They Attack the Messenger So You Will Not Read the Documents: Matt Imrie and the Librarian Method

Matt Imrie, Sept. 25, 2026.
The instruction is not to read.
Two new documents are not named.

This is not about thin skin. It is about a method.

Two days after I published The Librarians Is a Permission Slip, Not a Documentary—the long brief that printed, for the first time, Jennifer Tapley’s account of what the film left on the cutting-room floor, and that put on the page the lawyer letter Martha Hickson’s counsel sent the first North Hunterdon mother—a Kansas librarian for teens told his followers not to bother.¹

Matt Imrie did not use my name. He used “DK.” He called the brief a “screed.” He said it was “basically a retread of everything he has been saying against Librarians and the people who work in them.” Then the punch line: “For a man with nothing new to say he sure used a lot of words to say it!”²

I read DK's screed against The Librarians so you don't have to! It is basically a retread of everything he has been saying against Librarians and the people who work in them. For a man with nothing new to say he sure used a lot of words to say it!

— Matt Imrie, @mattlibrarian.eurosky.social, Sept. 25, 2026, 11:14 a.m.

He did not dispute Tapley. He did not dispute the lawyer letter. He did not link the brief. He did not quote a paragraph and say it was wrong. He attacked the messenger and instructed the room not to read.

That is the whole play. It is the play parents meet at board tables, on listservs, in American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF] posts, in Emmy films, and now on Bluesky. The profession that calls itself a “firewall for democracy” will not debate a parent document if it can first make the parent radioactive and the document unread.

The keep-out sign is the point. If parents read Tapley, they will see the sequence the Emmy film reversed. If they read the Hickson letter, they will see how a parent who spoke at a board meeting was then handed fourteen days and a hold on her social media, texts, and email. Those two documents are why the brief is long. They are also why a working youth-services librarian would rather you take his word for it that there is “nothing new.”

What “Nothing New” Had to Erase

The September 23 brief is not a mood piece about librarians. It is a source brief about a recruitment film. The new material—the material Imrie had to call a retread so you would not look—is named in the brief itself.

Jennifer Tapley. The film and the 2023 Popular Information short used Santa Rosa County, Florida, as proof that the parent is the mob: a mother, a sheriff’s visit, a librarian under siege. Tapley sent a written statement for publication through Vicki Baggett. I printed it in full. Facts and judgments are hers. The brief does not treat the statement as a court finding. It treats it as the testimony the film did not sit with.³

Her sequence is the opposite of the reel. A detective asked that the book be brought in. She says she was told she would have anonymity. She says the librarian was not the target. The short package omitted that. What followed, on her account, was death threats against her and her daughter, a sheriff’s car in the driveway, a dropped school-board race, and a child moved to another school. Spam, fake campaign names, a greeting card on Church of Satan letterhead threatening her child. Loaded guns by the doors. That is not in the Emmy cut. It is in the brief Imrie told you not to read.⁴

Martha Hickson’s attorney. The film uses a parent from the September 2021 North Hunterdon–Voorhees board meeting as the face of the attack on Hickson. Four and a half months later, Hickson’s counsel sent that parent a Rule 408 letter: potential defamation suit, accusations characterized as s[*]x crimes, fourteen days to talk, a hold on her social media, texts, and email. The parent did not return to the microphone. The picture keeps the board-night attack. It does not keep the letter, or the silence that followed it.⁵

That letter is not a “retread of everything he has been saying.” It is a document. The film left it out. The brief put it in. Imrie’s job, in one paragraph, is to make sure you never reach it.

The page Imrie called a retread: Hickson’s counsel
to the first North Hunterdon mother, Rule 408.

“DK,” So You Do Not Search the Name

Imrie will not write Dan Kleinman. He will not write SafeLibraries. He will not link the brief. He will write “DK,” the in-group initials librarian listservs and Bluesky piles have used for years when they want the tribe to know who they mean and the public search box to come up empty.

That is not manners. That is distribution control. A name is a search term. A link is a click. “DK’s screed” is a closed circle: everyone who already hates the work is confirmed; no one new is sent to the primary sources. The same profession that teaches “access” as a sacrament practices it as a one-way valve. The film may be watched. The parent letters may not.

Amanda Jones, one of the faces of The Librarians, used a version of the same move in the other direction. She titled her book That Librarian and has said people would not put her name—they said “that librarian.” The professional class gets a book title out of being unnamed. The parent who documents the class gets initials so the documentation does not travel.⁶

Attack First. Debate Never. Do Not Let Them Read.

Look at what the post does, in order.

1. Appoint himself the reader. “I read DK’s screed so you don’t have to.” That sentence is the tell. A person who wanted an argument would say, “Read this paragraph and here is why it fails.” A person who wants the file closed says he already read it for you.
2. Poison the document before anyone opens it. Screed. Not “brief.” Not “post.” Screed is a verdict on the author, issued so the attachments never get a hearing.
3. Deny novelty instead of meeting the pages. “Retread.” “Nothing new.” Those are claims of fact. They are false as to Tapley’s statement and the Hickson letter. He does not try to make them true. He only needs them believed long enough that nobody clicks.
4. Mock the length. “A lot of words.” A source brief that reprints a parent’s statement and a lawyer letter is long because the evidence is long. Calling the page count the offense is how you avoid the evidence.
5. Erase the name. “DK.” No link. No title. The tribe knows who he means. A search box does not.

That is not debate. Debate would sound like: the Tapley statement is incomplete because X; the Rule 408 letter is ordinary litigation conduct because Y; the film’s sequence still holds because Z. Imrie attempted none of that. Neither did the film. Neither does OIF when it titles a post “Lies About Libraries” and defines “p[*]rnography” out of existence because no single title has been walked through Miller and Ginsberg in a criminal court. Neither did Guy Citron in the Hunterdon Review when the claim was that I was “intolerable” and the school librarians were not.⁷

The method is stable. When parents put documents on the table, the professional response is not “let’s read the page.” It is: mark the messenger, instruct the audience not to look, and call that intellectual freedom.

The same week as the brief, two credentialed educators put that method on the record in The Hill. Crystal Marull and Vicki Baggett—the teacher and the parent whose names the film also left out—wrote that “trust the experts” was never a commitment to expertise. It was a demand for a specific conclusion. One of them earned the library-media credential she was told she lacked; the analysis was waved off. The other read the assigned novel, found the pages, and then caught more than 12,000 emails demanding she be fired, two lawsuits, and death threats. “If they do that to us,” they asked, “what hope is there for the next parent with no credentials at all?”¹⁰ Imrie’s “I read it so you don’t have to” is the short form of the same instruction.

Imrie is one librarian. He is useful because he is typical. The Emmy film is the same move at feature length. The SLAPP docket is the same move with a caption. “I read it so you don’t have to” is the same move in one paragraph.

The ridicule has a function. If the brief is a “screed,” you do not have to read Tapley. If it is a “retread,” you do not have to ask why the Emmy film needed the lawyer letter offstage. If the author has “nothing new to say,” then the breaking news is not breaking, and ALA does not have to answer it. The smear is the answer.

When a profession answers new evidence with “do not read it,” the evidence is the target. Not the word count. Not the author’s feelings. The unread page.

