Showing posts with label BarbaraJones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BarbaraJones. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Sexual Harassment of Librarians Never Happens; Child Pornography is Intellectual Freedom

Sexual harassment of librarians never happened and likely never will, according to the American Library Association's attorney Deborah-Caldwell Stone from ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.  My reliable source for reporting this?  The Deputy Director of ALA OIF herself.

Below is a transcript of what she said at an Orland Park Public Library board meeting.  Below that is a YouTube video of her saying what's in the transcript so you can hear the dismissive tone in her voice.  And further below that is a library employee in that very same meeting revealing how she was sexually harassed as a result of the library applying ALA OIF's policy:


TRANSCRIPT OF ALA'S DEBORAH CALDWELL-STONE, ESQ.
ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
18 NOVEMBER 2013

[START TIME 5:15]

I’m Deborah Caldwell-Stone.  I am an attorney employed by the Office for Intellectual Freedom for the American Library Association.

Um, I have thought carefully about what I might say tonight, um, and I could go tit for tat, challenging some of the conclusions that have been offered to you about the legal authorities that govern Internet access in libraries and hostile work environment.  I will only tell you, and um be brief about it, that it's far more complex than it's being represented here tonight.  In fact, the libraries that were sued for hostile work environment settled the cases.  They weren’t forced to pay any money.  Um, the settlement was uh reached with a mutual agreement with the librarians involved to get rid of the lawsuit and both, uh, in fact, both in Minneapolis and in Birmingham the EEOC and the Department of Justice declined to sue on behalf of the librarians.

Hostile work environment is a very fact-based lawsuit.  I’m sure your legal counsel can tell you that.  You must have very strict, uh, standards to bring a lawsuit.  You have to be targeted because you are part of a protected class based on race, sex, ethnicity or religion.  Um, the harassment must be a result of your membership in the protected class.  So these are far more complex lawsuits than, uh, is being represented here.  And there've only been three of them over time, over the last twenty years of Internet access in libraries.

So I encourage you to get good legal consultation on these facts, uh, uh, um, about these things.  We’re happy to assist, um, but I’m sure that there're other attorneys who can assist you as well.

I do want to reiterate that I work with libraries on developing policies on a regular basis.  You have very strong policies, they're very child protective, they're respective of your, uh, users’ rights to access the Internet and the library materials under the First Amendment, and there are First Amendment rights that accrue to library users.  And, um, I want to, uh, just express my, uh, my respect and my appreciation for your professionalism in all of this.

Thank you.

[END TIME 7:22]


Library Admits to Child Porn Coverup:

"Professionalism," to the American Library Association, includes allowing and covering up child pornography.  It is no longer debatable that occurred as the library has admitted to it and admitted it was wrong.  Watch: "2014-8-18 Diane Jennings Admits Child Porn and LIES about Staff Action," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 11 November 2014:



Child Porn Coverup Earns Law-Breaking Library Intellectual Freedom Awards:

Not to worry, that child porn coverup admitted to in August 2013 has earned the library multiple subsequent awards.  ALA seeks to hold up the law-breaking library as an example to others, and what better way than to make it an award-winning library!  After all, protecting child pornography is protecting First Amendment intellectual freedom!  ALA does oppose child pornography per se, but it teaches librarians and trustees they are not judges and are in no position to determine what is child pornography.

Photo Credit: Orland Park Public Library
Here are the awards so far, at least one instigated by ALA's Barbara Jones, and there are likely more in the pipeline—I wouldn't be surprised if library director Mary Weimar makes a graceful exit from her coverup by joining ALA OIF as at least one Assistant Director has done:


YouTube: ALA Says Librarian Sexual Harassment Never Happens:

Here is the visual recording of the transcript provided above:


Source: "2013-11-18 = Terrific Rebuttal to ALA Lies During Public Comment at OPPL Meeting (Part 3)," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 19 November 2013, start time 5:15.


YouTube: Library Employee Reveals Sexual Harassment:

At the very same meeting that ALA just said sexual harassment never happens, a former library employee spoke to say she was sexually harassed in that very library:


Source: "2013-11-18 = SHOCKING EXPOSE: Library Insider Linda Zec Gives Scoop on Porn in Libraries (Part 4)," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 19 November 2013.


Transcript of ALA's Barbara Jones Speaking at Same Meeting:

FYI, here is the transcript of Barbara Jones, head of ALA OIF, who spoke directly before Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.:

Warning to TeamHarpy:

There are two librarians being sued for defamation for reporting on the alleged sexual harassment by another librarian that allegedly occurs at library conferences.  On Twitter they call themselves #TeamHarpy.

I have a warning for TeamHarpy.  If you ignore the ALA OIF saying sexual harassment of librarians never happens, you'll never be able to prove sexual harassment of librarians really does happen.  At a minimum, you cannot be truly serious about opposing sexual harassment of librarians if you ignore that ALA OIF is saying sexual harassment of librarians never happened and likely never will.  I realize nearly every single librarian is afraid to speak out against ALA OIF on its harmful policies because that would be a career ender, but if your goal is to truly stop sexual harassment of librarians instead of stopping just one man, you must address the source, the ALA policies that allow unfettered porn including child pornography.

