Showing posts with label FiltersWork. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FiltersWork. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Librarian of Congress Nominee Carla Hayden Misleads Congress But Speaks Truth About Filtering

Librarian of Congress nominee Carla Hayden misleads Congress but also speaks the truth about Internet filtering.  On 20 April 2016, she appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.  She spoke with Chairman Senator Roy Blunt at the confirmation hearing about the American Library Association [ALA] on matters regarding child safety and the Internet.  She is the former ALA President who presided when the US Supreme Court decided United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  US v. ALA ruled there is no First Amendment right to Internet pornography in public libraries.

Below is a transcript of a portion of her testimony, followed by how she misled Congress and what she said that was right.  She should not be confirmed.

Here is video of the portion of the testimony transcribed below:


TRANSCRIPT OF DR. CARLA HAYDEN, 20 APRIL 2016

Senator Roy Blunt:
Got a couple of other questions. You know, being the President of the American Library Association is I'm sure a great honor, but maybe not an unmixed blessing because suddenly you’re responsible for everything that's being talked about as part of the Association. There a couple of, couple areas of criticism that you and I have talked about and I'd like to get your response to those on the record today. One was when the, when the Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, um, the, uh, American Library Association challenged the constitutionality of that arguing that it violated, uh, the First Amendment. And I know beginning then as a leader of the national organization through really, up till now you’ve, you’ve commented on this several times, but, you wanna talk about that whole issue of, uh, what kind of violation that would have been and then the issue of what kinds of things need to happen in a library to be sure the children don't have access to material that we wouldn't want children to have access to, and then how often you have to revisit that whole concept?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
I really appreciate, um, that question, Senator, because there's been quite a bit of just misinterpretation of the Library Association’s position during that time.  That was in 2003/2004, and at that time the filters that would have been required, um, for libraries to install were found to prohibit access to very important health information and the most notable at that time was breast cancer. And since that time, um, the technology has improved and the filters that are installed to receive federal funding in my, my library, The Pratt Library, and in its state role has installed filters, have improved, and the need to be vigilant is also something that libraries are doing in not only to the technological aspect but just plain physical arrangements of computers, making sure that there are face-out positioning of computer monitors, as well as very few, if any, cubicles that contain computers as well. And education and making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form.

Senator Roy Blunt:
So you don’t think, you don't think that pornography, illegal, as you described it, has a place in the library?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Not online, no.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And there are at the same time, things in lib-, in the library that aren't appropriate for everybody that visits the library to see.

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Right. And, Senator, the way you, um, described it is, is, is exactly the way that libraries even design their buildings and the furniture and making sure there’s even signage that, uh, unaccompanied adults in children sections are, um, are going to be questioned. There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And while your final degree was a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a very highly respected institution, your, a lot of your early work was as a children's librarian, a lot of early focus was that, so these are issues that you have always cared about?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Yes, and its been, um, interesting to see how, and I mentioned earlier, with the, uh, "C" for caution with copyright, that if you pay attention in the front end that it sometimes really helps in terms of later and working with young people and seeing what imagination can be sparked. 3D printers now are in libraries and that’s the perfect time to let young people know that all of this information that you can now get on your device is not free for you to use and just, uh, put your name on it. So, I've been very involved in youth issues for quite a while.

Senator Roy Blunt:
Well I thought, I thought, uh, just the example you gave of how you early on expressed to somebody the importance of their own creative work was an indication of the way you would approach a number of these issues. On another, uh, thing from the American Library Association, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, um, librarians objected to a particular part of that and, in fact fact, the law was changed I think for what's now called the Librarian's Provision. You wanna talk about that a little bit?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Yes, that was a, um, quite a time, that was also in 2003/2004, and the entire nation was concerned about security, and it was a time of great apprehension and people were going into libraries to find information about all of the different aspects of what was going on and the library community was just conc-, very concerned that in the quest for, um, security and making sure, uh, that we were all safe that the public's rights were also considered as well. And since that time there have been a number of reforms to the PATRIOT Act with the approval of Congress that have helped alleviate the library communities concerns and we are, and I think I can also, uh, say that the American Library Association is, um, very pleased at the progress that’s been made to balance security and personal rights.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And so would an example of that, Dr. Hayden, would an example of that be under that, uh, under that original discussion there was some thought that law enforcement might be able to come in and just say we'd like to look through your records and see who's been looking at certain books, certain, looking up certain things, or even we'd like to look at a certain person’s, uh library record, without a court saying that that was necessary, was that the concern?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
That was um the the basis of it, and especially the bulk collection of information about who was interested in a subject. What we were concerned about and especially at that time in 2003/2004, that interest in a subject would be or could be misinterpreted as intent to do something. So interest and intent were not equal, we were saying.