The Librarian Who Wants You to Trust His Summary

Matt Imrie is not a random commenter. He is a youth-services / teen librarian. He has described himself as a Youth Services Librarian in the Midwest and as editor of Teen Librarian (TeenLibrarian.co.uk), a blog he has run since 2006 on public and school libraries and work with teens. He has written from Kansas about “book banners” at Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library—on September 23, 2026, the same week as the brief—insisting titles named in a local fight were really in the Young Adult collection, as if YA were a legal safe harbor for what parents were reading aloud. He signed, as “Matt Imrie / Librarian,” the public list of library workers who agreed Marxism “is not a radical notion” in support of then-ALA President Emily Drabinski.⁸

He is exactly the professional the film asks you to treat as a firewall. He is also exactly the professional who will not let you see the two documents that break the film’s sequence.

I have written about Imrie before, not because he is famous, but because the voice he uses on parents and on the country is the voice the “trusted expert” branding is supposed to make you ignore. I documented his public line that people who want s[*]x verification in school sports “need[] to get a throat punch and be curb-stomped until they change their shitty life choices.” I documented his “Protest Power” posting and his “Murderous America Genocides Again.” I documented language I flagged to federal accounts as a possible stochastic threat involving “armed forces” and “kidnapped by soldiers,” and a riff about “a librarian who is also a serial killer.” I documented him calling an ICE arrest a “kidnap” outside his house in the Lawrence, Kansas area. Those posts are his. I did not write them for him.⁹

A man who talks that way about parents and about the country is not a neutral reader of a brief that prints what parents were willing to put their names on. He is a participant. His “I read it so you don’t have to” is not a public service. It is a warning to his own side: do not click through, because the attachments are real.

Vicious is not a vibe. It is the decision to replace a parent’s statement and a lawyer letter with “screed,” and to tell the public the length is the crime.

Read the Brief Anyway

Here is the test. If Imrie is right, Tapley’s statement adds nothing, the Hickson letter adds nothing, and the film’s sequence survives both. If he is wrong, the only reason to call a first-publication parent account and a Rule 408 letter a “retread” is to keep those pages from traveling.

Do not take his word. Do not take mine. Read the documents he will not name.

• Dan Kleinman, “The Librarians Is a Permission Slip, Not a Documentary,” SafeLibraries, September 23, 2026.
• Dan Kleinman, “The Librarians’ Emmy Win Is a Loss for Parents and Kids,” Washington Examiner, September 16, 2026.
• Dan Kleinman, “Shame on PBS: ‘The Librarians’ Is One Big Lie to Parents and Kids,” The Hill, February 2, 2026.

If you can help parents who are being sued for saying the quiet part out loud:
https://www.givesendgo.com/LegalFundForParents

=== 30 ===

Endnotes

¹ Dan Kleinman, “The Librarians Is a Permission Slip, Not a Documentary,” SafeLibraries, Sept. 23, 2026. Shorter version: Dan Kleinman, “The Librarians’ Emmy Win Is a Loss for Parents and Kids,” Washington Examiner, Sept. 16, 2026.

² Matt Imrie (@mattlibrarian.eurosky.social), Bluesky / Eurosky, Sept. 25, 2026, 11:14 a.m.: “I read DK’s screed against The Librarians so you don’t have to! It is basically a retread of everything he has been saying against Librarians and the people who work in them. For a man with nothing new to say he sure used a lot of words to say it!” Screenshot on file; reproduced at top of this post.

³ Jennifer Tapley, “My Harassment Over Books,” written statement provided for publication via Vicki Baggett to Dan Kleinman, Sept. 2026, printed in full in the Sept. 23 brief. The brief’s source note treats the statement as testimony the film did not sit with, not as a court finding. Background on the 2023 sheriff’s-office visit and Popular Information package: Judd Legum, “Moms for Liberty Members Call the Cops on Florida Librarians,” Popular Information, Nov. 6, 2023; Madison Arnold / Brittany Misencik, Pensacola News Journal, Nov. 8, 2023.

⁴ Tapley statement, as printed in the Sept. 23 brief (spam flood; threats to family; Church of Satan letterhead; manifesto blaming school shootings on Christians; loaded guns; sheriff’s patrol). Sequence summary in the same brief: detective asked that the book be brought in; promised anonymity; librarian not the target; short package omitted that; child moved to another school.

⁵ Sept. 23 brief, section on Hickson and the North Hunterdon parent: September 2021 board meeting; New York Times quotation of the parent from the meeting video; Rule 408 letter from Hickson’s counsel four and a half months later (potential defamation, accusations characterized as s[*]x crimes, fourteen days, hold on social media / texts / email); parent did not return to the microphone. The film keeps the board-night attack and drops the letter.

⁶ Amanda Jones, That Librarian: The Fight Against Book Banning in America (Bloomsbury, 2024); Jones on the title as the phrase used when people would not use her name, as discussed in her own interviews and in the Sept. 23 brief’s Jones notes.

⁷ Dan Kleinman, “Dan Kleinman Is Intolerable, Not School Librarians Harming School Children; Guy Citron’s Triple Decker Defamation,” SafeLibraries, March 14, 2025. ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, “Lies About Libraries (Part Two),” Jan. 16, 2026, as cited in the Sept. 23 brief. Kim A. Snyder to The Advocate after the PBS premiere: viewers should be “both outraged and activated”; librarian organizations as “the firewall”—quoted in the Sept. 23 brief from Joy Holden, The Advocate, Feb. 6, 2026.

⁸ Teen Librarian, “About” (site set up in 2006 by Matt Imrie; Youth Services Librarian living and working in the Midwest; previously school / children’s / teen / youth services librarian in South Africa and the United Kingdom). Matt Imrie, “Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library Targeted by Book Banners,” Teen Librarian, Sept. 23, 2026. “Matt Imrie / Librarian” on the public list reproduced at Dan Kleinman, “List of Librarians Who Agree Marxism is Not a Radical Notion, Support Marxist President of American Library Association,” SafeLibraries, Dec. 27, 2024. Employment as previously reported: youth services information specialist / teen-youth services librarian, Johnson County Library system, Gardner, Kansas area.

¹⁰ Crystal Marull and Vicki Baggett, “‘Trust the Experts?’ We Are Experts, and We Were Vilified For Pointing Out Inappropriate Books For School,” The Hill, Sept. 2026. Baggett is also the conduit for the Tapley statement printed in the Sept. 23 brief. The Hill piece is first-person corroboration of the method, not a substitute for Imrie’s post.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/09/they-attack-messenger-so-you-will-not-read.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

The Double Standard: 'Destroy Them' and 'Go In for the Kill' Are Just Idioms—But a Red Circle Around a Librarian's Head Is Targeting

In the recent discussion of cartoonist Ryan Estrada, we saw him publish guidance for authors and activists confronting parents who challenge materials in school libraries. One section states: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.) He has also offered to provide more “ammunition” to those who email him. When called out, Estrada has framed the language as figurative—an idiom—and responded with a comic casting a critic as the big bad wolf.¹

Contrast that with the treatment of school librarian Amanda Jones.

