Showing posts with label ErnestIstook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ErnestIstook. Show all posts

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Some Media Smear Parents, Laud School Librarians Indoctrinating Kids

Some media smear parents, laud school librarians indoctrinating kids.  Mike Deak for Courier News, top right (photo credit), obviously took whatever a school librarian said as truth and made zero effort to search out the truth of what he was being told, in my opinion.  I'm certain many parents know exactly what I'm talking about.

So here is a response I wrote to Mike Deak and USA Today that needs to know how such "journalists" are damaging their brand by violating their ethics code.

I never got a response from either.

Mr. Deak


Greetings Mr. Deak,

I'm Dan Kleinman.  You just wrote a story about me and my businesses, that are not related to the ethics matter that I brought as an individual, that is partly false and possibly defamatory, neither is it journalistic.  

Further, your news story was photographed and posted on Bluesky by former North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School school librarian Martha Hickson who added a description to a photo (ALT text) calling me "Dan Klownman."  See:

Given your story's content, it appears to me to have been sourced from Martha Hickson, a person who harasses me on a near weekly basis and who disparages my businesses on a near monthly basis.  

Is there a means by which people can officially request corrections in the Courier News?  I'll provide you with some context and see if you voluntarily correct the story.

Here's the story: 
"BOE is Cleared of Ethics Charges Over Book Banning," by Mike Deak, Courier News, 1 October 2025, p.1, above the fold.

"Eight present and former members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education have been cleared of ethics charges that they were influenced by special interest groups in a controversy over whether a book should be removed from the North Hunterdon High School Library."

That is deceptive.  The book is really not the issue, only the underlying reason potential ethics violations were exposed, and those violations are the real issue.  This is accurate:

"Eight present and former members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education have been cleared of ethics charges that they were influenced by special interest groups in a controversy over whether they were guided by a special interest group in violation of ethics laws, made advanced promises to vote a certain way before being elected, another violation of the law, and leaked information to certain members of the public, a third violation of the law."

The following is defamatory, and it's how you describe me to your audience, as if written by Martha Hickson who regularly defames me and my businesses for at least a year:

"For more than a decade, Kleinman, based in Chatham, has waged a national campaign on what he believes are inappropriate books and websites in schools. He is also executive director of the World Library Association, an alternative to the American Library Association which he has called 'terrorist friendly, child unfriendly, and dishonest/unethical.'"

"Waged a national campaign"?  I am a parent responding to an approximately 60 year effort by a special interest group from Chicago, IL, American Library Association, to promote age inappropriate material to children.  See: 
Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. 

World Library Association has nothing to do with this case I filed individually.  Yet you introduce it by labeling it "an alternative to the American Library Association which he has called 'terrorist friendly, child unfriendly, and dishonest/unethical.'"  That's defamatory.  You definitely got that from the person defaming me and my businesses for years.  

WLA was formed two years ago, yet your quote is from 2011, fourteen years ago.  Further, had you yourself looked at the quote, you would have seen it was based on a New York Times story in which the patron privacy rights of one of the 9/11 terrorists who killed thousands of Americans were defending by ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" and "Freedom to Read Foundation" leader Judith Krug after a Florida librarian turned in a terrorist's presence to the police. See: 

So it's an accurate statement to say ALA is terrorist friendly, and it is based on a New York Times story where the ALA leader defended the patron privacy rights of a 9/11 terrorist to use a public library computer to learn how to better kill more Americans.  Had you had that context and been a real journalist, I bet you would have excluded that smear of one of my businesses.

Similarly, I gave extensive primary sources proving the other assertions I made long ago that are now presented by you without context in a way that disparages my business.  Here are those sources, if they haven't aged out over time:

Contrast how you introduced me to your readers with how you introduced Martha Hickson: "Former school librarian Martha Hickson was given the American Library Association's 2022 Lemony Snicket Prize for Noble Librarians Faced with Adversity for her efforts to keep the books in the library."