Senator Roy Blunt:
I think that's um, that’s a position I believe the country has generally come, come to, and I think your explanation of 2002 and 3 was also a good one that everybody’s trying to figure out what, what can we do to stop this from happening again and sometimes that requires a lengthy discussion as to the right way to do that. Any, uh, follow up questions, Senator Cochran, Senator Boozman? Well, we will, um, have the record open until the time I announced earlier for, uh, additional questions. Anything you want to add, Dr. Hayden, that you wished had been asked that wasn't, any topic, uh, you wanna cover?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Well, I had a few. Uh, and I, I just wanted though to, to thank everyone, um, for their support and for your consideration, um, Mr. Chairman, and, um, I really appreciate this opportunity and to be nominated it as a librarian, a career, career librarian, I must tell you this one of the highest honors and I thank you for this opportunity.

Senator Roy Blunt:
Thank you. This hearing’s adjourned.


HOW DR. CARLA HAYDEN MISLED CONGRESS

Dr. Carla Hayden materially misled Congress by saying ALA is about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."  That is false.

ALA's position is not that pornography is illegal.  Rather, it is that pornography has no legal definition ("The word 'pornography' has no meaning in the law, and there is no agreed-upon definition for the term.").  As James LaRue, the Director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom wrote to me just yesterday, "you should know by now that THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY."  Emphasis his.  It's as if US v. ALA doesn't exist.

So for Carla Hayden to say the ALA is about making sure "people know that pornography is illegal" is simply false.  Had she told the truth of ALA's position, that pornography has no legal definition therefore librarians must not take action to block it, she would have portrayed ALA as the extremist organization it is with her as its former extremist leader.  This is why she lied.  She wants to get into the Librarian of Congress position, and from there she can force the ALA worldview on the entire nation, not just public and school libraries.

Even Senator Roy Blunt picked up on her claim ALA is concerned about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal" as he followed up saying, "So you don’t think, you don't think that pornography, illegal, as you described it, has a place in the library?"  Carla Hayden responded, "not online, no."

Also, librarians will not protect children from pornography, only parents ("What About Protecting Children From Pornography, Whether Or Not It Is Legally Obscene?  The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.")  Even ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights" makes it age discrimination for librarians to keep any material whatsoever from children.

ALA is so extreme that it trains librarians not to report child pornography!  The source comes directly from ALA:


Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”
....
As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material.
So, straight from ALA's "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," librarians are or have been trained they are in no position to decide what is child pornography.

Based on that (they are not judges) it tells them not to help the police. Still more policy (not shown above) tells them to delete public records such as browser histories precisely to thwart the police.

ALA plays a game. "Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are ... child pornography...."  That is an impossible standard.  Impossible.  Why?  Because the standard requires that a judge determine if a web site is child porn before a librarian may also determine whether it is child porn by following the judge's lead.  Sounds good, right?  It's not.  There are hundreds of thousands of child porn web sites.  There would have to be hundreds of thousands of completed cases to find them to be child porn.  That is an impossible standard.  It will never happen.  In the infinitely impossible chance that it would, perhaps via class action or mass tort liability, by that time another hundred thousand sites would replace those.

It is just ridiculous to demand that a librarian may only determine what is a child porn site if a court first makes that decision.  Yet Carla Hayden says ALA is about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."  That is false and it is knowingly false given has was ALA's former leader and her statements were intended to mislead Congress about ALA so her nomination would be confirmed.  Then she would be in a position to apply ALA's extremist child pornography views to the nation as a whole.

