Showing posts with label DeanMarney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DeanMarney. Show all posts

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  Lisa Hone spoke up to attempt to correct that outdated view.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

Thursday, April 25, 2013

How to Filter Public Library Computers: Bradburn v NCRL Shows Libraries Need Not Approve Unblock Requests

It is legal to filter public library computers.  Libraries must unblock the filters upon request, in certain circumstances.  Must they do so unconditionally and without first ensuring compliance with library policy?  No.  Libraries may take the time needed to evaluate whether the site to be unblocked complies with library policy.


"Incredibly Important Decision for Public Libraries Throughout the Nation" - No Need to Unblock Porn Sites

 I publish below, for the first time anywhere, the full text of the court order allowing librarians to review computer filter unblock requests to ensure compliance with library policy.  It is "an incredibly important decision for public libraries ... throughout the nation."

In other words, public libraries may not only legally block pornography, but they need not unblock such Internet sites!  The Bradburn v. NCRL Order, shown below in full, evidences this very clearly.


ALA Claims Case Has Little Value

On the other hand, the American Library Association argues the Bradburn case is of little value and only applies to that one library district:
While the lawsuit was pending, the library changed its filtering software and amended its filtering policy.  Six years after the initial filing of the lawsuit, the federal district court ruled in an unpublished decision that the library's filtering policy did not violate the constitution, in part because the branch libraries are "relatively small in size and only one has a partition separating the children's portion of the library from the remainder of the library."  As an unpublished decision reviewing one particular set of facts in one library system, the decision has limited precedential value.


NCRL Director
Dean Marney
The Bradburn Case Gives Deep Insight on Judicial Thought

Yes, there may be limited precedential value, but it provides a deep insight into how courts might look at the issue.  Evidencing how well the judge analyzed the case, the ACLU would not even appeal its loss:
As the NCRL library director, Dean Marney, concluded:
Director Dean Marney said, "Common sense and taxpayers are the winners in this case.  The courts have affirmed that public libraries have the right to be libraries.  Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child pornography or to become illegal casinos.  Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages."
Source:


Winning Library Director Outs ALA "Dogma"

Further, the NCRL library director, Dean Marney, has specifically outed the ALA as promoting false "dogma" to push its way (similar to what CIPA author Ernest Istook exposed about ALA misleading communities).  See:


ALA Forced by Bradburn/Marney to Admit Library Filters Work

So effective was Dean Marney in making and winning his point that even the ALA itself was forced to admit he was right, library filtering software now works effectively, and false breast cancer blocking claims are old excuses.  Under the circumstances, seeing the ALA spinning again is no surprise.  See:


Dean Marney Takes On ALA Propaganda Directly

Perhaps the most authoritative voice on the Bradburn case was the very man who exposed the ALA dogma and forced the ALA to admit filters work and it is time to stop using the old excuses.  He had direct interaction with the ALA in its American Libraries magazine after ALA promoted its false message that the Bradburn case means very little, and ALA now makes it official diktat.  Quite the contrary, the case sets an example for municipalities throughout the entire nation.  As Dean Marney said, "To say the case doesn't matter now just doesn't make sense."

Let's hear from Dean Marney himself responding to the ALA's attorney Theresa Chmara who is trying to minimize the impact of the case.  (By the way, notice Dean Marney and I both responded to the ALA, and ALA censored my comments with ad hominem remarks about defamation and unsolicited advertising, which I did not do.  And "FTRF" is a creation of and part of the ALA.):
RESPONSE TO ‘WHY RECENT COURT DECISIONS DON’T CHANGE THE RULES O

Theresa Chmara's "Why Recent Court Decisions Don't Change the Rules on Filtering" is correct in stating that the courts in ALA v. CIPA and Bradburn et al v. North Central Regional Library have affirmed that "to fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons."

Bradburn et al v. NCRL is an incredibly important decision for public libraries in Washington State and throughout the nation.  The Washington State Supreme Court and the Federal District Court each affirmed that an Internet Use Policy, fairly applied and offering web site unblocking alternatives, is a reasonable approach to collection management and one that fully meets constitutional standards.  We at North Central Regional Library are proud to offer such a policy, indeed a policy that protects kids, adults, and employees from a hostile environment while offering quality resources to a wide range of patrons having diverse interests.

