Jack Ryan Editorial Strongly Opposes Libraries Using Bullying and Character Assassination to Assist In the Distribution of Pornography

Jeri Ryan as Star Trek
Voyager's Seven of Nine,
former spouse of Jack Ryan

An Orland Park Prairie editorial by owner Jack Ryan has come out strongly against the Orland Park Public Library for its policy of 1) allowing Internet pornography in the library with false First Amendment claims and 2) personally attacking those who oppose its pro-porn policy so as to be "bullied into silence or submission" and undergo "character assassination."  For those not yet aware, the OPPL library's pro-porn policy and use of character assassination to protect that policy is such a joke that even Saturday Night Live with guest star Lady Gaga made fun of the library.

Jack Ryan's editorial should set an example for other media to "try to improve things."  I republish it here so my readers can benefit from what it says and use it to oppose Internet porn as promoted by the American Library Association in their own libraries.

As Jack Ryan put it, "we hope that our library will reexamine with fresh eyes its assistance in the distribution of pornography," something for which the American Library Association has been recognized by Morality in Media's Porn Harms as one of the nation's leaders:

Values

by Jack Ryan, Owner of 22nd Century Media

Orland Park Prairie

10 April 2014

Hat tip: Megan Fox

We hope that the Orland Park Public Library will reexamine its decision to be an access point for pornography.  We also appreciate the people who bring these issues to the public's attention.

Anyone who speaks about values puts themselves at risk in two ways.  First, those who prefer a valueless society will claim that the person speaking up is hypocritical.  Because we are human and have all made mistakes, that statement will be true.

Second, that statement will possibly be supplemented by a specific assertion about that person that is contrary to an individual with a high moral standard.  They will therefore argue that the person asserting the moral standard should be ignored.  Then, the individual standing up for the value is maligned, not only with the accusation of hypocrisy, but also and possibly even worse, with some assertion about their life that he or she would prefer not to be made public.

In that way, anyone who would stand up for values is effectively bullied into silence or submission.  However, if no one who has ever made a mistake can speak to promote a moral value, then that of course bans any human from speaking about moral values.  And that outcome would be a bad result, because what kind of society will we have if no one can speak up about moral values in the public square?

If we would like to have a better society, then individuals must be able to assert publicly, without fear of character assassination, that there are some higher values or ideals that are worth aspiring to.  And we are grateful for all people, including the ones who have brought this issue to the public's attention, who speak about the better angels in our nature.

It is with that background that we suggest that the library board revisit its decision to allow access to pornography at its public library.  It may or may not be free speech to produce the material, but the First Amendment does not include that the government has to subsidize the distribution of it.

Citizens may have a point of view about many issues, and under the First Amendment are free to express them, but that does not mean everyone else has to pay money to make sure that point of view is disseminated.

It could be that our current culture has moved to such a place where we now have to start reproving the obvious, and we are willing to start doing so in future editorials if need be.  However, to save our readers that proof here, we hope that our library will reexamine with fresh eyes its assistance in the distribution of pornography.

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

On Twitter:  @22ndCM @IntolerantFox @JeriLRyan @LadyGaga @NBCSNL @OIF @OPPrairie @OrlandPkLibrary @Porn_Harms @SNLUpdate @VillageOrlandPk

Follow @SafeLibraries

LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries

It appears a Los Angeles Times editorial supports filtering pornography out of public library computers!  Based in part on the recent masturbation incident in Laguna Beach about which I wrote, it is clear the LA Times is becoming frustrated with the usual American Library Association [ALA] misinformation.  It even senses the censorship claim is false where librarians use selection everyday, but for them it is called selection, not censorship.  And, to be clear, porn in public libraries may be easily and legally blocked.  See if you get the same read I did:

• "Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency," by Editor Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, 29 December 2011.  (Reprinting here under Copyright Fair Use provisions.)