To exemplify the seriousness of the matter, libraries are following ALA's guidance and covering up instances of child pornography.  One such library did that in Illinois.  Here is its legal council advising the library not to report child porn viewing and instead protect the patron privacy of the child porn viewers:
Were Carla Hayden to have told Congress the truth, she would have said ALA advises librarians not to report child pornography, not to help the police, and protect the patron privacy rights of the child porn viewers.  Had she said that, the nation would have had an eye opening and shocking moment of truth, and she would never be confirmed for Librarian of Congress.  Instead, she lied, saying ALA wants to "mak[e] sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."

So Carla Hayden successfully lied about ALA, saying what the public believes but not what she knows is happening since she once led the effort to mislead the public as ALA's president, thereby accomplishing two goals.  She ensured people will stay ignorant of the harm caused by the extremist ALA, and she is setting herself up to be confirmed as Librarian of Congress where she will spread ALA's pro-child porn policy nationwide and no one will lift a finger to stop her.

Later she says, "There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent."  As explained above and supported with sources from ALA itself, that is just false.  ALA has no concern in the slightest for the safety of minors.  After ALA ensured a library in Illinois retained Playboy magazine despite an unanimous government asking the library to stop buying the magazine since it was making it available to children, ALA's de facto leader Judith Krug told the Chicago Tribune, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children."

That's the true ALA.  Not the false picture Carla Hayden portrayed to make ALA look good and to mislead Congress into confirming her nomination for Librarian of Congress.

And libraries are true to ALA.  One library in New Jersey had a complaint from a mother about her eleven-year-old boy seeing hardcore pornography in the children's section of the library.  The library reacted by blaming the boy and holding secret meetings in violation of state sunshine laws to insert ALA's pro child-porn policies into its own policy to ensure children could continue to access pornography on the computers in the children' section.  The library even destroyed public records in violation of yet another law to thwart the application of more state sunshine laws.  And the policy changes it made in secret where the exact recommendations of ALA, almost word for word.  I filed suit against this library, the case is still open, and the children still get access to hardcore porn in the children's section.

So when Carla Hayden says, "There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent," that is knowingly and purposefully false.

Again, had she said the truth, that ALA regards minors exactly as adults and allows them to access Internet pornography despite state laws that instantiate libraries preventing that, and despite the US Supreme Court and common sense, she would have shocked the nation and would never be confirmed.


WHAT DR. CARLA HAYDEN GOT RIGHT

Dr. Carla Hayden did get some things absolutely correct and in that regard she was honest.  However, she knows ALA's position is the exact opposite, knows she would look extremist if she stated ALA's true position, and she would never be confirmed as no one wants a Librarian of Congress who intentionally and secretively lowers the barriers between children and inappropriate material.

So Carla Hayden said, "right," when asked if "there are ... things ... in the library that aren't appropriate for everybody that visits the library to see."  Were she truthful, she would have expressed her adherence to the "Library Bill of Rights" and said librarians only provide material, they do not make age distinctions.

Here's what Dr. Hayden got right::
That was in 2003/2004, and at that time the filters that would have been required, um, for libraries to install were found to prohibit access to very important health information and the most notable at that time was breast cancer. And since that time, um, the technology has improved and the filters that are installed to receive federal funding in my, my library, The Pratt Library, and in its state role has installed filters, have improved....
That's right!  Internet filters have greatly improved in a dozen years.  They no longer block breast cancer research, for example.  Carla Hayden is right to say that.

But she is misleading in that she does not reveal ALA tells people the opposite, that filters do not work, and that libraries should not use them.

Here again is that Illinois library mentioned above telling the public that filters block breast cancer:
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.
And that statement was after ALA was forced to admit filters no longer block breast cancer research: "Ross Reynolds (9:05):  Back to you, uh, Barbara Jones, uh, Dean [Marney who won state and federal library filtering cases] says he's got filtering software there that just works perfectly.  Barbara Jones (9:12):  Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days…."

Yet to this day ALA still says, "Filtering in Libraries Causes Patron Needs to Go Unmet."