Clear bias right there in your news story.  I supposedly waged a national campaign assumedly falsely calling the American Library Association is terrorist friendly, which it is, while Martha Hickson is an award winning librarian, which she got from ALA to promote how she harmed school children with age inappropriate material that may even violate NJ 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18--the very law the school board explicitly overrode to follow instead the advice of special interest group from Chicago, American Library Association.  

You didn't introduce me in a similar fashion.  You could have said, for example, that Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, described me as a "trusted source" on the issue of how the American Library Association misleads communities about public library law.  See:

It's right at the top of my About Me page but you missed it because you wrote a hit piece, and that's not journalism.  See:

Part of how media manipulates the public is by not presenting information it should.  You have done that.  And it shows again you got your information from Martha Hickson, not from any actual effort at real journalism.  

Had you actually investigated the story, or even asked me for input, you would have known the attorney for the school board, Comegno Law Group, repeatedly violated NJ School Ethics Commission rules--even the Commission's attorney had to interrupt to advise that rules were being broken.  

And where did you miss this information that is entirely relevant to the story?  Right on the Commission's website, the minutes of the August 19, 2025, meeting. A journalist would have made that part of his story.  Instead, I see only a megaphoning of the defamatory statements of Martha Hickson who then implicitly bragged about her getting you to write that story on her Bluesky account by posting it and using it as a platform to again call me Klownman.  Here is the link proving the above directly from the NJ SEC site that you completely missed because you wrote a hit piece, not something journalistic:

And that violation of rules may have been a violation of the NJ Rules of Professional Ethics and it may have been the reason why the Commission decided as it did.  But any potential of that is completely absent from your reporting.

You also missed that one of the Commission's members, Rich Tomko, was hired by the school's superintendent to consult on the Strategic Plan.

As I said earlier, part of how media manipulates the public is by not presenting information it should.

Mike Deak, I'm sure you'll be writing about me again.  I'm forgiving.  Next time pick up a phone and speak with me before blindly publishing agitprop from an American Library Association librarian.  

It might be relevant, for example, that ALA helped Martha Hickson so completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes, so much so that the ALA President bragged about it in her yearly speech to ALA membership about how ALA tools provided to Martha Hickson helped her keep the 2C:34-3 book in the school library.  See:
"ALA Details How It Controls Communities Nationwide: The Quiet Part Out Loud Now In Transcript Form"

(35:07):
And so we know that people are battling back and we are using that platform to pull people together. I was at a a conference and uh Martha Hickson was there who some of you may know as school librarian in New Jersey. And when she faced a challenge at her school through that UABB platform, and other forms of organizing, 400 community members came and joined her to sign, to to stand with her in that moment. [00:35:30] So the United Against Book baba Bans platform facilitates that. Our state chapters are using uh OneClickPolitics®, a tool that comes from our Chapter Relations Office and from uh the Washington Office to organize locally. We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work. We continue to look for ways to expand our work in uh the Office of Intellectual Freedom.

"Mike Deak has worked in Central Jersey journalism for more than four decades.  Our journalists adhere to the USA TODAY NETWORK Principles of Ethical Conduct For Newsrooms."  See:


Not this time.  You violated a lot of those ethics rules.  Read them:

You violated ethics rules, to support a school board potentially improperly cleared of violating ethics rules.  All to keep school children reading inappropriate material that may violate New Jersey obscenity law but doesn't violate American Library Association standards or lack thereof.

All of the above is my opinion.

------------
Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

By the Way


By the way, since writing the above, I have learned the NJ School Ethics Commission may have some ethics problems of its own.  We shall see.  

In the meantime, one of the board members formerly under ethical review (Beth Kotran) is running to be reelected by lying about the ethics decision.  I discuss just this at the 28 October 2025 board meeting, seen here:

 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 1445 NJ-31, Annandale, NJ 08801, USA

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

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

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


Library Filters Work: "Technology Has Advanced So Tremendously"

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

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

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

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

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


Example of Local Library Using ALA Propaganda to Push Child Porn

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

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

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


NOTE ADDED 16 AUGUST 2014:

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOTE ADDED 9 MAY 2015:

Updated to update web link.