In July 2022, after Jones spoke against censorship at a Livingston Parish Library Board meeting in Louisiana, the Facebook page of Citizens for a New Louisiana posted a photo of her speaking. The image placed a red circle (with a white border) around her head and asked why she was “fighting so hard to keep s[*]xually erotic and p[*]rnographic materials in the kid’s section.”²

Jones later described the circle as a “target.” In her memoir That Librarian she wrote: “They posted a picture of me with a target around my head. According to them, it’s just a circle, but who are they kidding?”³ She launched multi-year defamation lawsuits against the posters, arguing the image and accompanying text damaged her reputation and contributed to harassment.⁴

Yet her first reaction was different. In a training video she recorded for other librarians (August 28, 2023), Jones herself admitted:

“When I first started being attacked, I thought ‘This is not serious, like this is ridiculous.’ I went on their page and put the laughing emoji… and I wish I could take that back cuz it’s not funny… and they talk about that all the time. ‘She put the laugh, she thinks it’s funny.’ So I learned that the hard way.”⁵

What she initially treated as absurd enough to laugh at publicly became, within weeks, the foundation of sustained litigation. A red circle is one of the most ordinary tools in digital photo editing and annotation—the default highlight function in countless apps precisely because it draws the eye without implying violence. Treating that common editing mark as actionable “targeting” while dismissing explicit militaristic language directed at parents (“Destroy them,” “go in for the kill,” offers of “ammunition”) as mere idiom is the double standard in plain view.

Parents who speak at school board or library meetings are fair game for destruction rhetoric and cartoon portrayals as the big bad wolf. Librarians and their allies who face ordinary visual highlighting of their public comments receive multi-year lawsuits, national media sympathy, and awards for courage.

One set of statements is explained away as colorful language. The other is treated as a serious threat of violence—even when the person later suing over it first responded with a laughing emoji.

If you're a big bad wolf who wishes to support the legal defense of free speech against double standards and SLAPP-style suits arising from reporting on these issues:  

• Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
• https://www.givesendgo.com/LegalFundForParents

———

END NOTES

1. See the detailed documentation and screenshots in “‘Destroy Them’: Cartoonist Ryan Estrada Turns Real Dictatorship Book Bans into a Campaign Against American Parents,” SafeLibraries, August 1, 2026: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/destroy-them-cartoonist-ryan-estrada.html

2. The original Facebook post and the red-circle description appear in Jones’s own petition for damages (filed August 2022) and are summarized in contemporaneous reporting:  

• Petition for Damages: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22130936/amanda-jones-petition-for-damages-injunctive-relief.pdf  
• The Hill, August 13, 2022: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3599286-librarian-sues-for-defamation-after-conservative-activist-attacks-over-lgbtq-books/  
• Wikipedia summary of the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Jones_(librarian)

3. Amanda Jones, That Librarian: The Fight Against Book Banning in America (Bloomsbury, 2024), quoted in Oprah Daily, August 27, 2024: https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/books/a61600534/the-librarian-amanda-jones-book-bans/

4. Court records and appellate history confirming the multi-year litigation:  

• Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal opinion (October 7, 2025): https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/first-circuit-court-of-appeal/2025/2023ca0654.html  
• Additional coverage: New York Times, September 3, 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/books/amanda-jones-librarian-book-bans.html
• https://archive.ph/mDknI

5. Transcript of Amanda Jones’s August 28, 2023 training video for librarians (timestamp ~16:04), published on SafeLibraries, September 2024: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/09/amanda-jones-trains-librarians-to-blind.html  

• Original video: https://youtu.be/yYr3qjvXXAA

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-double-standard-destroy-them-and-go.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

American Library Association Blames YouTube Video for Benghazi Attack; Passes Policy Silencing Prayer After Jewish Man Prays for Dead Colleagues at ALA Meeting; Does Not Support Free Speech

ALA claims Benghazi attack was
"fueled" by a YouTube video.

The American Library Association [ALA] claims a YouTube video was responsible for the Benghazi attack.  Yet the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  Instead its use supports Islamist efforts to use blasphemy laws to silence the free speech of those speaking out about Islam from a different point of view than the Islamists.  ALA now evidences agreement with that anti-free speech goal.

ALA, supposedly a supporter of free speech, has in the past censored a speaker in response to complaints from Islamists and maintains a block on speech from Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.  Now it has joined with those promoting blasphemy laws to silence free speech.  The video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, yet ALA calls it, "the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi"?

• "Appeals Court Decision Undermines Free Speech, Misinterpret Copyright Law," by Carrie Russell, Director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP), American Library Association, 14 April 2014 (hyperlinks in original, emphasis mine, grammatical errors in title and text are in original):

  Last week, the American Library Association (ALA) joined an amicus brief calling for reconsideration of a 9th circuit court decision in Garcia v. Google, case where actress Cindy Sue Garcia sued Google for not removing a YouTube video in which she appears.  Garcia appears for five seconds in “Innocence of Muslims,” the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi.  The video was uploaded on YouTube, exposing Garcia to threats and hate mail.  Garcia did not know that her five second performance would be used in a controversial video.

ALA Policy Silencing Impromptu Prayer at ALA Meetings

By the way, at ALA's latest annual conference, it passed a policy silencing prayer at ALA meetings in response to a Jewish ALA member saying a quick prayer over other ALA members who had just died:

As former ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon said, "When Mr. Friedman intoned the Jewish mourner's 'Kaddish' after the sudden deaths of 2 Councilors, I was highly indignant and walked out.  It never should have been allowed and before the second incident I begged Mr. Friedman not to repeat the prayer-at least on Council floor." Source: ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon.

Anyone is free to pray at any time, anywhere.  What people are not free to do is to force others to participate in their prayers, which is what happens when one prays aloud.  If Mr. Friedman wished to offer a prayer in his own particular religious format, he has a temple or synagogue in which to do so.  An ALA meeting is not a religious service, & if Mr. Friedman wished to express his sadness over the deaths of the councilors there, he's free to do so in a non-religious way.  Source: Sherry Rhodes.

So the self-arrogated free speech police who claim it violates free speech to keep children from inappropriate material and decry "banned books" think one has free speech to "express sadness over the deaths of the councilors" but only "in a non-religious way," unless you go your own "temple or synagogue."

A single ALA member (ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon) was incensed at a Jewish prayer being said in a single ALA meeting and ALA has now banned such prayer.  The free speech police banned free speech.  Remember, ALA claims a single parent should not be allowed to "censor what others students can read" in public schools; one parent should not control an entire school.  But it is okay for one person to react to Jewish prayer and cause ALA to block religious free speech ALA wide.  Just another double standard.

It is right that ALA is not a religious institution and should not have official prayers or prayer times, but a colleague saying an impromptu prayer upon news of the death of another colleague is not official ALA prayer and ALA had no right to silence people in such a fashion.

ALA Censorship Double Standard; ALA Does Not Support Free Speech

What we see here is ALA censorship promoted by impromptu Jewish prayer while ALA promotes censorship of those who oppose radical Islam.  All while telling communities it is censorship to block porn in public libraries and censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material.

ALA supports Islamic blasphemy laws that silence free speech, censors points of view that differ from Islamist views, and silences its own members after a Jewish man makes a quick Jewish prayer at an ALA meeting out of respect for a dead colleague.  ALA does not support free speech.