Carla Hayden, while correctly saying Internet filters nowadays work well, completely ignores that ALA misleads people into thinking they do not.  A third of libraries across the nation follow ALA's erroneous advice and leave children exposed to harm, according to CIPA's author.

And ALA will not change its position on Internet filters even after Carla Hayden said the "technology has improved" and library filters no longer "prohibit access to very important health information [including] breast cancer."

What Carla Hayden said was just for public consumption; it will have no effect on ALA and Dr. Hayden knows that but chose to mislead Congress anyway.


CONCLUSION: SHE WOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED HAD SHE TOLD THE TRUTH

Carla Hayden made materially false statements to Congress to make her ALA look mainstream and herself look like a reasonable choice for Librarian of Congress as a result.  She should not be confirmed.  She would not be confirmed had she told the truth.

She made statements about Internet filtering and about concern for child safety that are truthful but that go directly counter to the misinformation ALA currently uses to mislead communities into facilitating child pornography nationwide.  Those statements should be used to counteract ALA's ability to mislead communities, to shine light on what libraries are supposed to be, not what they have become under ALA's worldview.

But Carla Hayden chose to mislead Congress as she did.  She should not be confirmed.  Another nominee should be found, one who is honest and who is not looking at the Librarian of Congress position as a means to further spread the extremist, pro-child porn policies of the American Library Association.


NOTE ADDED 28 MAY 2016:

Updated link to US v. ALA.


NOTE ADDED 30 MAY 2016:

As I noted in the story above, ALA changed its child porn facilitation policy online to no longer tell librarians they are not judges so they should ignore child pornography viewing.  I believe this was done as a result of my conversation with ALA's OIF leader just days ago who continued to defend the policy to me.  It could also be the result of pressure from other child porn whistleblowers, or a combination thereof.

I BELIEVE THIS WAS DONE TO SUPPORT THE CONFIRMATION OF CARLA HAYDEN.  I BELIEVE ALA IS HIDING ITS DECADES-LONG CHILD PORN FACILITATION POLICIES AND WILL RESTORE THEM AFTER CARLA HAYDEN IS CONFIRMED.  I BELIEVE CARLA HAYDEN HAS EVERY INTENTION OF MAINTAINING THE CHILD PORN FACILITATION POLICY, ONLY SHE WILL APPLY IT TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND ANYTHING ELSE OVER WHICH SHE CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE SHE HAS POWER TO CONTROL.

As I am obviously the leading critic of the confirmation of Carla Hayden, ALA has an interest in making people ignore what I say.  I have been talking about ALA's child porn facilitation for a long time, even right here in this post.  ALA has quietly changed the online policy to remove the offending language WHILE LEAVING IN THE OLD DATE OF LAST CHANGE so when people see the policy does not say what I said it says, and they see the old date of last change, they will disbelieve me.

And here is the effect of that effort to mislead the public about what I am saying about Carla Hayden right here in a story about me on Wonkette since the guy looks for what I quoted and instead finds the new, days-old ALA language, then I'm mocked -- and I cannot respond here as Wonkette blocked me from responding:


CONCLUSION:  ALA MAY HAVE WITHIN THE PAST FEW DAYS GIVEN THE APPEARANCE OF ENDING ITS CHILD PORN FACILITATION, BUT THAT AFFECTS THE CARLA HAYDEN CONFIRMATION IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER.  WHILE CARLA HAYDEN WAS ALA PRESIDENT RIGHT UP UNTIL HER NOMINATION BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, ALA HAS ALWAYS FACILITATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN LIBRARIES NATIONWIDE AND CARLA HAYDEN CHAMPIONED THOSE POLICES AS ALA's PRESIDENT.