Note to my readers:  TeamHarpy absolutely hates me for saying the above, but it is the truth.  You can't prove sexual harassment of librarians happens when ALA OIF says sexual harassment of librarians never happens.



Conclusion:

Sexual harassment of librarians never happens.  Child pornography is intellectual freedom.  At least that's what ALA OIF wants people to believe because its own policies are directly responsible for the unfettered porn and child porn viewing that leads directly to sexual harassment and other sex crimes.  These policies are in many libraries nationwide.  If people like TeamHarpy want to address librarian sexual harassment, they should not ignore the main source of that harassment, namely, ALA OIF pro child porn policy.  Such policies must be extirpated or the illegality and harassment will continue unabated.


NOTE ADDED 19 DECEMBER 2014:

Here is one example of where the American Library Association advises librarians to ignore child pornography, and this policy guides many local public library polices nationwide:

Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”
.... 
As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material.

NOTE ADDED 28 OCTOBER 2017:

ALA OIF's new leader, Jamie LaRue, has doubled down on saying sexual harassment of librarians due to the unfiltered Internet never happens.  He called it "speculation," "dubious":

My correspondent made various misleading claims I won’t repeat here. But I did want to address one issue. He wrote that “harassment is caused by people having viewed the unfiltered Internet while in the library.” But that’s speculation, not fact. It’s dubious, too. People read mysteries in libraries and don’t feel compelled to commit murders. People are responsible for unwanted or criminal action, not the internet. And not library policy.

Wow.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/12/sexual-harassment-of-librarians.html

On Twitter: @GSLIS @IllLibraryAssoc @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary #TeamHarpy

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 50 West Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60654, USA

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

FCC: Library Filters Work, Having Them is a Community Decision, and Libraries Should Revisit CIPA Filters Due to Technological Advances

Lisa Hone, Esq., FCC
Library Internet filters work well, it's a community decision to have them, and libraries should reconsider using them given "the technology has advanced so tremendously."  Read this comment from Lisa Hone, Deputy Division Chief of the Federal Communication Commissions's [FCC] Telecommunications Access Policy Division.  It was made during a webinar by FCC's Jonathan Chambers, Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and others from FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau:
I would also just remind folks that that that communities have lots of lots of leeway so that to be in compliance with CIPA is a community decision about what you need to do to be in compliance with CIPA, and, so, I know there're some people who are just opposed philosophically to to to any sort of burden but, um, I think that A) communities can decide what their community standard is under CIPA, and B) the technology has advanced so tremendously that it's pretty easy to have a different standard for adults and children, which I don't think was really the case, uh, when CIPA was first enacted.  So to the extent that it's a bar and, uh, and a library hasn't revisited the issue in recent years, it might be worth revisiting.
  • "E-rate Never Sleeps," by Marijke Visser, District Dispatch, The Official ALA Washington Office Blog, 8 August 2014, Lisa Hone speaking at about 18:06 into the FCC webinar.
CIPA, by the way, is the Children's Internet Protection Act that requires filters on public library computers in exchange for certain federal E-rate funding.  Lisa Hone said what she said after one library director wrote: "Many libraries don't apply [for FCC E-rate funding] due to CIPA."  In other words, they voluntarily turn down federal funding because they think they speak for the community and are "just opposed philosophically to to to any sort of burden."  Lisa Hone spoke up to attempt to correct that outdated view.


Library Filters Work: "Technology Has Advanced So Tremendously"

So library Internet filters work and work well.  Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even ALA's so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom" [OIF].  I have previously revealed how the head of OIF was forced to admit filters work while she was being interviewed on an NPR affiliate after library director Dean Marney won state and federal cases proving not only that libraries may legally filter, but they need not unfilter porn:

Communities Get to Decide, Not "People Who Are Just Opposed Philosophically"

Further, it's a community decision to have filters, not solely "some people who are just opposed philosophically."  These are community libraries.  Community rules should apply.  They should make informed decisions, informed by people like FCC's Lisa Hone, not misinformed by Barbara Jones or Deborah Caldwell-Stone from ALA OIF.   They intentionally mislead communities into being the leading facilitators of porn in the nation, and my source for saying this is Ernest Istook, CIPA's author:

Lisa Hone Calls for Libraries to "Revisit" Past Decisions Not to Filter

So, as Lisa Hone points out, if your library "hasn't revisited [library filters] in recent years, it might be worth revisiting."  CIPA has been around for over a decade, after all.  A lot has changed, even if ALA OIF makes like it hasn't.