URL of the page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/04/ALABlasphemy.html

On Twitter:  @ALALibrary @JihadWatchRS @OITP

Follow @SafeLibraries

Guidance for Plaistow Public Library Director, Trustees, Patrons, and Local Government on the Legality of Filtering Porn Out of Libraries

Dear Plaistow Public Library Director,

I have just read an article about a library porn incident in your Plaistow Public Library, Plaistow, NH:

• "Porn in Library Startles Patrons," by Jason Schreiber, Union Leader, 7 January 2012.

It says a Board of Trustees meeting will occur Monday night to discuss the incident.  This email is intended to provide you, the Board, the patrons, and the Plaistow government, with information some may find enlightening.  I will publish this for others to see as well.  My knowledge of the specific facts pertaining to the immediate incident draw mainly from the Union Leader article, so I'll quote from that, then comment.

"Workers at the Plaistow Public Library got a surprise last week when a printer began spitting out pages of pornography."  Please note that librarians and library employees may consider this to be sexual harassment and may file EEOC complaints or civil suits:

• Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library 
• "Birmingham Needs Another MLK Moment; No Justice for Sexually Harassed Librarians"
• "Library Employee Harassment Continues As Second Suit for Unabated Porn is Filed in Birmingham Alabama" 
• "Library Hostile Environment Lawsuits in St Cloud, MN, and Birmingham, AL, for Title VII Sexual Harassment; Wilson v. Birmingham Public Library Foundation; ALA May Be At Fault and Should Be Sued" 

"Police were notified of the incident, but Deputy Police Chief Kathleen Jones said no crime was committed because the images involved adult pornography, which isn't illegal."  Yes, that is true, but that does not mean a public library has to allow such activity even if legal.   More on that soon.

"Librarians say they’re not in the business of monitoring what people do on library computers, and most don’t have filters to censor Web sites."  Yes, librarians need not necessarily monitor what people do.  "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."  Rather, there are perfectly legal and effective means to block certain material from library computers, as the quote intimates, and it not "censorship."

When the media write about "filters to censor Web sites," they have stopped reporting on facts and entered the world of opinion.  In other words, the story provides a spin that has more to do with the viewpoint of the writer than the law and the reality of the situation.  In reality, with properly configured Internet filters, no "censorship" occurs.  Besides, even if a web site is inappropriately blocked, the law (discussed below) specifies a patron can simply ask for the site to be unblocked.  By the way, besides the text, the title of the Union Leader article presents an inaccurate picture.  An accurate and more interesting title would have been, "Porn in Library Startles Librarians."

Further, a site blocked here or there does not compare with the sites the library itself blocks and no one even notices.  There is something called the "Deep Web."  It consists of seven eighths of the entire Internet.  Google does not reach into the Deep Web.  However, there are specialized means of reaching into the Deep Web.  Libraries often make absolutely no effort to employ those specialized means.  So libraries themselves may be blocking eight times as much information as could ever be blocked by filters.  I am not impressed that a filter blocks one or two sites while libraries block millions by not helping patrons navigate the Deep Web.  Besides, a patron can ask for an unblock anyway.

"Like most libraries, the Plaistow library has a policy spelling out the rules for Internet use."  Be honest.  No perpetrator ever follows those policies/rules.  I know of case after case of "surprised" library directors who proclaim the "acceptable use policy" should have stopped the inappropriate activity.  Examples:

• "Kansas City Library Riddled with Crime: No Internet Filters is Why, and Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work"
• "Library Takeover Reveals Hidden Crime; Former Covina Public Library Director Roger Possner Waves Patron Policy as Evidence Crimes Never Occurred; Library Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work"
• "Porn and Sex Abuse In Our Public Libraries: Public Library Porn Harms Children, Patrons, Librarians, and Porn Industry Actors"

Internet filters work to filter out inappropriate material—acceptable use policies do not.  Such policies are effective, however, in making people feel good that something is being done.  (The same goes for "privacy screens.")  I think having an effective means to manage a public library is better than having policies that make it appear an effective means is in place.  Indeed, many libraries claim they do not use filters because they do not want parents to be lulled into a sense of security—exactly what they are doing themselves with acceptable use policies.  It is a double standard.  As long as the Plaistow Public Library continues to place its trust in a piece of paper, incidents like the one that occurred will continue to occur, and eventually some child, patron, or library worker will be seriously harmed.  If your town is worried about liability, think about the consequences if something like that should happen, especially now with the library and town government being put on notice of the uselessness of paper policies and the double standard used to defend them.

"The policy states that use of library computers to access obscene material, child pornography or material that is harmful to minors is prohibited."  Obviously the policy had no effect on the guy printing out the obscene material.  Obviously the paper policy is useless.

"'We felt that by printing and then leaving them in the library without picking them up, it was almost a challenge for the staff.  Someone had to take those copies out of the printer.  We were definitely surprised at how many pages were printed,' she said."  "Almost"?  Continue to downplay such incidents and eventually legal action may be taken, as illustrated above.

And they guy didn't pay for those copies.  Isn't that theft?  After all, libraries will send the police after five year olds for overdue books:

• "Cops in MA Sent to Retrieve Overdue Library Books from 5-Year-Old," by Ken MacLeod, CBS Boston WBZ-TV, 2 January 2012.

"Gavrish said she’s been director for about a year and in that time has had to speak to only a few people who were accessing what were believed to be inappropriate sites."  So that establishes that there are numerous incidents.  At this point it should be obvious that the "acceptable use policy" is not only a failure, but is already known by the library to be a failure.  So to the extent the library continues to promote its policy as effective, it is knowingly misleading the public, and possibly intentionally.

"In most libraries I've been in the feeling is it's a public library and we're not here to monitor what people do.  We're here to provide access to free information.  We just don't feel it's up to us to decide what people can look at."  Since when is pornography considered "information"?  Since when did libraries adopt an "anything goes" policy despite community standards? "We just don't feel it's up to us to decide what people can look at."  That's nice you feel that way, but you are in a position of public trust.  You need to act in light of that public trust, else you are violating that public trust.  You may most certainly and legally block pornography from public libraries, you simply refuse to do so.

Dean Marney

You see, public libraries are not open public fora where anything goes.  They are "quasi" public fora where, among other things, pornography may be legally blocked using Internet filters.  It has been nine years since this was decided by the US Supreme Court in US v. American Library Association (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html).  Nine years.  No library director can possibly be unaware of this.  It makes me think your actions as library director to mislead the public are not only knowing, but also intentional.  To be clear, US v. ALA said, "[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."