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


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

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

ALA Misleads on Internet Pornography in Libraries

Internet pornography in public libraries is a serious problem.  The American Library Association [ALA] misleads media and communities into allowing porn by intentionally ignoring the issue or by saying porn is protected by the First Amendment when that is not true in public libraries.  See US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003).  ALA is attempting to make an end run around the law by not discussing the elephant in the room, namely, pornography.  When ALA does discuss pornography, it is to say it may not be blocked from libraries.  But people are starting to catch on, as we shall see.

ALA Completely Omits Pornography

Watch the top leaders in ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" speak at an Orland Park Public Library [OPPL] library board meeting about the problem of so much unfettered porn that even Saturday Night Live starring Lady Gaga joked about it.  Notice not once is pornography mentioned.  But they repeatedly mention they have attorneys who will assist libraries, and definitely do not take any legal advice from anyone else:

Watch Sexually Harassed OPPL Librarian Emphasize Pornography

Contrast ALA's lack of mentioning pornography with the words of a former OPPL librarian.  Linda Zec reveals the extent of the pornography problem at OPPL, the "creepy" sexual harassment she experienced as a result, and how library management told her she could quit if she wanted because OPPL would continue to make porn available to patrons under the ALA's false claim that it is a First Amendment right:

ALA's Omits Pornography, But Is It Intentional?

The US Supreme Court makes pornography the issue in US v. ALA.  A sexually harassed librarian at OPPL makes porn the issue.  On the other hand, top ALA leadership completely avoids the issue and advises, despite being from the "Office for Intellectual Freedom," not to listen to attorneys who do discuss the issue, as we saw above.  But are ALA's actions in misleading the media and the community intentional?  Yes.


ALA Advises Libraries to Mislead Media and Communities

ALA advises libraries to mislead media and communities by intentionally refusing to answer questions about pornography then reframing them as something else.  When asked a tough question, a librarian, trained by ALA diktat, will change the topic to how wonderful is the library:
  • "Libraries and the Internet Toolkit: Crisis Communications," by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 29 May 2007:
    Reframe a question such as 'Why do you think students should be allowed to view pornography on the Internet?' to 'You're asking me about our Internet policy...'
    ....
    Avoid use of negative or inflammatory words such as "pornography."

No, that's not what media are asking.  That's not what communities are asking.  Obviously a library that answers this way has something to hide, especially where it refuses to discuss the very issue central to US v. ALA and similar cases such as Bradburn v. NCRL that allows libraries to refuse to unblock porn even upon request.


OPPL Obeys ALA Diktat to Mislead Media

But do libraries actually follow ALA diktat to mislead on porn?  Absolutely.  Look at what OPPL was asked on WLS's Bruce and Dan Show, then observe how well the OPPL representative follows ALA diktat to reframe questions to avoid discussing porn and instead promote Internet policy:
Dan Proft: What?  Wait, oh okay.  So why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to?    
Bridget Bittman: Well, let me explain also that on our teen computers, that consist of kids who use it from ages, uh, probably around 12, 13 to the age of 17, those computers are filtered as well.  Because we feel that those safety measures for kids are very important. In addition to parents supervising whatever they look at online.  And we also recommended that parents take a look at what their kids are checking out…  (overtalk)   
So OPPL follows ALA diktat to mislead media to a tee.  Here are sources for the above:






When ALA Does Talk About Pornography, It Is to Say the Exact Opposite of the Holding of US v. ALA, Further Showing ALA Works to Mislead Communities and Push Porn

When ALA does discuss pornography head on, it is to say the exact opposite of the holding of US v. ALA, further showing ALA works to mislead communities and push porn.  You cannot advise the exact opposite of a US Supreme Court case you yourself lost, and advise not to listen to those who cite the case to support filtering out porn, and not be considered as pushing porn.