It is interesting that Ms. Chmara does not mention that the FTRF was involved in Bradburn virtually from inception.  Before the case was filed, the ACLU, representing Plaintiffs, briefed the FTRF.  The former president of the FTRF and a past Board Member were factual witnesses in the case.  To say the case doesn't matter now just doesn't make sense.

Ms. Chmara says the federal opinion wasn't published.  Does that matter?  The Washington Supreme court's opinion certainly was.  Does Ms. Chmara genuinely believe the federal decision will have no impact on the important national discussion occurring on the subject?  Both Bradburn decisions are extremely important and should inform the decisions of other libraries considering the deployment of filtering software.

People often ask why we fought the Bradburn case to affirm our Internet Policy.  I have no trouble telling them that it wasn't a choice–we care about our mission, we care about the people that use our libraries, and we care about our staff.

Dean Marney
Director
North Central Regional Library
Wenatchee, WA 98801

Submitted by Dean Marney (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 12:43.

No Need for Governments to Pierce the Veil of Autonomy

To governmental leaders seeking to rein in their local libraries acting outside the law (by behaving as open public fora instead of quasi public fora, etc.), which you may certainly do without piercing the veil of autonomy, don't Dean Marney's words bring warmth to your hearts and ideas to your minds?  "Both Bradburn decisions are extremely important and should inform the decisions of other libraries considering the deployment of filtering software."


ALA Deception On "Years of Litigation and Significant Legal Expenses"

In another example of how deceptive is the ALA, look at the next paragraph in "Libraries and the Internet Toolkit;  Legal Issues: CIPA & Filtering" from the ALA:
In summation, libraries considering the use of filtering software should consult their legal counsel prior to any such deployment.  Libraries that employ filters that block constitutionally protected material deemed harmful to minors and do not allow adults to disable filters, or fail to provide an effective unblocking system, may open the door to years of litigation and significant legal expenses.
Well, that one NCRL case was years of litigation.  One.  But what the ALA does not advise is that there are considerably more cases that occur as a result of not filtering and the harm that the resultant pornography brings to the community, including—sexually harassed librarians.  Sadly, ALA never helps them.

By the way, the ALA attorney says libraries must "allow adults to disable filters."  CIPA does not allow that.  Only librarians may disable the filters.  It is just more deception.


Librarian Sexual Harassment Cases Mean Libraries Should Consider Using Filters

Such sexual harassment cases are more frequent and result in far greater harm and liability than someone who cannot get his porn at taxpayer expense.  But the ALA, seeking to mislead local governments, only fear mongers about "years of litigation and significant legal expenses" while completely leaving out much more frequent and serious librarian sexual harassment cases due to a lack of filtering.  See a few examples of the sexual harassment cases ALA does not reveal while it uses scare tactics on filtering cases:

So there we see a number of sexual harassment cases, and for big money, but the ALA does not disclose these when it threatens filtering lawsuits will be a drag.  Indeed, libraries should consider using filters just to prevent sexual harassment cases.


Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bradburn case sets a national example of the means by which public libraries may legally and effectively filter out pornography.  In contrast, ALA misleads by minimizing the effect of Bradburn and using fear tactics on municipal liability.

Most importantly, the message for municipalities, as Dean Marney says, is that you too can be "proud to offer ... a policy that protects kids, adults, and employees from a hostile environment while offering quality resources to a wide range of patrons having diverse interests."


Bradburn v. NCRL

Below is that Bradburn v. NCRL Order, published in full text here and nowhere else, hyperlinks removed and caption and footnotes repositioned.  (Here is a PDF version of the original Bradburn v. NCRL Order I have published below, also at tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins):
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON


 SARAH BRADBURN, PEARL 
CHERRINGTON, CHARLES HEINLEN, 
and SECOND AMENDMENT 
FOUNDATION,

                          Plaintiffs,

                v.

 NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY 
DISTRICT,

                          Defendant.

 __________________________________________
NO. CV-06-0327-EFS
ORDER GRANTING NCRL'S MOTION 
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING 
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT, AND CLOSING FILE

 __________________________________________

      Following the Washington Supreme Court's certification ruling, the question remaining from the parties' summary judgment motions, ECF Nos. 28 & 39, is whether Defendant North Central Regional Library District's (NCRL) internet-filtering policy is overbroad or a content-based restriction thereby violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  After reviewing the submitted materials, considering the relevant authority, and hearing from counsel during an October 25, 2011 hearing,[1] the Court is fully informed.  For the reasons given below, the Court grants NCRL summary judgment and denies Plaintiffs summary judgment.