Even major media is catching on to the misinformation and calling for the placement of filters in public libraries:

• "LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries"

Here is library director Dean Marney, for example, who speaks out about the "dogma" the American Library Association [ALA] and its acolytes use to mislead people, so library directors are definitely aware of US v. ALA:

• "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" 

Your own patrons are finding out about this now too, thanks to me:

"While no crime was committed, Plaistow police said they would still like to know who printed the images so they can run the name through the sex offender registry because some offenders aren’t allowed to be viewing pornography."  Valid point (except perhaps for theft of services for the unpaid copies).  However, many libraries intentionally destroy such information or fail to collect it in the first place, or make its retrieval difficult, having been guided to do so by the ALA:

• "Libraries Aid and Abet Pedophiles, Destroy Evidence, Retaliate Against Whistle Blowers, Claim Dubious Privacy and Free Speech Rights; ALA At Fault"

"The New Hampshire State Library also has an Internet acceptable use policy that says it doesn't censor legal activities."  Again, such policies do not work.  Again, it is not censorship to comply with US v. ALA and filter out pornography from public libraries.  The NHSL saying it is only goes to show New Hampshire has a bigger problem than just Plaistow.

"It also has an Internet disclaimer stating: 'The State Library has no control over the materials found on the Internet.  The library cannot censor your access to material nor protect you from information you find offensive, controversial or inappropriate.'"  That is true but misleading.  Of course the State Library has no control over the materials found on the Internet, but it leaves out that Internet filters can filter out inappropriate material legally and effectively.  Of course the State Library may not censor access to material, but it is not "censorship" to block pornography from public libraries.  When it says, "information you find offensive, controversial or inappropriate," it is really saying the material is none of those, rather, "you" are the problem.  It is a confrontational tone that does not belong in a State Library policy, especially in light of the other misleading statements.  I am CC'ing State Librarian Michael York on this so he can correct this situation, though I doubt he will.  And I'll use Governor John Lynch's online form to send him this message as well.

I hope these comments of mine and the associated references help you and others be aware of the basis for legally filtering out pornography from your public library.  I hope you and others become aware that acceptable use policies are not effective.

If there's one big take away from what I have written, it is to read US v. ALA all the way through.  Only then can people make an informed decision, instead of one to which they have been led.  The case decides filters are constitutional first, then it applies that decision to libraries accepting certain federal funding.  So even if the library does not accept that funding, the case remains applicable, as if that is not obvious.

Anyone wishing further information, feel free to contact me.

Please distribute this message to all members of the Board of Trustees in sufficient time so it can be read and considered before Monday night's meeting.

The town government should also have a copy as well so it can consider if the library's current policies are exposing the town to potential liability.  The following may be relevant:

• "Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same"

• Speaking of local control … even after six years, it still rankles that our librarians refused and continue to refuse to adopt a policy prohibiting access to pornography by minors on library Internet terminals.  When every day new incidents reveal the ease with which sexual predators solicit children online, any claims that the library is a safe place for kids ring hollow.  The values espoused by the American Library Association are so divorced from the values of our community that we would seriously consider ... going back to the days of a city library under local control, rather than giving one thin dime to an institution controlled by an organization that believes in 'all materials for all patrons regardless of age.'

  "Vote No on Prop. 81," by Editorial Board, Gilroy Dispatch, 19 May 2006.
• "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries"
• "Will Manley Outs Library Profession as the Only One in the World That Wants Children to Have Access to Pornography; Annoyed Librarian Says Some Librarians Sound Like Smut Peddlars"

Thank you very much.

-Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries


NOTE ADDED 12 JANUARY 2012:

The library/media snow job continues unabated:

• "Plaistow Library Assessing Internet Controls," by Jason Schreiber, Union Leader, 12 January 2012.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Director Admits Keeping Police in the Dark in Gilbert, Arizona; American Library Association Guidance Not To Inform Police May Be the Reason

A former public library director in Gilbert, AZ, has admitted not reporting multiples incidents to the police.  See:

• "Gilbert Council Restores Funds for Library Security," by Srianthi Perera, The Arizona Republic, 11 June 2011, hyperlink and highlighting added.

  That prompted [outgoing Councilwoman Linda] Abbott to ask why the library didn't call police more often.
  
  "I don't know if I have a good answer to that," [Former Southeast Library Manager Andrew] Chanse replied.  "It's probably something that we're just not necessarily in the habit of doing.  Are we going to call for someone that's stealing a DVD? Probably not."
  
  Since last July, Chanse said, 4,000 DVDs costing about $30 each have been stolen from the library - quadruple the number of thefts recorded four years ago.

The former library director does not "have a good answer" for why police were not called.  To protect himself, however, the police were called.  See:

• "Gilbert Library Staffs Dealing with Threats, Theft, Porn," by Srianthi Perera, The Arizona Republic, 3 June 2011, highlighting added.

  Since the town eliminated funding for security guards in July because of budget woes, the Southeast Regional and Perry branch libraries in Gilbert have had a spate of disturbing occurrences, records show.
  
  Among them: threats and physical harm to library staff, mentally unstable individuals distracting patrons by screaming, theft, property damage and viewing pornography on the public computers.
  
  ....
  
  Various reports suggest the librarians' safety and well-being, as well as that of patrons, are threatened.

  In a Facebook posting dated April 27, Chanse stated:  "Assaulted by one customer today and threatened with bodily harm by another.  Who says librarians have it easy?"
  
  He also wrote:
  
  "We had a mentally ill customer assault one of my staff while I was out of the building.  He got in her face and roughly grabbed her arm.  I got a positive ID of him today and approached him.  He immediately got in my face and started shouting profanities.  I tried to give him the option to calm down or leave, but he wouldn't listen.  So I demanded he leave . . . he did try and get on a computer.  I took his library card, at which point he rushed me and grabbed my arm.  I broke free and called the police . . . "
  
  Chanse's reference to the other incident involved a patron with large fines who had received several courtesy waivers. When the patron and her husband were asked to leave because they were refusing to pay the fine, both threatened Chanse.  The husband said he would be seeing him after the library was closed.  Chanse called the police and an officer stayed outside in his car until the library closed.
  
  "This stuff never happened when we had security guards," Chanse wrote.  "We have too many people (kids) in that place to mess around with this stuff."
  
  In a report to the town detailing customer incidents, Chanse states: "I think we are more of a destination for the have-nots than ever before.  ....
  
  ....
  
  Mark Sequeira, a father of four children aged 4-11, and his wife Jennifer, are frequent patrons of the library.  Sequeira, who owns MJA Studios, a graphic design and marketing shop, sometimes works on his projects in the library in the evenings.  One evening he watched police arrive and escort a patron outside.
  
  While he is not worried about the security for his children at the library, Sequeira expressed concern for the library staff, most of whom he knows on a personal basis.  He and a few others have volunteered to help if there are any concerns.  Most of the librarians are female.
  
  "They (librarians) never asked (for help), but it's really putting everybody at risk," Sequeira said.  "I just wanted to help them feel more safe."
  
  .... 

  "I know the ladies at the library often have to close and also have to confront men on the computers or being obnoxious," he wrote.  "It should not be this way.  We are needlessly putting at risk a rare treasure in our community."
  ....

What if I told you Gilbert, AZ, has been rated the fifth safest city in the USA.  Do you think that might change if the crimes not reported by the public library were actually counted and included?  See:

• "Gilbert is 5th in U.S. in Site's Safety Ranking," by unnamed, The Arizona Republic, 8 Jun 2011.

  "For our local public-safety heroes and our entire community, we are honored to receive this national recognition as the fifth-safest community in the country," said Mayor John Lewis, "Public safety has always been and will continue to be a Gilbert priority."
  