Porn in the Library: Censorship vs. Decency

Editorial by Karin Klein, Los Angeles Times, December 29, 2011

The Times' editorial board has been pondering the availability of pornography in the library, an issue that catches the public's eye every few months when one of the porn viewers misbehaves, or parents find it's hard for their children to browse the stacks without catching on eyeful.  Most recently, it was the November arrest of a homeless man in the Laguna Beach library for allegedly fonding [sic] himself while viewing porn, with a crowd of seven other men around him.  It's the advent of the Internet, of course, that creates this new scene in the library.  Some parents in the town are now calling for the porn sites to be blocked.

Editorial writers and editors were as bothered as anyone else by the thought that an institution we revere as much as the public library—remember that most journalists grew up with their noses in books—was being used to view lurid photos.  It was pointed out that, although librarians hotly defend against censorship of any kind, nonetheless they make value judgments all the time about what sort of materials should be available in libraries, by purchasing news and home magazines rather than nudie publications.  On the Internet, though, porn is, like most things, free.  Keeping it away from patrons involves an active step, just as it takes an active—and costly—step of purchasing pornography in print to make it available.

"Lady Chatterley's Lover" was once considered pornography, not just unsuitable for a library but illegal to sell in some countries a little more than half a century ago.  Banning materials from the library because the majority of people find them distasteful is a dicey step.  What might the majority find unsuitable next?  Something that you want to read, perhaps?  Yet all patrons to the library should be able to search for books and videos without patently offensive material shining across the room at them.

Whose rights matter more?

"[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  US v. ALA

This is the first major paper of which I am aware expressing frustration over unfiltered porn in public libraries.  Hopefully there will be many more.  The fear of the ALA is obviously beginning to melt away.

Bravo, Los Angeles Times!  Hey, it's not "banning" to block from the library what US v. ALA says is legal to block.  So no worries about being "dicey."


NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

It appears the @LATimesOpinion approves of what I have had to say:

@LATimesOpinion retweets my tweet to 3,188 followers!

And now, @_ViceReport:

@_ViceReport retweets another of my tweets to 1,144 followers!

NOTE ADDED 30 DECEMBER 2011:

Another retweet, this time by @ImDanielleEGray, who later thanked me for my work for children:

@ImDanielleEGray retweets yet another of my tweets to 1,169 followers!

NOTE ADDED 3 JANUARY 2012:

The LA Times has now devoted a second editorial to the issue, and has come out four square in favor of filtering out porn from public libraries!

• "Libraries Walk a Tightrope on Porn; Without Engaging in Censorship, Many Can and Should Be Doing More to Protect Patrons From Seeing Pornographic Images on the Internet," by Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times, 3 January 2012. 

Here is the comment I left there:

SafeLibraries at 8:44 AM January 3, 2012

It appears my comments on the LA Times Editorial of only days ago have struck home, and the LA Times has openly come out four square in favor of filtering the Internet in public libraries!  While it doesn't get things 100% correct, it comes really close.  It is fantastic to see such a major media source exposing the library propaganda to fresh air.

See LA Times Supports Filtering Porn from Public Libraries http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/12/la-times-supports-filtering-porn-from.html

Improvements could be that the US v. ALA case applies whether or not the library gets funding since the relevant issue was decided first, only then was it applied to libraries getting funding.  Also, privacy screens are a complete failure and everyone knows it.  Anyone remember the Dan Noyes KABC report catching library director Jean Light in a lie, showing the screens do not work right on TV?  And porn may be simply excluded--no need for a special area for adult viewing. http://tinyurl.com/ALADogma

But the LA Times on the whole is outstanding!  Really, I am very happy to read it, and to see that the editorial board really gave it a lot of thought and saw through the false information that has become an ALA standard.

Bravo, LA Times!  May other media sources loss their fear of the ALA and also call for filtering porn out of public libraries.  

NOTE ADDED 4 JANUARY 2012:

I just remembered I wrote this:

• "Molested Children in Los Angeles Libraries May Be Direct Result of Governmental Malfeasance; Los Angeles Times Interview of SafeLibraries Reveals Government Was Warned Against Employing Privacy Screens"

I am now in the media due to my comments on the LA Times's first editorial:

• "Should People Be Allowed to Watch Porn In the Library?," by Amy Alkon, MND MensNewsDaily.com, 3 January 2012.