 A.  Facts[2]

      With the assistance of federal funding, NCRL provides Internet access at its twenty-eight libraries.  Because Congress mandates that a library receiving federal funds in order to provide Internet access must restrict patrons' Internet access to obscene and child pornographic materials, NCRL utilizes a filter (FortiGuard) to restrict its patrons' Internet access to such materials.  See 20 U.S.C. § 9134(f) (Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which also permits a library to restrict additional materials).  According to both its Internet Public Use Policy and Collection Development Policy (collectively, "Policy"), NCRL sets FortiGuard's filtering parameters to filter web pages and sites that depict hacking, phishing, proxy avoidance, malware, and spyware; display nudity; promote sexuality; or allow gambling.  Not all of the blocked web pages and sites contain constitutionally-unprotected speech.  Therefore, as a result of the FortiGuard filter, constitutionally-protected speech is blocked and patrons, even adult patrons, are unable to view the material.

      To help reduce the number of mis-blocked web pages and sites, NCRL allows patrons to submit requests to unblock a specific web page or site.  If NCRL believes that a blocked web page or site is appropriate for viewing by all of its patrons, it adjusts FortiGuard's parameters so that the web page or site is unblocked for future Internet use.

      Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Policy under both the Washington and U.S. Constitutions.  On September 30, 2008, the Court certified the Washington-constitutional question to the Washington Supreme Court.  ECF No. 97.  On June 7, 2010, the Washington Supreme Court answered the certified question, finding that "a public library may, consistent with article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution, filter Internet access for all patrons without disabling the filter to allow access to web sites containing constitutionally protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron."  ECF No. 110 at 31.

      Now remaining for the Court to address is whether NCRL'S decision to not disable the Internet filter at the request of an adult patron violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 B. Authority and Analysis

      The First Amendment commands:  "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."  U.S. Const. amend. I.  The government can violate the First Amendment in many ways, including enacting a statute that is overbroad or impermissibly regulates the content of speech.[3]  Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 244.  The government restriction may either restrict speech itself or restrict access to the speech:  both forms of restrictions may violate the First Amendment.  United States v. Playboy Entm't Gp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000).

      The parties agree that NCRL, a government entity, restricts its patrons' access to speech on the Internet.  The parties disagree as to what level of judicial scrutiny the Court is to apply to NCRL's access-to-speech restriction.  As explained below, based on U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions, the Court concludes it must apply rational review to the Policy.

      First, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that public-forum analysis is not used to determine whether a public library has appropriately exercised its collection-decision-making authority.  United States v. Am. Library Ass'n, 539 U.S. 94, 205 & 215-16 (2003) (hereinafter "ALA").  Second, the Ninth Circuit held that rational review is used where the "government provides a public service that, by its nature, requires evaluations of and distinctions based on the content of speech."  Ass'n of Christian Sch. Int'l v. Stearns, 362 Fed. Appx. 640, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished opinion).

      As a public library, NCRL pursues the "worthy missions" of facilitating learning, research, and recreational pursuits.  ALA, 539 U.S. at 203.  It is undisputed that to fulfill these missions, NCRL is not required to provide "universal coverage" and enjoys "broad discretion to decide what material to provide to [its] patrons."  Id. at 204 (internal citation removed).  Plaintiffs argue that NCRL's broad discretion is limited to its written materials because the grant of this discretion is based on a library's space and fiscal limitations.  However, these limitations are not the only rationale for granting a library broad discretion to make "content-based judgments when deciding what private speech to make available to the public."  Id. at 204.  A library's "need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends [also] on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; [and] it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source."  Id. at 208.  Given the vast, ever changing, and almost unlimited amount of information available on the Internet, the Supreme Court recognized that "libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not."  Id.  Accordingly, NCRL is required to evaluate its patrons' Internet access based on the speech's content.  Therefore, the Court subjects NCRL's filtering process to rational review.

      Scrutinizing the undisputed facts under rational review, the Court finds NCRL's use of FortiGuard to filter its patrons' Internet access and its decision to not disable the filter upon an adult patron's request complies with the First Amendment.  It is reasonable for NCRL to develop an Internet policy that can be implemented consistently throughout its twenty-eight libraries, and it did so by implementing the Policy.  NCRL'S libraries are relatively small in size and only one has a partition separating the children's portion of the library from the remainder of the library.  Blocking Internet sites and pages that contain constitutionally-protected material deemed suitable only for adults helps ensure that the environment at NCRL libraries is consistent with its mission of providing learning and research opportunities for individuals of all ages.  This is a legitimate government interest.