  Calling the ranking "an important honor at a time when Gilbert is becoming known for its biomedical industry," town spokeswoman Beth Lucas said, "Gilbert has long been honored for its safe, family-friendly atmosphere."
  
  Residents participating in the 2010 Heads of Households Survey list safety as one of the reasons they continue to rate the town high, with a current approval rating of 98 percent.  In the survey, 95 percent of residents said they felt safe from crime while driving or in their homes in Gilbert.

Good thing public safety is a Gilbert priority and that it is safe and family-friendly.  It is going to need that motivation to find out exactly what is going on in the public library, given the facts.

And the residents felt safe while driving and while in their homes according to the 2010 Heads of Households Survey?  Well it is time that survey ask how people feel about the crime in their public libraries, is it not?

Ask whether people feel the library should report all crime to the police.  Ask if the library should decide what illegal activity gets reported to the police and what does not.  Ask if the people approve of the library following the policy from the out-of-state American Library Association [ALA] that urges libraries not to report crime to the police.  See:

• "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, November 2008, emphasis added because this may be the very reason why the library does not report crimes:

  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.

• "Town of Gilbert Heads-of-Households Survey; Attitudes on Planning and Services 2010," by Margaret C. Kenski, Ph.D., Arizona Opinion, 21 December 2010.

So if "law enforcement efforts [are] naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material," does that not mean no one is ever guilty of violating the relevant law because it is really the publishers who are to blame?  Go ahead, blame the publishers, and watch how fast the ALA and the ACLU defend them.  For example, both the ALA and the ACLU joined with "adult-entertainment producers" and defended publishers of "virtual child pornography."  See:

• "Supreme Court Overturns Ban on 'Virtual' Child Pornography," by American Library Association, American Libraries, 22 April 2002.

So you have the powerful ALA defending publishers of virtual child pornography while at the same time advising libraries to leave child pornography concerns to the police since the real target should be the publishers of such material.  That is a blatant and self-serving double standard, and it leaves communities exposed to harm, even communities rated among the safest in the nation.

Let me make another observation.  First, I could not tell from the library's web site whether or not the library filters computers or, if it does, whether or not the filters are actually CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) complaint.  But I do know this: the library is receiving CIPA's E-Rate funding for Internet access that can only be obtained if a library complies with CIPA.

Guess what?  The ALA advises libraries how to sidestep CIPA and still get federal funding, and some do so fraudulently.  It is possible the police may have something else to review, namely, whether the library is filing false CIPA claims, and whether that violates some code against official malfeasance.

Why is this relevant?  Because from the description of the crime in the library, my experience tells me either Internet filters are not on all computers, are able to be turned off by the patrons themselves, are not reapplied if the person views certain inappropriate material, or are otherwise not CIPA compliant.

And here is the evidence of the library's collection of CIPA funding:

Year	Applicant	Address	Type	Wave	Service	Discount	Amount
2010	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	2700 N Central Ave Ste 700 PHOENIX, AZ 85004	Library/Library Consortium	015	Internet Access	59 %	$26,675.65
2009	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	2700 N Central Ave Ste 700 PHOENIX, AZ 85004	Library/Library Consortium	010	Internet Access	56 %	$26,052.10
2008	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	2700 N Central Ave Ste 700 PHOENIX, AZ 85004	Library/Library Consortium	026	Internet Access	61 %	$7,384.08
	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	2700 N Central Ave Ste 700 PHOENIX, AZ 85004	Library/Library Consortium	026	Internet Access	61 %	$7,384.08
2007	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	2700 N Central Ave Ste 700 PHOENIX, AZ 85004	Library/Library Consortium	012	Internet Access	57 %	$15,688.14
	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	2700 N Central Ave Ste 700 PHOENIX, AZ 85004	Library/Library Consortium	012	Internet Access	57 %	$15,688.14
2006	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	17811 N 32ND ST PHOENIX, AZ 85032	Library/Library Consortium	015	Internet Access	60 %	$34,862.54
	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	17811 N 32ND ST PHOENIX, AZ 85032	Library/Library Consortium	015	Internet Access	60 %	$48,420.14
2005	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	17811 N 32ND ST PHOENIX, AZ 85032	Library/Library Consortium	012	Internet Access	57 %	$46,352.54
	MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DIST	17811 N 32ND ST PHOENIX, AZ 85032	Library/Library Consortium	010	Internet Access	57 %	$33,472.82
2004	None.						$261,980.23

Is $261,980.23 an ill-gotten gain?  Could it have been necessary to hide the library crime so as not to alert anyone that CIPA was being ignored?

In response to my conversation of 11 June 2011 with Sgt. Andrew Duncan, I am hereby providing the Gilbert Police Department with the above information for further disposition as they see fit.  And I'll be here when help is needed as the ALA spin machine kicks into high gear.

The ALA spin machine.  The ALA spin that quietly offers money to local citizens who support its cause.  I haven't written about that yet but I will.  The ALA spin that fakes the annual top 10 list of challenged books to promote its political agenda.  I haven't written about that yet but I will. The ALA spin that anonymously astroturfs for a George Soros group called Free Press.  The ALA spin that plagiarizes low quality "censorship" maps.  The ALA spin that, in yet another double standard, labels 100% of the people complying with ALA-inspired material reconsideration policies as "censors."  The ALA spins that gives an award to a school librarian who admitted publicly that she cannot perform her job, so she lets the students read the racy books.  I had to provide these examples as the library is sure to defend its positions as those related to "intellectual freedom," the First Amendment, etc., and the investigators need to expect the attempt to mislead them.

And, my Arizona friends, you have local resources who are aware of these issues and how the ALA can be misleading.  Consider, for example, local police expert Dr. Frank Kardasz.  See, in particular, "Child Porn Trafficking in Public Libraries; Libraries Actively Thwart Child Porn Investigations."

Or consider, for example, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat who saw to it Phoenix libraries got filtering and that the filters were applied properly.  I mention he is a Democrat because I anticipate the tired argument that only Conservatives want to protect children from harm.

Perhaps this Phoenix mother will have knowledge of the ALA that may be of use:  "School Removes Squirting Sperm Book After 8-Year-Old Complains To Her Mother."  And it is a former Arizona Library Association president who was making false statements to a school to try to coerce the school into restoring access of a child to inappropriate material.

I hope this information/opinion helps get to the root of the problem.

Follow @SafeLibraries

ACLU Speech Police Lose Bid to Force Public School to Remove Religion from Graduation Ceremonies; Federal Appeals Court Reverses Censorship of God by ACLU; American Library Association Labels Such ACLU Censorship as Success Stories

"ACLU is dead."—
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

ACLU speech police lose bid to force a public school to remove religion from graduation ceremonies.  A federal appeals court reversed a federal district court that approved the censorship of God by the ACLU.  And the American Library Association [ALA] approves of such actions by the ACLU to censor students.

I recently wrote, "ACLU Double Standard in Public Schools on a Single Person Bringing Complaints."  Well, the ACLU threatened yet another school, again based on the complaint of a single person, actually got a federal judge to order the school what not to say—so much for freedom of speech, right?—and a federal appeals court just overruled the lower court and ordered the ACLU to take a flying leap.  See for yourself:

• "Federal Court Lifts Ban on Public Prayer at Texas High School Graduation After Uproar," by Todd Starnes and AP, FOXNews, 3 June 2011, emphasis and hyperlinks mine.