Example of Local Library Using ALA Propaganda to Push Child Porn

In closing, here's an example of a local library applying ALA OIF propaganda to push child pornography: Orland Park Public Library [OPPL].  We saw above that ALA OIF claimed filters blocked breast cancer searches, then was forced in early 2012 to reverse itself only a week later.  Barbara Jones said: "Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days...."  OPPL is a library that allows child porn viewing, covers it up for the viewers, and criminally silences the whistleblowers who are part of the community that Lisa Hone rightly says should get to decide whether to use filters.  But one who is "just opposed philosophically" is the library's public relations advocate Bridget Bittman.  She mislead the community in many ways, including this from late 2013, a year and a half after the Barbara Jones admission that breast cancer is just an excuse and with Barbara Jones's direct, personal involvement in guiding OPPL:
Bittman said filters would not only limit a patron's rights, they could ban access to sites college students or people doing research might need to access.  Being denied access to the word "breast" might prevent a person from looking up breast cancer, for example, she said.

Conclusion: Filters Work, the Community Decides, Libraries Should Revisit Not Filtering

That is the kind of false information ALA OIF trains people to say, to mislead communities.  That is why what FCC's representative Lisa Hone said is so important for people to know:
  1. Library filters work, 
  2. Having them is a community decision, and 
  3. Libraries should revisit past decisions not to use CIPA filters due to tremendous technological advances.
Brava, Lisa Hone!


NOTE ADDED 16 AUGUST 2014:

Major goof, folks.  I thought the speaker was Marijke Visser of ALA.  It was actually Lisa Hone of FCC, even better.  Even more authoritative.  So now, not only has CIPA's author said ALA misleads communities about CIPA, not only has ACLU said filters work, but now the FCC itself is saying filters work, communities should get them if they want, and recalcitrant libraries should rethink their past opposition to filters.

Therefore, I have changed the article above to change the speaker's name, title, place of work, picture, and caption, otherwise the information remains accurate.

I thank Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Director, Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) for noticing this error.  I listened several times and did not pick up the change in speakers.  Listen yourselves and you'll see what I mean.

You'll even hear FCC's Jonathan Chambers make other statements in support of CIPA and filters that I had not reported above, not letting the librarians try to pressure him into making concessions that would have eviscerated CIPA.  Lobbying, they call it, they have an entire office for it.  It's really an effort to take away your legal rights without your even knowing.

CIPA's author says filters work.  Now FCC says it too.  Even ACLU said filters work, and ACLU worked with ALA to lose big before the US Supreme Court when trying to overturn CIPA.  It's only OIF that says otherwise—"lonely joker on a shelf," as Sir Paul McCartney would put it.

Saul Alinsky Rule #1 is "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."  Or as Joe Walsh put it, "If you just act like you know what you're doin' everybody thinks that you do." People should stop thinking ALA OIF knows what its doin' regarding library filters and should realize it is intentionally misleading.  FCC, CIPA's author, and even US v. ALA co-plaintiff ACLU say library filters work.  When OIF says they don't work, it's old dogma designed to mislead, like its leader Barbara Jones already was forced into admitting on that NPR station.  Don't buy it.


NOTE ADDED 9 MAY 2015:

Updated to update web link.



On Twitter:  @FCC @Istook @OIF @OITP @OrlandPkLibrary


Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: American Library Association, 1615 New Hampshire Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20009, USA

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Barbara Jones Transcript: ALA and FTRF Mislead Orland Park Public Library

ALA and ILA at OPPL Board meeting 18 Nov 2013. From
left: ALA's Barbara Jones, Deborah Caldwell-Stone,
Esq, Nannette Perez, and ILA's Robert Doyle.
Barbara Jones representing the American Library Association [ALA] spoke at the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL] Board meeting on 18 November 2013.  Below is a transcript.  It contains my intercalated comments.  The comments illustrate the latest example of exactly how ALA intentionally misleads communities into allowing porn in local public libraries despite the law.  Note that the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act has stated I am a "trusted source" on exposing ALA propaganda, so please consider my comments in that light.

If ALA guidance is to be believed by OPPL, OPPL will retain porn viewing despite the law, the community and library employees will suffer further harm, and ALA will tout its success story as a nationwide example, perhaps even adding library director Mary Weimar to its speakers list.  At that point, the Village of Orland Park should step in to force the library to act within the law as there is no veil of autonomy to act outside the law, and I have offered to assist it in doing so, but let's hope justice and common sense prevails.

The actual Barbara Jones speech can be seen/heard in the first five minutes here:



TRANSCRIPT OF ALA'S BARBARA JONES 
ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
18 NOVEMBER 2013

Good evening. Can you hear me in the back? Okay.
[N1 NOTE]: The remaining of the speech was largely read from a prepared speech.
My name is Barbara Jones. I am the Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Executive Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation at the American Library Association in Chicago. I am a citizen of Chicago, but I am speaking for ALA.