I am directly responsible for forcing ALA to finally address the issue of pornography in libraries and to make what amounts to admissions against interest.  I was quoted in the Chicago Tribune in the OPPL matter saying no library has even been sued for blocking porn.  As a result, the following was published:
That must have struck a nerve because ALA felt the need to respond to "correct" "several factual inaccuracies," like my assertions as reported by Mr. O'Connor that a lack of filters sometimes results in sexually harassed librarians and resultant lawsuits:
Therein, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the ALA attorney who spoke at OPPL as discussed above, said, "CIPA does not require libraries that accept e-rate discounts to filter 'pornography.'"  "Notably, materials some consider 'pornographic' or 'indecent' do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment. "

So when ALA talks about pornography, finally, thanks to me, it is to say CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act found constitutional in US v. ALA, does not require filtering out porn, which is true, and porn is not obscene so it is protected in libraries by the First Amendment, which is false.

The US Supreme Court case finding CIPA to be constitutional interpreted the law as enabling the blocking of pornography, not just obscenity nor child pornography that the Court had addressed in prior decades.  The Court would not have taken the case in the first place if it was only to repeat what it had decided in the past.  So what ALA is misleading people into thinking is exactly the 100% opposite of what US v. ALA ruled.  It doesn't make sense to have a law and a Supreme Court decision ruling on that law to decide what was already decided about obscenity in a previous Supreme Court case in 1973.  Read US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html ).  Read what the CIPA author said about how ALA misleads people on the law ( http://tinyurl.com/ErnestIstookInterview ).  Yes, I am named by CIPA's author as a "trusted source" for exposing ALA propaganda, so all inquiries are welcome despite ALA warnings not to speak to other attorneys.

Where does US v. ALA rule that, as the ALA attorney said, "materials some consider 'pornographic' or 'indecent' do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment"?  Nowhere.  Instead it ruled, with respect to Internet pornography, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."   In public libraries, the First Amendment right to "legal" porn does not apply.  It is perfectly legal to block porn in public libraries and to keep it blocked.  It is no coincidence ALA advises people to speak only to ALA recommended attorneys and no one else.


ALA Claims First Amendment Right to Porn But Does Not Disclose US v. ALA Created an Exception for Public Libraries

Further, the entire US v. ALA case was about porn.  The entire case looked at the history of libraries blocking out porn and found that they always have.  The case said you can legally use filters to block porn without having to make individualized decisions, obviating ALA's "who's to judge what's porn" argument.  The case ruled public libraries are not open public fora so governments have every right to block out porn without violating the First Amendment.  Not just obscenity, not just child pornography, things already made illegal in other cases from the past that ALA cites to mislead.  But the entire category of porn, both "legal" porn and "illegal" obscenity and child pornography.

US v. ALA said, "The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."  It does not say only obscenity.  It does not say only child pornography.  It says pornography.  US v. ALA holds, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  ALA holds "materials some consider 'pornographic' or 'indecent' do not meet the standard for obscene material and are thus fully protected by the First Amendment."  Perhaps generally, but not specifically in a public library, thanks to CIPA and US v. ALA.

By the way, under US v. ALA, libraries may legally filter out porn whether or not they accept federal funding.  That is another point about which ALA misleads.  In reality, every library may use filters to legally block porn.  It is common sense and it is the law.  The case also says "privacy screens" or moving computers do not work to control porn and actually make the problem worse.  So be aware of that when ALA or local acolytes suggest that or other useless options such as so-called Acceptable Use Policies.


Not Everyone Is Fooled by ALA Propaganda

Not everyone is falling for ALA's propaganda.  Megan Fox is an OPPL patron who has been working hard to expose the library's unlimited porn policy and unreported sex crimes.  In her latest post, she called out ALA for "defend[ing] the library's decision to offer unfiltered access while never mentioning the specifics of what that really means: access to bestiality, necrophilia, sex trafficked victims of rape, identity theft, pedophiles accessing children online via chat rooms and much more":

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.
And John Kass of the Chicago Tribune notes families will be shocked in libraries that follow ALA's law-defying policy: "Specifically, sexually excited human animals, predominantly male, operating under the belief they are protected by the First Amendment, watch[] pornography at the Chicago Public Library and other libraries, in full view of patrons."  When ALA says libraries may not block legal porn, he calls out the lie:
  • "Libraries Are For Free Books, Not Free Porn," by John Kass, Chicago Tribune, 5 November 2013:
    Deborah Caldwell Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, said Internet filters are placed on computers used by children.  But with adults, it's different.