  "This is a complete victory for religious freedom and for Angela," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute, which had represented class valedictorian Angela Hildenbrand in the appeal.  "We are thrilled that she will be able to give her prayer without censorship in her valedictorian speech tomorrow night.  No citizen has the right to ask the government to bind and gag the free speech of another citizen."
  
  Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery's initial ban had been denounced as an "activist decision" by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who called it "exactly the wrong civics lesson to teach to the class of 2011."
  
  Biery had ruled Thursday in favor of Christa and Danny Schultz, who sued to block such religious expressions at their son's graduation.  Among the words or phrases Biery had banned were:  "join in prayer," "bow their heads," "amen," and "prayer."
  
  He also ordered the school district to remove the terms "invocation" and "benediction" from the graduation program, in favor of "opening remarks" and "closing remarks."
  
  Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott responded by voicing support for the school district in its appeal.
  
  "Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country," Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into "speech police."
  
  "I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government," Abbott told Fox News Radio.  "It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment."

Can you believe this?  The vaunted ACLU promoting censorship and forcing schools to be speech police, all the while unraveling the moral values of our country.  Words of the news story, not mine.  The ACLU is trampling the First Amendment.  The Texas Attorney General said that, not me.

But it's true, is it not?  See, e.g., "Faith Under Fire: Graduating Students Defy ACLU; Seniors Stand and Recite Lord's Prayer," by Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily, 5 June 2009.

To remind everyone why I raise this issue, it is because the American Library Association approves of such censorship.  It should not be viewed as authoritative on issues it claims are "censorship."  It keeps using the shibboleth that schools should not be help hostage to a single parent, yet that's what the ACLU does again and again while the ALA labels such actions as "success stories."  The ACLU is the ALA's comrade-in-arms.  Consider, e.g., US v. ALA et al. (the "et al." includes the ACLU), where both worked together to stop the "Children's Internet Protection Act."  They both lost.  Children won.

That Old Devil ALA!

Indeed, the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF] was created by an ACLU state leader (see also, "That Old Devil ALA!," by Karen G. Schneider, American Libraries, October 2000) and it is the OIF that, by itself, made keeping inappropriate material from children tantamount to a crime (I'm thinking, e.g, of the current squirting sperm book removed from a public school in Phoenix, AZ, where arguments are being made that the school violated "due process" and must return the book to the children).  It is the OIF that calls anyone who complains about any material "censors."

Will the ALA speak out about the ACLU's censorship, its trampling of the First Amendment, the intellectual freedom of school children?  Of course not.  It is just another ALA double standard.

Indeed, the ALA tracks and approves of cases where the ACLU tramples student's rights in public schools.  This is censorship of which the ALA approves.  No, I am not kidding.  For example, in the ALA OIF's  "Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom," in a section entitled "Success Stories; Schools," the ALA reported as follows:

Kanawha County, West Virginia

The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Americans United for Separation of Church and State applauded the decision of the Kanawha County School Board to end a policy that permitted school-sponsored prayer at graduation ceremonies. U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., approved a settlement between the parties August 14.

"The resolution of this lawsuit guarantees the religious liberty of every family in the community," said Ayesha Khan, legal director of Americans United. "Thankfully, the new policy will strike the right balance.  Students will be free to pray if they wish during graduation, but to protect everyone’s rights, worship will no longer be an official part of the ceremony."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tyler Deveny on May 29, 2002.  Deveny, an atheist, objected to the prayer at his graduation at St. Albans High School which he called an exercise in ostracism.  The ACLU and Americans United successfully won a temporary restraining order blocking the prayer the next day.

The Superintendent of the Kanawha County Schools, Ron Duerring, agreed in the settlement to immediately abolish the district-wide policy that permitted schools like St. Albans to have student-led prayer at their graduation.  Duerring said in a statement, that "such an outcome is best for the school community and pays proper respect to constitutional requirements."

Shortly after the May 30 graduation ceremony took place, Deveny was assaulted allegedly because of his participation in the case.  The ACLU, AU and the superintendent strongly condemned this assault.  "Mr. Deveny was exercising an important constitutional right to seek redress for alleged violations of the Constitution," Duerring said in his statement.  "Mr. Deveny’s actions have served to educate Kanawha County Schools and the community as a whole about constitutional requirements."

In connection with the settlement, Duerring will review Kanawha County curriculum and professional staff development programs to ensure adequate education and training on First Amendment issues, particularly the separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

Reported in: Americans United press release, August 14.

"Success Stories; Schools," by ALA OIF, Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, LI:6 (November 2002).

The ALA thinks such censorship is a "success story" while it tells communities keeping inappropriate material from children violates their rights.  But what do you think?  Please comment below.  Freedom of speech is allowed here.


NOTE ADDED 7 JUNE 2011:

Here is a story with video of high school hero Angela Hildenbrand, the Medina Valley High School valedictorian, speaking the very words the ACLU sought to censor, the type of censorship the ALA applauds as a "success story," and listen to the reaction of the crowd afterward:

• "Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation," by Jennifer Mesko, CitizenLink, 6 June 2011.

.

ACLU Double Standard in Public Schools on a Single Person Bringing Complaints

ACLU uses double standard to threaten NJ public school.

The ACLU has a double standard, it applies that double standard in public schools, then it threatens suit to enforce its double standard.  Basically, the ACLU decries claimed "censorship" simply because a single person makes a complaint, yet the ACLU brings thinly veiled threats to sue public schools based on a single person's complaint, and that complainant isn't even a parent, isn't even a member of the school community!

Watch "ACLU Threatens Lawsuit Over Graduation Site; Cross Causing Problems for High School," by Steve Doocy, FOX News, 20 May 2011, and notice the extensive discussion with a Neptune High School student and his mom of the single person complaining to the ACLU:

Read more here, from the local Asbury Park Press:

• "Keep Graduation at Auditorium," by Editorial, Asbury Park Press, 11 May 2011.
• "ACLU May Sue Neptune Over Tradition of Holding Graduation at Ocean Grove's Great Auditorium; Complaint Raised Over Separation of Church and State," by Michelle Gladden, Asbury Park Press, 9 May 2011.

Compare that to the many cases where the ACLU threatens to sue other schools precisely for removing inappropriate material after the complaint of only one parent.  Here's a sample:

• "Free Speech Groups Oppose Censorship of 'Bless Me, Ultima,'" by Joan Bertin, National Coalition Against Censorship, 9 January 2009, bold emphasis mine.

  Dear Members of the Board of Trustees:
  
  We write to urge you to reinstate Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo Anaya in high school classrooms in Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District.  Based on the report of the recent school board meeting in the Modesto Bee (January 6, 2008), it is clear that the student's parent who challenged the book objected to it because she believes it is anti-Catholic, and that Superintendent Rick Fauss banned the book on this basis without actually having read it.  In our opinion, the removal of the book under these circumstances violates the school board’s obligations under the First Amendment.  We hope that the action will be reversed expeditiously.
  