      And NCRL's practice of requiring a patron to request that a particular web site or page be unblocked is an efficient and rationale way for NCRL to determine whether that web site or page is consistent with its policies and mission, especially in light of the Internet's continuous change.  NCRL simply does not have the resources to have its staff review the vast and limitless amount of sites and pages on the Internet to determine whether they are consistent with its policies and mission.  NCRL'S unblocking-request process reasonably accomplishes its policies and mission, while at the same time complying with CIPA.

      The Court acknowledges that this process may frustrate some adult patrons.  However, without the funding provided by CIPA, NCRL likely could not provide any Internet access to its patrons.  This would be a great disservice to the NCRL patrons, many of whom live in rural areas where reliable, affordably-priced Internet access may be difficult to obtain.

 C. Conclusion

      Because NCRL's Policy, including not disabling the Internet filter at the request of an adult patron, is reasonable, there is no overbreadth or impermissible content-based First Amendment violation.  For the above given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

      1.   NCRL's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED.
     2.   Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.
     3.   Judgment is to be entered in NCRL's favor with prejudice.
     4.   This file shall be CLOSED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.  The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.

      DATED this   10th      day of April 2012.

             s/ Edward F. Shea            
            EDWARD F. SHEA 
            United States District Judge


      [1] Duncan Manville appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Sarah Bradburn, Pearl Cherrington, Charles Heinlen, and the Second Amendment Foundation.  Thomas Adams appeared on NCRL's behalf.

      [2] The parties agree that the detailed undisputed facts contained in the Court's prior Order, ECF No. 96, still apply.  Accordingly, the Court only provides the basic facts herein.

      [3] The freedom of speech has limits as certain types of speech, such as defamation, obscenity, and pornography produced with children, are unprotected by the First Amendment.  Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 245-56 (2003).

 Q:\Civil\2006\0327.post.certif.frm

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Wenatchee, WA, USA

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Sweet Justice for Exemplary Library Director

BCLS Library Director Gail Sweet
Photo Credit Nancy Rokos BCT
Library director Gail Sweet is retiring from the Burlington County Library System, Westampton, NJ, after twenty eight years.  Read about all the wonderful innovations she has to her credit:
Read what I have written about her:


"Censorship" Registered Zero on the Richter Scale

Look again at the Burlington County Times story.  Anything missing?  Nowhere is it mentioned that she removed a book from the library system having a graphic, shown below, of two men having anal intercourse while two Boy Scouts look on inquisitively.  All those shouts of "censorship" from the self-arrogated free speech crowd, as is noted in my writings above, and nothing mentioned about the book's removal in that BCT story.  Nothing.  It registered a zero on the Richter scale.

Picture in book that school and public library removed.


Communities Support Library Directors Who Stand Against False "Censorship" Claims

Despite all the astroturfed noise about "censorship" and discrimination against "LGBT" interests, many and perhaps most library patrons thanked Gail Sweet for what she did.  They stood behind her and supported her.  Quietly.  Gail Sweet doesn't have a 64,000 member library association to call on to raise false issues to promote an agenda foreign to the community, so most people don't realize how much the community supported Gail Sweet and is happy the book was removed.

This is an example of how community members will support library directors who stand up to the false shouts of "censorship" used to attempt to force a community to do as the ALA wants:



As you retire, hold your head up, Gail Sweet:

And if they shout 

Don't let it change a thing that you're doing 

Hold your head up.

(Hold Your Head Up - Argent - 1972)




Same Book Removed From Local Public School and ALA Freaks Out

In the school local to Gail Sweet's library, Rancocas Valley Regional High School, the same book was removed.  Yes, it was in a public school, anal sex for kids and all.  The book was removed.  Even more noise from the "censorship" crowd arose from that.  That noise included:

Conclusion:  Sweet Justice for Exemplary Library Director

So when one reads that BCT story about Gail Sweet's retirement, and sees it written so wonderfully, and sees it has absolutely nothing about the book removal, that is evidence that the book removal issue was really a big zero to the vast majority of the community.  Although the "free speech" crowd had screamed "censorship" and even faked their annual "banned" books list using the book, the local press could care less and Gail Sweet apparently did not mention it either.  As one person said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny.  ....  [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."