Attending with me are Deborah Caldwell-Stone, attorney and Executive Director of OIF; Nanette Perez, Program Officer for Banned Books Week in OIF, and Robert Doyle, the Executive Director of the Illinois Library Association.
[N2 MINOR FALSEHOOD]: Deborah Caldwell-Stone is the current Deputy Director and former Acting Director of OIF [Office for Intellectual Freedom], not the Executive Director: http://www.ala.org/offices/oif 
[N3 NOTE]: The Illinois Library Association holds "attempts to limit access to the Internet in the name of protecting citizens are unconstitutional" : http://www.ila.org/Handbook/2012-13/2012-13_ILA_Handbook_web_7-23-12.pdf
The US Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite in US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003), hence it is no surprise Robert Doyle would support OPPL for facilitating porn by defying the law, and no surprise ALA would invite ILA to help pressure OPPL.
American Library Association is the oldest and the largest library association in the world, founded in 1876. We have approximately 65,000 members in all 50 states plus international members.
[N4 MINOR FALSEHOOD]: ALA has 58,000 members, not 65,000: http://www.ala.org/aboutala/annualreport12/about-ala-2011-2012  It is my belief ALA is shrinking in part as a result of librarians tiring of the politicization of ALA; apparently ALA does not want to acknowledge this so it inflates membership numbers.
ALA includes such divisions within ALA as Association for Library Services to Children, the American Association of School Librarians, and the Young Adult Library Services Association.
We do care deeply about and have expertise in library services to children. Many of us are parents ourselves or aunts and uncles or whatever. Um, we’ve worked for many years with libraries and communities just like this one in developing policies and services.
[N5 FALSE]: ALA does not "care deeply about ... library services to children." See: "ALA Mocks 'Protecting the Children'" http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/ala-mocks-protecting-children.html Further, the organizations ALA named above, ALSC, AASL, and YALSA, evidence that they not only care not a whit about library services to children, but they actively work to thwart such services. Common Sense Media [CSM], an organization having Chelsea Clinton on its board, had a list of books with ratings parents and educators could use to determine what's right for children to read. The list included information about the potential for the sexual inappropriateness of material. ALSC found CSM's list to be so useful it listed it on ALA's Great Websites page. When YALSA learned of this effort to advise parents and educators of the sexual content of books, it forced ALSC to censor the site out of its Great Websites page, then actively worked to blacklist CSM within ALA, state library associations, and library schools, all for providing information about the sexual content of books. See: “YALSA Board of Directors Meeting via Conference Call, August 29, 2013; Intellectual Freedom Committee Report,” by Michael Giller, YALSA Board of Directors, American Library Association, August 2013. http://tinyurl.com/ALAblacklistsCSM  To this day, ALSC has not restored the link to its site.  Further, the porn ALA enables in libraries includes crimes against sexually trafficked children, women and men whose unfortunate circumstances as sex crime victims are recorded and added to the never-ending stream of Internet porn so freely viewed in public libraries with the false claim that people have a First Amendment right to view porn in libraries. See: "Libraries Harm Sex Trafficking Victims If They Allow Porn Viewing; Megan Fox Outs Orland Park Public Library" http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/LibrariesHarmVictims.html So ALA does not "care deeply" about library services to children or even about children. Instead, it cares about ensuring children retain access to sexually inappropriate material despite the law, and facilitating this by misleading local communities, as illustrated in Orland Park, IL, or by using censorship or blacklisting or any other means to justify its ends.
[N6 TRUE]: ALA works with libraries nationwide in developing policies. So when ALA or others claim ALA has little influence in local libraries, the ALA is saying otherwise. And the influence it wields is one that ensures children retain access to sexually inappropriate material.  The author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, for example, revealed how ALA controls about a third of American libraries.
Our policies have been quoted in court cases. We would therefore have no motive whatsoever or reason to mislead the libraries, since we take our reputation and our members very seriously. And they do come from all ranges of the political spectrum.
[N7 FALSE]: They have a motive and reason to mislead libraries. The reason ALA needs to mislead libraries is that communities would not naturally expose their children to sexually inappropriate material; they have to be misled into doing it. The motive is the ALA leader who individually created the policy of making sexually inappropriate material to children was a three year board member of the Illinois ACLU who joined ALA and created the "Office for Intellectual Freedom" and the "Freedom To Read Foundation." We are all here discussing inappropriate material in public libraries as a direct result of this one ACLU leader who joined ALA and worked from within to change ALA policy. ALA does not take its reputation seriously. Above I noted that ALA censored and blacklisted Common Sense Media for providing information about the potential for the sexual inappropriateness of material for children. ALA also censors a number of others it opposes politically, such as Robert Spencer of JihadWatch. ALA anonymously used dozens of accounts on Wikipedia to promote a political push for net neutrality that would otherwise be a violation of IRA 501(c)(3) tax code. ALA, Deborah Caldwell-Stone herself, outed the marital infidelity of former MLB Cubs player Alfonso Soriano on Wikipedia, the 5th most viewed web site. ALA plagiarized its "censorship map" from Chris Peterson. ALA did absolutely nothing to substantially help jailed Cuban librarians. ALA fakes its annual top 10 most "banned" books in a manner that brings harm to the LGBT community by falsely claiming rampant discrimination against homosexuals. ALA quietly slips locals money to sway local sentiment, like $1000 in West Bend, WI—it would announce this activity publicly if acted on the up and up and were concerned for its reputation.  ALA acts as a conduit for George Soros's Open Society Foundation to indoctrinate children in public schools with anything the Open Society Foundation wishes under the guise of teaching "privacy."  As to ALA members coming from all ranges of the political spectrum, that is true, but conservative members are routinely squelched. One conservative member, Greg McClay, was even intentionally left off a ballot for an ALA election so he would not be elected. And no librarian being sexually harassed as a result of ALA policy is ever given any assistance by ALA, though librarians who promote inappropriate material to children are given awards and speaking assignments at ALA conferences. And ALA conferences never include conservative speakers. When the Children Internet Protection Act author revealed ALA is misleading up to a third of American communities, ALA's American Libraries printed precious little if anything about that despite the law being the very top reason ALA spent so much of its time and money on a losing effort to try to stop that law.  So while ALA members come from all ranges of the political spectrum, only one range is allowed to be heard by ALA leadership.  Did ALA bring anyone to guide libraries on how other libraries are successfully using filters to block porn and comply with the law?  Of course not.  Stating they have "no motive whatsoever or reason to mislead the libraries" is not the same as proving it.  As terrific reporter Sharyl Attkisson tweeted, "You can often tell by the tone that something else is at play. Why do they try to squelch debate and discussion of issues of public importance?":

