (ALA) American Libraries, 30 September 2010.

N4:  "Intellectual Freedom Begins at Home," by Will Manley, (ALA) Booklist, 1 October 2003.

N5:  "Public Use of the Internet Policy," by Library Board of Trustees, The Seattle Public Library, 22 January 2002.

N6:  "P[]rn at the Public Library: How Do Local Libraries Compare Across the State?," by Chelsea Kopta, KEPR 19, 12 June 2009.

N7:  "P[]rn, Sex Crimes At Libraries," by Dan Noyes, KIRO 7, 19 October 2007.

N8:  "Library P[]rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P[]rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2010.

N9:  "Library Conduct Violations Reach All-Time High," by Chris Halsne, KIRO 7, 27 May 2009.

N10:  "Not Keeping Quiet; Librarians Speak Out Against Proposed Policies at Seattle Public Library," by Paul Constant, The Stranger, 16 June 2009.

N11:  "Incidents by Primary Rule Violation, 2007-2009," by Seattle Public Library, KIRO 7, data from 3/07-12/09.

N12:  United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

N13:  "Automated Search of Commitments," by Universal Service Administrative Company, undated.

N14:  "Library Leaves Pedophile Free to Molest Other Children; King County Library System Defrauds Taxpayers of $1,158,253 from CIPA Program; Media Investigation Needed," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 14 October 2010.

N15:  "Seattle Libraries to Shut Down for a Week; Budget Woes for Second Closure in a Year," by Larry Lange, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 22 August 2010.

N16: "Corporate Euphemisms, Angry Librarians, Accusations of Bullying: The Tense Battle for Seattle Public Library's Future," by Paul Constant, The Stranger, 8 April 2010.

N17:  "Among $9.3 Million in National Leadership Grants, IMLS Backs ALA E-Government Project," by Carrie Netzer Wajda, Library Journal, 4 October 2010.

N18:  "HELP Committee is Scheduled to Vote on the Nomination of Susan Hildreth and LSTA Reauthorization," by ALA Washington Office, American Library Association, 24 November 2010.

N19:  "The Parent Trap: ALA Uses Banned Books Week to Ridicule Patrons Complying with ALA Materials Reconsideration Policies," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 29 September 2010.

About the Author

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

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

• "SafeLibraries Changing Library Profession According to Speaker at ALA 2010 Annual Conference; SafeLibraries Welcomes Media Requests for ALA Balance"

• "ALA Chills Free Exercise of Democracy by Publicly Attacking Mom and Pop Groups Who Dare to Oppose ALA Influence That Endangers Children"

• "Booklist Webcast - Defending the Right to Read: Celebrating Banned Books Week Featuring Special Guest Judy Blume"

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

URL for this blog post:  

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/11/anything-goes-for-america-if-seattle.html

NOTE ADDED 1 DECEMBER 2010:

Today, the Senate HELP committee was no help.  The nomination of Susan Hildreth to be the director of IMLS was favorably reported from committee.  Her nomination now goes to the full Senate.  When you call your senators, please urge them to oppose Ms. Hildreth’s nomination.  Given this is the lame duck session, I doubt such opposition will prevail.


NOTE ADDED 17 FEBRUARY 2013:

• "IMLS: Don't Award Fraud in Public Libraries," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 February 2013.

.

Yakima Public Library Allows Porn--Thanks to Legislative Policy?

The Yakima Public Library allows porn.  That is obvious from the news report and video in:  "It's Legal But Many Don't Approve of Watching Porn at the Library," by Ileana Diaz, KNDO 23, 19 March 2010.

"[I]t's legal to look up just about anything, which includes porn."   More "anything goes."

But look at the next sentence:  "It's a policy that legislators set...."  What?  Will someone please print that legislative policy in a comment to this blog post?

I am going to investigate this further.  Anyone in the area who wants to contact me, please do.  In the meantime, please see these stories from about 80 miles away:

• "Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service," by Elizabeth Hovde, The Oregonian, 11 July 2009

• "Filtered Internet: Safe, Appropriate," by Dean Marney, The Wenatchee World, 2 July 2009, reprinted in "Library Director Extols Internet Filtering; Porn Should Be Excluded From Libraries; Dynamite Reading For Library Directors, Trustees and Patrons."

As the library's motto says, "Yakima Valley Regional Library; Connecting People and Ideas...."  And porn.

.