    "Libraries can only do so much when accessing content that isn't illegal," Stone said.

    Really?  Then taxpayers should help by doing a bit more, like refusing to allow one cent to go to libraries that don't have any common sense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Internet pornography in public libraries is a serious problem.  ALA intentionally misleads media and communities so porn will not be filtered out despite the law.  But citizens and media sources are no longer falling for the usual ALA misdirection.  Not even on ALA's home turf in Chicago.  It is time for others to take notice as well.  The best antidote is to read US v. ALA, the very case ALA works hard to get people to ignore.  See also Bradburn v. NCRL.  Feel free to contact me despite ALA admonitions to contact only ALA recommended attorneys—besides, I'm recommended by CIPA's author Ernest Istook as a "trusted source" and I will provide better/truthful advice.



On Twitter:  @BruceAndDan @ChicagoTribune @IntolerantFox @Istook @John_Kass @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk @WLSAM890

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Dear Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Your Libraries Will Soon Allow Porn Since Library Trustees Will Be Trained by the American Library Association to Violate the Law

Dear Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Virginia's public libraries will soon allow unlimited pornography despite the law since new Virginia library trustees will be intentionally trained by the American Library Association [ALA] to violate the law and allow porn.

Virginia library trustee training has been turned over to the ALA's "United for Libraries's Trustee Academy":


"The Trustee Academy will enhance the Library of Virginia's existing online tutorials for trustees and will assist the trustees of Virginia's public libraries in carrying out their duties and responsibilities," said Librarian of Virginia Sandra G. Treadway.
It is not an "enhancement" to teach the opposite of the law with the intention of misleading library trustees into allowing porn in local libraries throughout Virginia.  ALA's "Virginia Trustee Academy" teaches the very people responsible for setting policy in Virginia libraries the opposite of the law.

The US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003), a public library is not an open public forum, surprisingly enough.  Because of that, the government has a right to apply reasonable controls, including software filters to block pornography.  Besides, the Court said, libraries have traditionally blocked porn from book collections, so using software filters to achieve the same effect on the Internet makes no difference.  The case applies to all libraries, not just those obtaining federal funding.  All libraries may legally block porn, whether or not they accept federal funding.

The "Virginia Trustee Academy" teaches the exact opposite, that porn may not be blocked because libraries are open public fora.  They are not.  By the way, in a subsequent case, porn need not be unblocked, even upon request:



So the training turns the very crux of the US v. ALA case on its head.  The newly indoctrinated library trustees then go back to their local libraries and apply the ALA's legally false diktat, thereby forcing communities to endure the typical harms unlimited porn brings.  You see, everyone assumes the library trustees must know what they are doing because they have been trained.  Perhaps, but not if they have intentionally received false training on the singularly key issue that pertains to community safety from the harms of porn in public libraries.  For details on this false training, see:



Governor McDonnell, I am offering my assistance to help you to counteract this insidious means of misleading and controlling local communities in Virginia.  And you'll have to do this because the Librarian of Virginia has already shown where her allegiance lies.  Naturally she will deny what I have said, but the issue of the safety of Virginia residents is too important so set aside so easily.

The person who created the training for the ALA is from New Jersey.  She has said libraries cannot block porn because that violates the First Amendment, even though the US Supreme Court said the exact opposite.  I'm from New Jersey too.  She has excused her porn pushing policies in local media by claiming that I have only written about a single incident in a New Jersey library and that I did not otherwise complain to the New Jersey Library Association that she leads.  So she has no excuse for defying the law and she chooses instead to attack the messenger.  This is the person who created the training that the ALA uses to indoctrinate your Virginia library trustee trainees, at least last I looked.  Is this what you want for Virginia?



Lastly, let me add that I am viewed as a "trusted source" on ALA misdirection by none other than the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA].  CIPA requires filters in exchange for federal funding.  Please read this as it explains exactly how and why ALA misleads communities and what can be done about it:



So I am writing this message to warn that turning over library trustee training to the ALA will result in significant harm to communities throughout Virginia as a result of library trustees who have been intentionally misled into thinking blocking porn violates the First Amendment.