I have had the opportunity to visit your beautiful library before tonight and witness the good work you are doing for your community. Your library and staff have always welcomed me, and the layout of your building shows your consideration for children and other users’ special requirements. We are also pleased that you have written policies that are in line with libraries throughout the United States and are very child-protective, not withstanding current hyperbole and negative comments.
[N8 FALSE]: The library's policies are not "very child-protective." Instead, they harm children (and other patrons and librarians). They allow porn viewing despite the law. That porn viewing results in crime, and some of that crime is not even reported to the police. Should the police actually show to do an investigation, they will be delayed by the need to obtain a warrant even though the police and the library work for the same government and should be able to confidentially share records, and by that time the computer records have already been erased as a result of the library following ALA advice to destroy computer records. As a result criminals get off scot free as happens in other libraries that follow ALA policy. So ALA diktat directs libraries to 1) have policies that allow porn viewing and 2) have policies that prevent police forensic investigations. In no way are such policies child protective, let alone "very child-protective."
We were pleased that your local paper, the Patch, has tried to set the record straight about your excellent policies in its recent articles. ALA, NEH, and other library agencies have also been privileged to fund several grants to support your excellent programming, tailored to your diverse population and needs. These grants are highly competitive and Orland Park's continuing success in getting funded is tribute to Mary Weimar and her staff and Board. We are also happy to continue working with you on our annual Choose Privacy Week programs.
[N9 MISLEADING]: That the Orland Park Patch claims the policies are excellent is a result of ALA diktat for libraries to mislead the media: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAMisleads.html Indeed, with regard to the Patch, I had to intervene to have it remove anti-gay statements directed at one of the speakers who opposed porn at the OPPL.  Media misreporting also results from the misleading information from the ALA in discussions with the media, including admonitions not to talk with me that include false information intended as character assassination. I have been told this by at least one media member who suspected he/she was being misled then who later found out I was right on the money. What else is misleading is the fluff about the "highly competitive" grants when in reality about a thousand libraries have received books about the Muslim faith which are gladly provided to any library that asks. And that "annual Choose Privacy Week"? That is actually George Soros's Open Society Institute and money fronted by the ALA spreading Open Society Institute misinformation. Know that the ACLU leader who created ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Freedom To Read Foundation decried a Florida librarian for calling the police on a 911 terrorist. She would have preferred the librarian had followed Florida's library patron privacy law: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/us/nation-challenged-questions-confidentiality-competing-principles-leave-some.html This is the kind of "privacy" ALA is teaching in libraries and school.
It is important that ALA and local libraries revisit their policies regularly, as you do, and we urge the Board and library administration to rely on the legal advice from your attorney. If you need any additional legal assistance, we stand ready to help. We have an attorney on staff, plus an attorney who can read at Freedom To Read Foundation. She has prepared briefs for the United States Supreme Court related to library service and the First Amendment.
[N10 MISLEADING]: The ALA attorneys prepare documents that are 1) losers in court on this issue, such as in US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) case, or 2) misleading such as by making statements that are 100% opposite of the law or other otherwise misleading. ALA trains librarians its view of how to respond to legal challenges. ALA violated the Pennsylvania Court Rules by preventing me from attending its training sessions. So it is advising people basically to see only attorneys willing to write opinions that violate the law, such as by falsely claiming it is a violation of the First Amendment to block pornography from public libraries.  Recently I was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying no library has yet been sued for blocking porn.  ALA's Deborah-Caldwell Stone responded to that by saying that was not true since the Camdenton case was about that.  Only she made that argument up only now as the case was really about blocked LGBT sites.  So saying if you need help we are ready to assist is misleading because you will get advice designed to facilitate porn in libraries, not accurate legal advice.  See: "ALA Admits Libraries Have Never Been Sued for Blocking Porn" http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/NeverBeenSued.html  Again, Sharyl Attkisson comes to mind, "Just learn to recognize the language, tone and methods they use and consider their unspoken interests. Then make up your own mind":