I see that as Sweet justice for an exemplary library director.  I see that as an example for the many libraries directors out there afraid for their careers to appear to oppose the ALA.  There are a few other library directors willing to stand against the false ALA shouts of "censorship," like Dean Marney, Jo Ellen Ringer, and Mary Hastler.  Instead of living in the ALA's chains, library director's like them have the key, and now Gail Sweet joins them to set the example for how to break free:

So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains

And we never even know we have the key.

(Already Gone - Eagles - 1974)


Does your community library director have the key?

Brava, Gail Sweet!  Enjoy your retirement!

Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Westampton, NJ, USA

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Fed Court Proves Not Censorship to Block Porn from Public Library Computers; Dean Marney and North Central Regional Library Prove ACLU Wrong in Bradburn v. NCRL

Dean Marney
tinyurl.com/DeanMarneyWins
The jig is up for American Library Association [ALA]/American Civil Libraries Union [ACLU] excuses allowing pornography on public library computers.  You simply do not have the civil liberty nor the First Amendment right to view pornography on public library computers:
A federal judge has ruled that an Eastern Washington library system is not violating the state constitution by using filters to block internet porn on library computers. 
Judge Edward F. Shea, Eastern Washington Federal District Court, ruled in favor of the North Central Regional Library.  The case was brought against the rural eastern Washington library district by the ACLU of Seattle.  The ACLU accused the library district of having an overly broad filtering policy. 
The ruling followed a decision handed down from the Washington State Supreme Court in May, 2010.  The Supreme Court found that the North Central Regional Library, the largest library district in the State of Washington, did not violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution with its policy of filtering the internet. 
"Taxpayers are the winners in this case," said Library Director Dean Marney.  "Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child pornography or to become illegal casinos.  Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages." 
The NCRL, which represents 28 libraries in the central part of the state, has admitted the filtering policy puts them in the minority.  Other libraries have taken the stance of non-censorship, citing First Amendment rights.

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

Recall my previous writing on this topic:


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


NOTE ADDED 11 APRIL 2012:

Excellent historical information on the Bradburn case from David Burt:
And some historical information from the ACLU of Washington State:
Another story on the current matter:

NOTE ADDED 14 APRIL 2012:

In the article above, I have added an updated link for the NCRL News Release.

Let me add that the case makes clear:

  1. A library may review a request for web access to ensure compliance with library policy,
  2. A library may legally deny access to constitutionally protected material if said material does not fall within library policy,
  3. It is not censorship to comply with the court's ruling and block constitutionally protected material from public libraries,
  4. Porn and gambling do not fall within library policy (at least at this particular group of libraries), 
  5. Other categories of constitutionally protected material may be legally blocked depending on the circumstances as the court did not restrict itself to only porn and gambling, and
  6. Any library or library association saying filtering porn violates the First Amendment or the Freedom of Speech is factually and legally incorrect(, and that library may be acting outside the law, and that library's town government has a duty to require a library to act within the law or it may be held legally responsible otherwise for harm caused by a failure to comply with the law).

NOTE ADDED 15 APRIL 2012:

Another interesting historical look at this case:


NOTE ADDED 16 APRIL 2012:

I HAVE BREAKING NEWS I AM BREAKING HERE AND NOW.  SAF AND ITS RELATED WEB SITES ARE NOT BEING BLOCKED BY NCRL!  SEE MY COMMENT BELOW OF EVEN DATE FOR DETAILS, EVIDENCE, RELIABLE SOURCES.

Posted by at 13 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Location: Wenatchee, WA, USA

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Library Patron Cries Out for Justice and Library Filters Due to Pron in Lincoln City Libraries; Deep Library Love Turns to Fear

Likely in response to my recent call for people seeking to protect children in libraries, one library patron has provided me with the below for republication.  It is her letter to the Lincoln City Libraries in Lincoln, NE.  The city was named after President Abraham Lincoln.  I am certain President Lincoln would feel deeply ashamed to learn of library policy in Lincoln and how patrons are mistreated, especially children.

And, as we recently learned from the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, a third of American libraries follow American Library Association [ALA] anything-goes policy instead of local laws and interests.  It appears Lincoln City Libraries suffers from that fate, or rather its patrons and employees do.