Sic semper tyrannis



Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Richmond, VA, USA

Monday, April 9, 2012

Arizona 'Computer Access by Minors' Passes 89 to Zilch

Steve Court, Sponsor of HB 2712
Arizona state CIPA legislation HB 2712 "Computer Access by Minors" has now become law.  It significantly strengthens existing laws that direct public libraries and public school libraries to protect Arizona children from pornography.  It passed the House 58 - 0 - 2, the Senate 30 - 0 - 0, and was signed by Governor Jan Brewer on 3 April 2012.  So I count the vote as 89 to zilch in favor of protecting children from porn in Arizona libraries and schools.  See for yourself, click on "Bill Overview":


89 to nothing.  Keep that in mind when the American Library Association [ALA] misleads communities into thinking otherwise:


For background on this major Arizona success, see:

And keep in mind Arizona children (and public school children everywhere) may still be exposed to harm caused by library association policy:
Hat tip:  Safe Schools, Safe Library Project on Twitter @porn_harms (and include the underscore).


Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Arizona, USA

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Avert Your Eyes Jane Light Got $220,983 to Sexualize San Jose Children for the American Library Association

San Jose City Librarian Jane Light is retiring from her $220,983/year job at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library:



The American Library Association [ALA] misleads a third of American communities into leaving their children exposed to the very harm the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] was designed to prevent. How do we know?  Ernest Istook, the CIPA author, said so a month ago.  And no library media has reported on this story, obviously having something to hide:



Congressman Istook did not say, but he was likely referencing Judith Krug, the ALA's de facto leader, who was the ACLU's three year Illinois state ACLU leader who came to the ALA and created the change within librarianship that no longer would librarians keep children from inappropriate material.  (I'm gathering people together to reverse this.)

For example, Judith Krug said:  "I have a real problem when people say, 'Well I walked by and you should have seen what was on the computer screen.'  Well, don't look, sweetie.  It's none of your business.  Avert your eyes."

Avert your eyes, says the ALA.

For $220,983/year, Jane Light has allowed the San Jose community to be one of those under the ALA's sway that keeps children exposed to harm despite the availability of CIPA:
The SJPL and SJSU Libraries adopt as policy the following:  American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights .... V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of ... age ....
[T]he Library does not monitor and has no control over the information accessed through the Internet and assumes no responsibility for its content. 
What drew my attention to this particularly library is that Jane Light is unique.  She is unique because she is not unique.  When it comes to using Internet filters to protect children from harm, in addition to using ALA policy as shown above, she herself echoed the exact "avert your eyes" words of the ALA's ACLU leader:
[T]he Martin Luther King Library has a problem with pornography.  They have no rule against viewing photographs or full-screen sex videos from Internet sites, even with children nearby.  Chief librarian Jane Light says it's a matter of free speech.  ....  ABC7's Dan Noyes: "I've seen the [privacy] screens and I see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind.  You can see everything." Jane Light...: "So you can avert your eyes."  ....  San Jose's police blotter over the past year lists several arrests for child porn at the library, at least ten cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right at the terminal.  ....  Sgt. John Laws, San Jose library police: "It showed him sitting at the computer terminal and ... masturbating."  ....  Marcia Stacke, Child Quest International: "You know, sometimes I wonder if we're just too afraid to be, I don't know, sued in this country.  We've got to step out and protect our kids.  Enough is enough."
Source:  "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," by Dan Noyes, KGO-TV San Francisco, CA, 29 November 2006, emphasis mine.

Apparently "averting your eyes" did not work to protect the "ten cases of child molestation" from the harm CIPA compliance might have prevented.  Judith Krug, Jane Light, is there a difference to the library crime victims or the children sexualized by the $220,983/year Jane Light?  $220,983 to tell people to "avert your eyes," and the policy did not even work.