Do not rely on hyperbolic statements from Facebook. Nothing substitutes for an attorney when it comes to legal matters. Legal advice on Facebook is worth exactly what you're paying for it.
[N11 MISLEADING]: No one gets legal advice from Facebook. What ALA is really saying is do not investigate legal issues on your own and make your own decisions, rather come to us or our trained attorneys and we will guide you. Later, in the speech by ALA attorney Deborah Caldwell-Stone, that attorney will outright say the law and the issues are too complicated for people to understand so they must rely on ALA or local acolytes for information.  As Sharyl Attkisson tweeted, "Don't let anybody tell you what to think.. or tell you that you shouldn't even listen to a side in a given argument":

We understand from news reports that you are reevaluating your Internet use policies. Research by library professionals shows that filters are not a silver bullet and they can impair access to information that is legal to excess.
[N12 MISLEADING]: True, filters are "not a silver bullet," but that is not the issue.  What is misleading is that the underlying issue has already been asked and answered by the US Supreme Court which stated no filter will ever be perfect; one can simply ask a librarian to temporarily disable the filter.  She is essentially trying to relitigate a matter her ALA already lost in the US Supreme Court by not advising that the Court already addressed this issue, and she is trying to set up a false standard that filters must be perfect before they can be used.  Also, "information that is legal to [ac]cess" is also misleading because that "information" to her includes pornography, but the Court ruled libraries have every right to block pornography. This is part of the word games ALA plays to mislead people.  See: "ALA Misleads on Internet Pornography in Libraries" http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAMisleads.html  To evidence the word games, note that Barbara Jones went on Huffington Post to declare library filters do not work and they block breast cancer searches. The very next week she said blocking breast cancer was an old excuse when forced by an NPR affiliate reporter to confront the state and federal cases a library director had just won after six years that allowed him to block porn and keep porn blocked even upon patron request. So she used the "old excuse" just a week before the NPR interview saying otherwise, and now she's back misleading OPPL by saying again that filters don't work when even she was forced to admit they do: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/ala-admits-library-filters-work-barbara.html 
Last summer, the Google corporation funded our office to host a conference in Washington, DC, on filters, ten years after the CIPA Supreme Court decision mandated filtering for libraries accepting E-rate discounts. And this, um, meeting was not all librarians, it was experts from, um, an entire spectrum in the United States, and I don’t have time tonight to review all the conclusions from that conference, but the consensus of the participants was that filters are a flawed tool that impair education and access and we'd be happy to provide the white papers or any further information as you make your decision.
[N13 MISLEADING]: As discussed above, filters will never be perfect but the US Supreme Court already addressed the issue by allowing librarians to temporarily disable filters. To now say "filters are a flawed tool that impair education and access" is an attempt to make the exact same argument the ALA already raised and lost.  Libraries themselves are flawed tools that impair education and access, as Megan Fox found out in the OPPL.  Should we get rid of libraries as well?
We stand ready to assist the Board as you deliberately, deliberate these very important decisions.