Now read the letter from a library lover who now fears the library, and in no small way this is a direct result of ALA control of the libraries at issue:

Patron Letter to Lincoln City Libraries
by Anonymous Patron

Thank you for your time in reading this long email.  Pornography in Lincoln City Libraries is a topic I have become passionate about, as I have been exposed to porn on two separate occasions in a LCL.  The words in this letter speak from my heart, expressing my personal and community concerns.  I will also share (some copied and pasted) articles with the permission of the authors.

I was raised amidst lifestyles of drugs and abuse; attending a total of 9 different schools between Kindergarten and graduating from high school.  When I was 10, I discovered the nearest public library and within those walls found a safe escape from my home.  Soon thereafter i began spending most of my daylight hours there.

I have one good childhood memory-my best friend and I riding our bikes to the library and heading to the park to read for countless hours.  I considered both Nancy Drew and Laura Ingalls, my friends.  The homes I lived in did not have shelves of books-except my bedroom.  Next to my bed I had a bookshelf that I kept full of books; all of which were checked out from the library.

My life as a 40 something wife and mother reflects my values and interests.  I have two children; each of them received their very own library card when they turned one month old.  For both of them, It was their first official "outing."  My first two jobs as a mother were to instill good manners and a love of reading.  Our children are 10 and 15, the manners are still works in progress.  However, both children love to read and our home has hundreds—if not thousands—of books.

A love of books, combined with my love for the educational philosophies of Maria Montessori and Charlotte Mason, led me to home educate our children.  My fond memories of comfort and growth and enrichment experienced at LCLs now had an added virtue – the library became an essential ingredient in educating our children.  At times, I had 80-some materials checked out simultaneously.

Since the traumatic incident with a viewer of porn at Gere library, my use of the library is limited to ordering materials online and picking them up at one location.

I felt, and continue to feel, a great loss.  I feel my longtime friend has been taken away from me.  My husband, [name elided], gave me a Nook Color for Mother's Day, 2011.  While most people would be thrilled, I felt indifferent.  He was trying to replace my loss.  Unfortunately, that loss can't be replaced.

I want to enter my library and feel safe.  I want to let my son enter the mens bathroom there and not worry.  Currently, I cannot do either of those things.

I don't frequent Adult Bookstores, nor do I take our children into an Adult Bookstore.  The Lincoln City Libraries have become Adult Bookstores, surrounded by shelves of books from many genres.  I know that children and women—especially female librarians—are assaulted in libraries by men fresh off of viewing porn.  I have been married over 21 years.  I asked my husband if it's possible for men to view porn and not have the desire to please themselves.  His response was no.  I had many of my friends ask their husbands and boyfriends the same question.  Each responded no.

I am not a radical conservative.  I am not in favor of banning books.  The problem I have is when other's actions violate my safety or the safety of my children.  Twice in LCLs I have experienced this violation.

Your current policy on filtering (or, lack thereof) the internet does not make a safe environment.  Let's look at possible scenarios.  A man or older teenager is viewing porn at the library during story time for pre-schoolers.  Regardless of the type of porn—legal or not—the male patron is viewing it.  He heads to the bathroom to masturbate.  Just feet away, a little boy around the age of 4 is also in the mens bathroom with his teacher waiting outside the door.  Using common sense, who would feel comfortable knowing this child is in that situation?  Would you?  What about your popular summer program which relies on 5th-12th graders to volunteer their time in the library.  A young girl is done with her shift and starts walking home.  A man fresh off of viewing porn at the library decides he would rather not masturbate, sees this vulnerable young girl alone and acts on his desires.  Has this happened here in Lincoln?  Possibly.  However, it has happened in many libraries across the country.  Children, teens, women and female librarians have been assaulted and raped by men who were just viewing porn on a library computer.  These incidents take place in library bathrooms, dark corners of the libraries and the parking lots.

Once people became aware of our situation at Gere library, I received many emails and phone calls.  Here are just a few I will share.

  • At Walt library a teenage boy was witnessed viewing porn on a "filtered" computer-out in the "open."  This was observed by a young family.

  • At Walt library, a teenage girl was forced to use a computer inside the un-filtered computer room, as the other computers were being used.  She had homework to finish and the use of that computer was her only choice.  She was forced to sit between two men viewing porn, which was in her view.  She was terrified and felt helpless.  When asked why she didn't just leave, she said she had no other choice as her grade was on the line.  Her friend later said that they have said something to librarians, but they do nothing.