By the way, for following ALA policy and not using CIPA filters, $220,983/year Jane Light quietly forced the San Jose government to give up approximately $207,825.60 during her tenure.  In 2003, the library got $25,978.20 from the federal government under the CIPA program for "Internet access."  Then CIPA was found constitutional in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  (Imagine that, the ALA and the ACLU suing to stop CIPA, and losing big.)  As a result, CIPA funding for Internet access was lost since 2004.  2004 to 2011 at about $25,978.20/year comes to about $207,825.60.  So thanks to Jane Light, San Jose lost almost a quarter million dollars.  And I have concerns CIPA funding for "Telcomm" services may have been artificially inflated to make up the difference, but I am not looking into that Light-fingered aspect of the matter.  After all, numerous libraries commit CIPA fraud.

Do you want this ALA "avert your eyes" policy in your own community?  Will you avert your eyes from who's controlling your own local public library?  You better Know the ALA.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: San Jose, CA, USA

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Salt Lake Library Votes to Filter All Computers For Adults; Computers For Children Had Already Been Filtered; Public and Librarians Pleased; Pornography Put Librarians In an Uncomfortable Position

The title says it all, and notice the harried librarians love this as well.  Bravo, Salt Lake City Public Library, for installing Internet filters on all computers to block pornography and for exposing how to overcome the false fear of "accusations of censorship"!

Clearly this is not one of the one third of American libraries Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] author Ernest Istook says is controlled by the American Library Association [ALA].  And, as we know, it is perfectly legal to use Internet filters to block legal pornography from public libraries, and even the ALA now says filters work:




Wary of accusations of censorship inside institutions founded on principles of intellectual freedom, many library administrators for years relied on staff and patrons to ferret out unsavory elements who might abuse public Internet access for unsavory aims and images.

The Salt Lake City Main Library and its five branches have long filtered Internet access to computers in their children's sections. During a Thursday evening meeting of the library system's board, members voted unanimously to extend those same filtering capabilities to the entire network of computers available for adult use.

Advance notice of the impending decision generated no public comment, in person or otherwise, during the public meeting held on the Main Library's fifth floor.

"Frankly, I was a little surprised," said Kevin Werner, board president. "I was expecting to hear something."

In fact, the procedure was greeted as little less than a speed bump on the way to items the board greeted with far more interest, including next year's budget and plans to build two new branches in the Glendale and Marmalade neighborhoods.

The decision to filter Internet access harbored far more than the urge to protect children and other patrons.  In exchange for its compliance under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), the government will reimburse the Salt Lake City library system 80 percent of its costs for telephone and Internet services.  The library also becomes eligible for state funds in grant form, specific to technology projects, administered by the Utah State Library.

At a time when circulation numbers for physical materials — books, DVDs and periodicals — are flat, but demand for Internet access, e-books and other downloadable content has soared, that savings is nothing to sniff at.  It is money the library system can use to reinvest in the future, said library spokeswoman Julianne Hancock.

"This year, our federal discounts on telecommunications services will result in about $80,000 in savings for telecommunications services," Hancock said.  "In future years, we will apply to be considered for additional discounts, but this gets us well on our way."

The downtown library has had intermittent reports of people using library computers to access pornography and other material harmful to minors.  The problem has never become chronic or unmanageable, but the responsibility of often monitoring patrons diverted staff time from other work. "It always put everyone in an uncomfortable position," Hancock said.

Deadline for installment is June next year, but it's estimated the filter will be installed by the end of this summer, she said.

For public libraries everywhere, Werner said, the struggle to keep current in the new digital world is a more significant concern than the occasional nuisance of patrons surfing the Web for obscene and offensive material.

"The filtering issue, while important," he said, "is really an issue outside the greater trend of how libraries are being transformed."

[NOTE BY SAFELIBRARIES, THE FOLLOWING COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE APPEARS TO COME FROM THE LIBRARY SPOKESWOMAN, AND IT IS SPOT ON:]

Hi!  It's Julianne from the Library.  The updated policy allows us to install a filter to block access to "visual depictions that are child pornography or obscene as defined by state and federal statues."  Additionally, adult patrons may request unfiltered internet sessions, as long as their internet use does not violate Library policies or federal or state statues.  We will be posting the policy the Library Board passed tonight soon on the City Library's website.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Salt Lake City Public Library, 210 E 400 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2804, 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)