I commend two excellent analyses besides the Google documents. One from Deborah, the attorney who's here tonight, and one from a practicing public librarian, Sarah Houghton, on what filters can and cannot do. And she does a thorough study every year of all the different filters, all different price ranges or what have you.
[N14 MISLEADING]: That document "from Deborah," the next speaker at the OPPL board meeting, was written within days after ALA was exposed internationally as being one of the nation's top porn facilitators as a result of my reporting on the ALA. So it was literally written in response to me without mentioning me, just like Deborah Caldwell-Stone recently responded to me without mentioning me for my disclosing in the Chicago Tribune that no library has even been sued for blocking porn. That document "from Deborah" contains false and misleading information. It is an example of how ALA refuses to speak about pornography in libraries, instead calling it "constitutionally protected material" while not revealing that the case it lost in the US Supreme Court allows libraries to filter out porn even though "legal" porn is otherwise constitutionally protected material.
[N15 FALSE]: Sarah Houghton has admitted that she had stopped rating filters years back, so to say "she does a thorough study every year" is false, and her past work is years behind the curve in a field that makes leaps and bounds every year; her past work is no longer relevant. Further, Ms. Houghton is a pro porn advocate. She has written about me saying, "Finally, the influence of outside lobbying groups on local Internet filtering policies in libraries should not be understated. Some groups, such as the Values Advocacy Council and SafeLibraries.org, have local affiliate organizations and members that try to get Internet filters into local school and public libraries." That is not what I do but it is what is claimed I do to make it easier to mislead people into filtering me out, so to speak. Regarding the Google symposium on CIPA Barbara Jones mentioned above, Ms. Houghton wrote on her own blog a new post entitled "Symposium on Revisiting the Children’s Internet Protection Act" where I commented online to ask her about how Barbara Jones said Internet filters work, work well, and no longer block health-related information. This is the exact opposite of what her research concludes, it is far more recent, and it comes right from the leader of ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom." So I wanted to learn what she thought about that given she is the ALA expert on filtering technology and given she had just answered a question of mine at an ALA webinar. She did not respond as she did at the webinar. Instead, censorship was her first response. She simply deleted my comment. When I wrote again, her second response was personal attack consisting of false statements about supposedly bad behavior and that I "prevent people from having access to Constitutionally protected material." She simply refused to address the issue I raised, that the ALA leader was forced by the Bradburn v. NCRL library director to admit filters work and breast cancer was an old excuse. Instead she responded with 1) censorship, then 2) false and personal attack. Then she removed all past comments of mine and blocked me from following her @TheLIB on Twitter. And this is the ALA's leading expert on filtering technology that Barbara Jones is holding up even in OPPL as providing "excellent analysis." By the way, Ms. Houghton wrote, "Sarah hates filters & filters hate Sarah. It's no secret that I think internet filters are not only unethical and counter to everything librarians believe in, but that filters also don't work for crap." See: http://tinyurl.com/SarahHatesFilters It's no wonder Sarah Houghton is ALA's leading expert on filtering technology and that Barbara Jones recommends OPPL consider her to be most authoritative.
But, nothing, nothing substitutes for librarians and library users working together to find information. And in the case of children, nothing substitutes for librarians, parents, and users working together.
[N16 MISLEADING]: This sounds good, but she is really saying libraries should not use filters at all since "nothing, nothing substitutes for librarians and library users working together." Please understand that ALA intentionally misleads on the definition of censorship and on what should be the mission of public libraries. None other than the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, who if you'll recall named me as a "trusted source" on the ALA's misinformation, revealed that "Anything goes at the public library. They misdefined the missions of public libraries and they do it in a way that I think most people would totally disagree with, but they couch it in different language so you don’t fully understand what they truly mean." See: http://tinyurl.com/ErnestIstookInterview
And that's exactly what Barbara Jones has done before the OPPL board, misled on censorship and on the public mission of libraries.  As long as librarians keep defining porn as "constitutionally protected material" that must be allowed in public libraries despite the exact opposite being the case per US v. ALA, people will remain exposed to the very harm the law is designed to curtail.  And if local libraries say otherwise, it is time for local governments to act in the manner recommended by none other than the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, namely, pass local law substantially based on the federal CIPA law to cut off funding until such time as the library begins to comply with the law.  If your local library attorney is saying "constitutionally protected material" may not be blocked from public libraries, now you know were the lie comes from, and it's time to get an attorney willing to abide by his or her rules of professional conduct that disallow providing false legal advice.
Thank you for your attention.

=== End of Transcript of Barbara Jones ===



On Twitter:  @IllLibraryAssoc @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @TheLIB @VillageOrlandPk

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Orland Park Public Library, 14921 South Ravinia Avenue, Orland Park, IL 60462, USA

Friday, February 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Consider Subscribing to SafeLibraries for Politically Incorrect Library News

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    In any case, the suggested alternatives have their own drawbacks.  Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid.  Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography.  To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so. 



NOTE ADDED 7 SEPTEMBER 2013:

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

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

NOTE ADDED 8 APRIL 2015:

Updated link in Note 5.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 4518 University Way NE #310, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA

Thursday, January 26, 2012

ALA OIF's Barbara Jones Misleads Entire Nation to Think Library Porn is Not a Problem While Library Filters Are

Barbara Jones, the Director of the American Library Association's [ALA] Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF], has just used a major media platform to try to convince the entire nation that library porn is not a problem while library filters are.  I quote her then respond with reliable sources to prove my assertions.  You have to read these sources for yourselves to understand just how misleading and insidious is the ALA leader's attempt to turn the truth on its head.

First, here is the propaganda piece itself:
Now here is my response to this misinformation.  Read the sources, then decide for yourselves:

"Recent sensational media reports about 'porn in libraries' do not reflect the reality of library services today or promote meaningful dialogue in our communities."  This from the ALA's OIF that refuses to assist librarians and library workers under assault, literally, from the porn-promoting policies of local libraries following ALA diktat, like in Birmingham, AL: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/08/birmingham-needs-another-mlk-moment-no.html

"U.S. libraries are law-abiding public institutions that have earned the public trust year after year."  No.  False.  A very few libraries follow ALA OIF advice to skirt the law and end up defrauding the federal government of millions of dollars.  For example, every single library in Michigan getting federal government funding under "CIPA" for Internet Access is likely defrauding taxpayers, you and me: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/04/michigan-libraries-at-risk-of-massive-e.html

"Child pornography, obscenity, and materials deemed 'harmful to minors' are illegal and not knowingly available in libraries."  Now that is false.  Consider Maria Pagan, Holyoke Public Library Director, who covered up for a guy viewing child pornography: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/getting-away-with-murder-in-holyoke-ma.html

And then there's Barbara Jones's immediate predecessor, Judith Krug, the creator and four decade leader of the OIF, who said, "A librarian is not a legal process.  There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography."  http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libraries-vs-police-in-a-suit-sparked-by-porn-1093410.php

So one leader says child pornography is "not knowingly available" and the previous leader says librarians cannot judge what is child pornography.  Are you starting to get the picture of just how misleading is this misinformation by the ALA OIF's new leader?