  • At South branch library, a man was looking at books and heard strange sounds behind him.  He turned to see a man viewing porn and masturbating.  This man's 7 year old daughter was just feet away.  He said the librarian must have heard as she was just feet away.

  • At Eiseley(sp?) Branch, a teenager was forced to sit by a man viewing porn.  This was a boy, next to a man.  Again, the boy needed the computer to finish homework.  This boy told an older brother that anyone can access porn on a library computer.  He said most of his friends do so on a regular basis.  Concerned about his brother, the older boy told his parents in confidentiality.

  • Several families contacted me, saying they also had been exposed to porn with their children while simply walking through Gere Branch.  One man told me he would never allow his kids out of his sight in the library due to what he's seen.

Obviously there are legal considerations when exposing a minor to pornography—purposefully or not—and there are consequences for a library in the above situations , which, is exactly what happened in the above situations here in Lincoln.

Pat [Leach], in your interview on KOLN, you mention that it is a balancing act to meet the needs of patrons.  I agree, and understand the complexity this presents.  The "balance" however needs to skew toward the physical and emotional safety of the majority of your patrons.  The Library is a community—a public—institution not a private enterprise.  Your job is to serve the people of Lincoln, Nebraska.  The patronage of the clientele you are going to not "serve" by taking steps to eliminate access to porn will not break a public institution.  Adult bookstores have parking lots and entrances behind the building.  Who wants to be identified as viewing porn?  Such behavior is private and has no business in a public library.

Common sense would dictate that the majority of people would find the use of internet pornography wrong in our libraries.  Would our community favor our tax dollars supporting porn on the library's computer?  Would our community think it okay to send their child into a library bathroom where a man just viewing porn is heading?  I ask each of you, are you serving Lincoln-or not?

_________________

From what I understand, this is known as "data collection" which is based on criteria and monies available.  The internet is no different.  Your current internet policy allows for patrons to attend a buffet of porn- feet away from other patrons-including minors.  I have spoken with Dean Marney of Washington State several times.  He is a library director who chooses to walk his talk-he serves the people of his community.  He has given me permission to use anything he has said or written.  Attached are two must read articles he has written.

__________________

It is my opinion that the current internet policy is dangerous and puts minors, our most vulnerable population, at risk.  Specifically at risk are children from under-privileged homes without computers.  Homes similar to those from my childhood.

As I see it, you all have an opportunity to provide a family and children friendly library.  Please use the integrity that Dean has-do the right thing.  The right thing would mean intelligent filtering.  Common sense filtering.

Regards,
[Name elided]


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Charles H Gere Library, 2400 S 56th St, Lincoln, NE 68506-3501, USA

Monday, February 27, 2012

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

CIPA Author Ernest Istook
Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] author Ernest Istook describes how the American Library Association [ALA] hides important information from communities in a manner that harms children all these years after US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003).  Previously, Library Director Dean Marney described how the American Library Association [ALA] uses "dogma" to mislead communities.  Now its the CIPA author himself.  When will people wake up?
Sadly, Seattle is following a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment.  But they generally omit an important qualifier:  When taxpayers are paying for the computers they have a right to insist that children are protected.
You think?
Although many libraries now apply CIPA, others - encouraged by lawyers for the American Library Association - deliberately reject federal funds to avoid the requirement of filtering patrons' access to the Internet.  Unconfirmed reports claim a third of our public libraries are using this tactic.  They should not be criticized for not tapping into the federal Treasury, but their motivation is worrisome.
Legal tactics?  A third of public libraries using these tactics?  Anyone want to continue to claim the ALA has little to no control over local public libraries?
Nobody should have the Seattle experience of shocking their children, nor of having librarians who are indifferent to the problem.
Now isn't that a shame?  "Indifferent" librarians?  Indifferent to children?

Not all are indifferent, and I am quietly building an organization of those who are not, but more on that much later.  Librarians willing to stand against harmful ALA policy, tactics, and indifference that endangers children may wish to contact me.  All will be kept confidential.

Now read this, by Ernest Istook, the CIPA author, and the source of the above quotes:


Libraries Need Not Expose Kids to Porn
The Heritage Foundation


PUBLISHED MONDAY, FEB. 27, 2012

Librarians can be strict.  In Seattle, for example, you can't eat, sleep, go barefoot or be noisy in a public library.  You can, however, "watch graphic porn on a public computer in front of kids," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently reported.