  As the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California stated in a letter dated December 15, 2008, removing a book from the curriculum on the basis of its perceived religious viewpoints is constitutionally unsound and potentially exposes the school district to legal liability.   Indeed, the district is far more susceptible to legal challenge by banning the book than it would be by keeping it in the curriculum.
  
  It is well established that parents have no enforceable right to have their viewpoint reflected in the school curriculum.  No parent has the right "to tell a public school what his or her child will and will not be taught."  Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2003).  Nor do parents have "a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child."  Blau v. Fort Thomas Public School District, et al [sic], 401 F.3d 381, 395 (6th Cir. 2005).   Furthermore, the school has a constitutional obligation not to endorse or accommodate a particular perspective or viewpoint at the expense of alternative views:  "Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'"  Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982) (plurality opinion) citing West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

  The practical effect of acceding to any parent's request to censor materials will be to invite others to demand changes in the curriculum to reflect their beliefs and to leave school officials vulnerable to multiple, possibly conflicting, demands.
  
  We strongly urge you to restore Bless Me, Ultima to high school classrooms in your school district.  Individual freedom, democracy, and a good education all depend on protecting the right to read, inquire, question, and think for ourselves.

  If we can be of assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ....
  
  Andre Segura
  Attorney
  Civil Liberties Fellow
  American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Double standard, anyone?

For your interest, here is a quote from PABBIS quoting Bless Me, Ultima, which, according to the ACLU, contains "ideas" that teach "individual freedom, democracy, and a good education":

At school he pretends he is a priest taking confessions:  "..Tell him only your worst one R. coaxed H. ......I made a whole in the wall... could see into the girls bathroom... could see everything.. her ass...hear the pee... You have sinned i said...  There's more ..  I saw a teacher..... it was biggggggggggg....... give him penance the girls chanted....you are dirty H. they cried....... me next! .....B. shouted.  I got a better sin than H.  ....Bless me, father!  .....he kept making sign of the cross over and over....... i saw a boy and girl fucking in the grass.....smiled proudly and looked around...  Ah, I see them every night under the railroad bridge V. scoffed... naked!  Jumping up and down.  Give me penance (B. said) .. a rosary to the Virgin, I said .....Like H.? he shouted.  .....but my sin was bigger .. he threw me down.... another rosary for daring to touch the priest...that made him happy and he settled down... F. next...they grabbed F. and made him kneel in front of me.....  No! i protested....  Confess him they chanted...what are your sins I asked? ...  I don’t have any F. said ..... Tell me one sin I pleaded ....  Confess your sins or your go to hell R. cried out .....  It was God who has sinned against me (F. said)...  They were gathering around me now, I could feel their presence and hot bitter breath. ...they wanted me to punish F. ...  Make his penance hard....  Make him kneel and we’ll beat him ....  Stone him! ...beat him! ..kill him!..." 

NOTE ADDED 23 MAY 2011:

Oh look, the ACLU threatened another school community, and, like how Neptune High School treated the ACLU, the ACLU was roundly ignored, after taxpayers got charged for initial compliance with the ACLU's demand.  This picture of the Neptune High School logo should give a hint as to how the ACLU was treated:

Neptune High School logo.

As usual, a single person complaining was enough for the ACLU.  It appears the ACLU is losing its power to threaten.  Enjoy:

• "Student Defies ACLU at Graduation, Leads Public Prayer," by AP Reporting, WWL AM870 FM105.3, 22 May 2011.
• "Student Defies ACLU at Graduation, Leads Public Prayer," by Ira_Louvin, Free Republic, 21 May 2011.
• "Young Atheist Objects to Graduation Prayer in Small Louisiana Town," by Michael Stone, National Humanist Examiner, 20 May 2011.

Oh wait, Bastrop High School has a graphic message for the ACLU as well:

Bastrop High School logo.

Remember how the ACLU decried "censorship" when it attempted to force a school to allow inappropriate material for children?  See how the ACLU goes around the country threatening school communities to censor out any reference to Christianity?  It reminds me of how true is the following quote from Dan Gerstein:

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.

NOTE ADDED 23 MAY 2011:

See also "The ACLU's Double Standard," by Dennis Ingolfsland, The Recliner Commentaries, 21 May 2011.

Interesting:  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).


NOTE ADDED 29 MAY 2011:

The ACLU is threatening Bastrop High School again, even ordering that a student be disciplined and the community be reeducated.  Read the ACLU's latest threat to the school—the language is confrontational and demanding—the ACLU must have a complex if it thinks it can go around and threaten schools and communities this way:

• "ACLU Demands Apology for Graduation Prayer," by WWL, WWL AM870 FM105.3, 26 May 2011.

If every school defied the ACLU, the ACLU would lack the wherewithal to threaten them.  Besides they are public schools, not ACLU schools.


NOTE ADDED 3 JUNE 2011:

And the ACLU threatened yet another school, again based on the complaint of a single person, actually got a federal judge to order the school what not to say—so much for freedom of speech, right?—and a federal appeals court just overruled the lower court and ordered the ACLU to take a flying leap.  See for yourself:

• "Federal Court Lifts Ban on Public Prayer at Texas High School Graduation After Uproar," by Todd Starnes and AP, FOXNews, 3 June 2011.

  "This is a complete victory for religious freedom and for Angela," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute, which had represented class valedictorian Angela Hildenbrand in the appeal.  "We are thrilled that she will be able to give her prayer without censorship in her valedictorian speech tomorrow night.  No citizen has the right to ask the government to bind and gag the free speech of another citizen."
  
  Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery's initial ban had been denounced as an "activist decision" by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who called it "exactly the wrong civics lesson to teach to the class of 2011."
  
  Biery had ruled Thursday in favor of Christa and Danny Schultz, who sued to block such religious expressions at their son's graduation.  Among the words or phrases Biery had banned were:  “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”
  
  He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program, in favor of "opening remarks" and "closing remarks."
  
  Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott responded by voicing support for the school district in its appeal.
  
  “Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,” Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into “speech police.”
  
  “I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” Abbott told Fox News Radio.  “It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.”

Can you believe this?  The vaunted ACLU promoting censorship and forcing schools to be speech police, all the while unraveling the moral values of our country.  Words of the news story, not mine.  The ACLU is trampling the First Amendment.  The Texas Attorney General said that, not me.

But it's true, is it not?

To remind everyone why I raise this issue, it is because the American Library Association keeps using the shibboleth that schools should not be help hostage to a single parent, yet that's what the ACLU does again and again.  The ACLU is the ALA's comrade-in-arms.  Consider, e.g., US v. ALA et al. (the "et al." includes the ACLU), where both worked together to stop the "Children's Internet Protection Act."  They both lost.  Children won.

Indeed, the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF] was created by an ACLU state leader, and it is the OIF that, by itself, made keeping inappropriate material from children tantamount to a crime.  It is the OIF that calls anyone who complains about any material "censors."  Coincidence?


NOTE ADDED 4 JUNE 2011:

See also:

• ACLU Speech Police Lose Bid to Force Public School to Remove Religion from Graduation Ceremonies; Federal Appeals Court Reverses Censorship of God by ACLU; American Library Association Labels Such ACLU Censorship as Success Stories

.