"An ideal example is the word, 'breast,' which many filters block.  The problem is that in addition to blocking what might be offensive content, the filter also blocks 'breast cancer.'"  Now this lady has gone from misleading people to flat out lying.  She is lying.  She is in the very position to know better, and she chooses instead to lie, so she is purposefully lying.  Even the ACLU admits filters are 95% effective and no longer filter out health-related information: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf

"Filtering Internet content, though it is not an ideal solution. .... Librarians are trained to spot problems with public Internet use and work with others to uphold the library's written Internet use policies."  Did I not just quote Judith Krug as saying librarians are in no position to judge child pornography?  Here is another Krug quote, this one showing librarians do the exact opposite of what the new OIF leader just said, "I have a real problem when people say, 'Well I walked by and you should have seen what was on the computer screen.'  Well, don't look, sweetie.  It's none of your business.  Avert your eyes." http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/011897library-florida.html

Further, the case that found filtering to be legal, US v. ALA—http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html—and notice Barbara Jones tellingly does not mention this case—says the opposite of what Jones says.  The case says filters are the best means for achieving the desired end, and other means are less effective or counter effective.  Jones says they are "not ideal," they "won't do it for them," then offers librarians as the ideal solution, even though the OIF's creator and four decade leader said people are to avert their eyes and librarians are not in a position to make judgments even if they did look.  So one OIF director says librarians are the solution while another says, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children.  I am adult.  I want available what I need to see."  Nice, huh?  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-23/news/0506230234_1_library-board-president-library-officials-magazine

"Working closely with law enforcement, Trustees, and other community stakeholders."  The misinformation continues from this ALA OIF leader.  No, they do not work closely with law enforcement since they are directed not to assist: "As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts...." http://www.ala.org/template.cfm?section=otherpolicies&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&contentid=13098

What a disgrace.  Here is the ALA OIF leader saying the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court said in the case the ALA lost big that I linked above.  Here is the ALA misleader, Barbara Jones: "If you are a librarian or trustee, you know that there are all sorts of ways to design library space with such devices as recessed screens and pie-shaped carrels to meet the Internet access and privacy needs of the entire community and still offer First Amendment protection for the right to access needed information."  That is flat out false.  It is disgraceful that the OIF leader herself should make such a flat out false statement.  Why can she not simply address the issue in a truthful manner?  How can anyone believe a word the ALA OIF says?  Here is what the US Supreme Court said, and notice that it directly contradicts the very ideas put forth by the ALA leader: "In any case, the suggested alternatives have their own drawbacks.  Close monitoring of computer users would be far more intrusive than the use of filtering software, and would risk transforming the role of a librarian from a professional to whom patrons turn for assistance into a compliance officer whom many patrons might wish to avoid.  Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography.  To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so."

"Make it easier for patrons to" "view online pornography."  So Barbara Jones, ALA's OIF leader, is using the loud megaphone of the Huffington Post to push false information that makes it easier for library patrons to view pornography, and it is right there in the US Supreme Court's own words.  I'm just the messenger.  At the same time she is lying that filters do not work.

"The American Library Association can provide materials to assist in such civic engagement initiatives."  Right.  Like the ALA just informed the entire nation the exact opposite of what US v. ALA says.  Where is Alan M. Dershowitz when you need him—this ALA has got real chutzpah.

So, to sum up, the first sentence is, "Recent sensational media reports about 'porn in libraries' do not reflect the reality of library services today or promote meaningful dialogue in our communities."  The rest of her words were spent on trying to convince people that is not the case and that Internet filters are ineffective.  Given the reliable sources I have provided, are you convinced porn is not a problem in libraries, or filters do not work?  Are you suspicious why the ALA is trying to convince people that filters do not work, the exact opposite of what US v. ALA says?  Is the ALA OIF influencing your own local community public library?

See also, "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma" at http://tinyurl.com/ALADogma.  

And don't forget, Know the ALA.

As an aside, a librarian from a prominent NJ library asked me for my opinion on this Barbara Jones piece.  She said, "I honestly want to understand both sides.  I think ala does a lot of good, but is not always right."  I agree.  But she stopped talking after realizing she was using the library's Twitter account instead of her personal one.  I hope she doesn't get fired for having an open mind and speaking with me.  Isn't it sad librarians are afraid to speak with me?  Some aren't, however, and I hear from quite a few.  Talk to me!  I don't bite!


NOTE ADDED 3 FEBRUARY 2012:

None other than Barbara Jones herself has already proven me right in at least one instance.  See:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)