You don't need to be a literary expert to figure out that making computer porn available is not the highest and best use of limited public resources.  And certainly patrons, whose tax payments keep the doors open, deserve better than to have their children exposed to hard-core pornography.

As a former chairman of a metropolitan library system, the story from Seattle appalled me.  But it didn't surprise me at all.

Sadly, Seattle is following a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment.  But they generally omit an important qualifier:  When taxpayers are paying for the computers they have a right to insist that children are protected.

I know because I authored the federal law on this, and it has passed muster with the Supreme Court.  In 2003, the high court upheld The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in United States v. American Library Association.  Earlier federal attempts to address the problem had all been rejected by the court.

The 6-3 ruling affirmed the constitutionality of CIPA, which requires public schools and libraries that receive Internet-related federal funds to use blocking filters to restrict access to pornography.

The Supreme Court agreed that the Internet is "no more than a technological extension of the book stack."  The justices wrote that each public library has "its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet.  ...  Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion.  ...  It would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."

Because "libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not," the Supreme Court agreed that using filters to exclude categories of websites is appropriate and constitutional.

Adults who so request may have the filter temporarily turned off, but this intervention gives librarians the opportunity to make sure no one is using an unfiltered computer in an area open to children and other patrons.

Although Congress' other approaches had been overturned, connecting this filtering requirement to receipt of federal funds was key to gaining Supreme Court approval, because use of government funds is commonly allowed to include restrictions.

Although many libraries now apply CIPA, others - encouraged by lawyers for the American Library Association - deliberately reject federal funds to avoid the requirement of filtering patrons' access to the Internet.  Unconfirmed reports claim a third of our public libraries are using this tactic.  They should not be criticized for not tapping into the federal Treasury, but their motivation is worrisome.

These libraries still rely upon public funds from the state or local level.  Lawmakers who provide that funding have an opportunity to protect children.  States and local governments can do so if they use CIPA as their model.  They can require that schools and libraries funded by local and state governments must protect children from Internet porn by installing these software filters.  No such filter is perfect, but they protect children and they help parents who want libraries to be safe places for their entire family.

Nobody should have the Seattle experience of shocking their children, nor of having librarians who are indifferent to the problem.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Ernest Istook, a fellow at The Heritage Foundation, served 14 years as a Republican congressman from Oklahoma.  Readers may write to him at:  The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org.  Information about Heritage's funding may be found at http://www.heritage.org/about/reports.cfm.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers.  McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

2012, The Heritage Foundation

Reprinted by SafeLibraries under US Copyright Fair Use §107.  Clearly, on SafeLibraries, this article is reprinted for educational use and community discussion, etc.


NOTE ADDED 3 MARCH 2012:

That OpEd was written by Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act.  It appeared in numerous outlets across the country.  Basically, he said the ALA is misleading many communities nationwide resulting in continued harm to children.  Exactly what I've been saying, by the way.

One would think the CIPA author saying the ALA is thwarting CIPA, particularly given the ALA's big loss in US v. ALA, would be a major story in honest media.

Predictably, not a single main stream library media source has covered that story.  The author of CIPA says the ALA is misleading communities on CIPA, and CIPA is central to the ALA and its so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom," the heart of the ALA where it spends most of its money for lawsuits, and the library world is silent.  No articles in the ALA's own American Libraries?  Nothing in Library Journal?  School Library Journal, hello?

Nothing.

When you ignore a story so it WON’T have legs, that's a part of the propaganda game.  And Library Journal is independent from the ALA.  When an independent journal won't cover the story, as major a story to the library world as it is, that's evidence of intimidation, in my opinion.

By the way, above I called for people to contact me if they wished to band together to oppose harmful ALA policy, tactics, and indifference that endangers children.  Several have already done so.  Really, there will be only so much longer the ALA can help bury major stories about the ALA's own malfeasance.


NOTE ADDED 5 SEPTEMBER 2013:

As an apparent follow up to his written opinion, Ernest Istook went into further detail in an interview with Dawn Hawkins of Morality in Media.  He provides never before heard details on the legislative history of CIPA, the extent of ALA's propagandization, what can be done to wrest control of libraries from ALA and restore it to local communities, even recommending me as a "trusted source" on ALA control, and so much more.  Definitely a fascinating read:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)