NOTE ADDED 10 JANUARY 2012:

New Jersey ACLU attorney Grayson Barber has written a substantially false and misleading piece on LibraryLaw Blog apparently intended to convince the Los Angeles Times Editorial staff to reverse its position favoring Internet filters.  I will be writing soon exactly how and why she is so wrong and intentionally so (hint: US v. ALA).  Here is the materially false information for your own review before I publish mine (assuming it has not yet been changed):

• "Pornography and Internet Filters, by Grayson Barber; Hat tip: Martin Gomez, LA Public Library," by Mary Minow, LibraryLaw Blog, 10 January 2012.

By the way, I made a courtesy call to Grayson Barber, Esq., to advise her that her article was substantially misleading and to give her the opportunity to consider changing it on her own before I  responded substantively.  I got a call back from the ACLU-NJ communications manager.  I provided an example of the false information (US v. ALA says the exact opposite of what Ms. Grayson recommended) and, when asked, said my goal was that people should be given accurate information.  I suggested Ms. Barber could change the article before I wrote about it.  She said she would let Ms. Barber know.  Good.  I tipped my hand because I believe in fairness.  I hope she does change the article.


NOTE ADDED 23 FEBRUARY 2012:

Los Angeles Public Library gets investigated by Inside Edition, and it looks quite embarrassing for the library.  How long will the library drag its feet after the LA Times has called for Internet filters?

• "Inside Edition Investigates: Who's Lurking In Your Library?," by Paul Boyd, Inside Edition, 22 February 2012:

  INSIDE EDITION found men watching hardcore pornography–not it in the privacy of their homes or some sleazy adult store–they were doing it in a public library.  And library patrons were shocked.
  
  "That is completely absurd.  Nobody should be doing that in public," said one man.   Another woman–who happens to be librarian said, "It offends everyone.  And it's something that should not be done in public."
  
  But believe it or not, it's perfectly legal and even permitted in many libraries across the country.
  
  ....
  
  We found another guy at the Los Angeles Library's downtown branch in Chinatown watching porn–right next to two young children.
  
  When we asked him, "Do you realize there were children right next to you while you were watching the adult videos?"
  
  All he said was, "No...No...No...No," and walked away.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Editorial Supports Family Friendly Libraries in Greensboro, NC, and Bandwidth Shapers Help

This editorial from the Greensboro, NC, News & Record is outstanding in its support for common sense and family friendly libraries:

"Editorial: Libraries Versus Porn," by Editorial Board, News & Record, 19 November 2009, emphasis mine:

Still, the library keeps searching for a happier medium and may have found one. Called a "bandwidth shaper," the device essentially makes viewing porn much more difficult by slowing the flow of information from certain sources to the point that it becomes excruciating.

Like a filter, the bandwidth shaper can misread a valid source as Internet porn. Further, librarians tend to defend the First Amendment as fiercely as newspaper people.

But there have to be reasonable limits. The library rightly has promoted the bandwidth shaper from pilot project to standard procedure. The occasional burps in that technology are a small price to pay for family-friendly libraries.

Look at that! "Reasonable limits"! "Family-friendly libraries"! What a concept! Remember, the American Library Association's [ALA] former 40 year de facto leader said, regarding Playboy magazine available to children in the Oak Lawn Public Library, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children."  "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'" Hey Greensboro, the ALA is "very concerned" you want family friendly libraries!!!

Even better, it is a pleasure to see yet another editorial (example) that states common sense instead of spouting the usual misinformation.

Perhaps the Greensboro libraries are under local control instead of ALA control!  May the citizens, the government, the library, and the media continue to work together to keep it that way.

For more on the bandwidth shaper, see my previous blog post, "Bandwidth Shaper Slows Porn in Greensboro Public Library; Parents Had Stopped Taking Kids to Library; Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work; List of Articles on Getting Porn Out of Libraries."

.