NOTE ADDED 23 JUN 2016:

See also:



URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/05/carla-hayden.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @LibraryCongress @RoyBlunt

Thursday, April 25, 2013

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

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


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

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

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


ALA Claims Case Has Little Value

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


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

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


Winning Library Director Outs ALA "Dogma"

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


ALA Forced by Bradburn/Marney to Admit Library Filters Work

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


Dean Marney Takes On ALA Propaganda Directly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dean Marney
Director
North Central Regional Library
Wenatchee, WA 98801

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

No Need for Governments to Pierce the Veil of Autonomy

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


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

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

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


Librarian Sexual Harassment Cases Mean Libraries Should Consider Using Filters

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

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


Conclusion

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

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


Bradburn v. NCRL

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





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON


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

                         Plaintiffs,

               v.

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL LIBRARY 
DISTRICT,

                         Defendant.

__________________________________________


NO. CV-06-0327-EFS


ORDER GRANTING NCRL'S MOTION 
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING 
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT, AND CLOSING FILE

__________________________________________

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

A.  Facts[2]

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

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

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

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

B. Authority and Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Conclusion

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

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

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

     DATED this   10th      day of April 2012.



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


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

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

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

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

Monday, November 15, 2010

Library P-rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P-rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma

No P-rn Librarian
A public library director has removed p-rnography from library computers by using Internet filters that will only be disabled after patron request and library review to ensure the site complies with library policy.  P-rnography is not part of library policy.  The director advises that the American Library Association [ALA] intentionally misleads local communities.

Short URL for this page:
http://tinyurl.com/ALAdogma


The library director provides a road map for legally removing p-rn from a public library.  He has done it, with the backing of his state's Supreme Court, and despite the usual ALA misinformation designed to convince people to act as the ALA would act.  See:
"LJ BackTalk: The Internet Is Not All or Nothing," by Dean Marney, the Director of the North Central Regional Library, Wenatchee, WA, Library Journal, 1 November 2010.

"If parents do not see the public library as a safe place for their children, they will not allow them to go there.  This would mean fewer patrons in the library and possibly could affect the library’s funding."  Source:  "Do Librarians Have an Ethical Duty to Monitor Patrons' Internet Usage in the Public Library?," by Anna May Wyatt, Journal of Information Ethics 15 (1): 70-79, Spring 2006.


Library Director's Wake Up Call to Communities About Outdated ALA Dogma

Here's library director Dean Marney's wake up call to local communities about outdated ALA dogma:
The outdated tenets about using technology to manage the Internet, promoted by the Freedom To Read Foundation (FTRF) and American Library Association (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom, express dogma and fundamentalism and deserve challenge.

....

Filtering offers a technological solution for a technological problem. If your filter is inadequate, find a better one.
The FTRF, by the way, is an ALA creation.  They do "deserve challenge" for "outdated" "dogma and fundamentalism" and now there's a library directory saying so.  He is saying what many others are thinking but afraid to act upon.  I have had many librarians talk to me in whispers.  I hereby encourage other library directors and librarians to speak out like Dean Marney or, for the more timid, to contact me discreetly and perhaps I'll post your writing here anonymously.



Example of Outdated Dogma that Filters Do Not Work

For an example of that outdated dogma, see "Why Internet Filters Don't Work and Why Libraries Who Filter are Wrong," by Sarah Houghton (formerly Sarah Houghton-Jan), LibrarianInBlack, 7 May 2010.  See the many comments written by "Dan Kleinman"—that's me—and see how the Librarian In Black responds. Outdated and dogmatic are the right words.  [NOTE ADDED 9 JANUARY 2015: This top ALA censorship expert now known as Sarah Houghton is so against censorship that she removed my comments, see this later version (link), then eventually completely deleted the post.  This is another major double standard or hypocrisy.]

It is notable that Sarah Houghton, ALA's leading expert on Internet filters, helped create false claims of sexual harassment against another librarian, thereby destroying his career, and was the only member of the three fakers not to admit to the fakery.  See:


Court Provides Lesson for Public Libraries—Legal P-rn May Be Legally Removed

Here's what the Washington Supreme Court said in Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District:
Here, if a library patron wants to access a web site or page that has been blocked by FortiGuard, he or she may send an e-mail to NCRL administrators asking for a manual override of the block.  The site or page is reviewed to ascertain whether allowing access would accord with NCRL’s mission, its policy, and CIPA requirements.  If not, the request is denied.  If the request is approved, access will be allowed on all of NCRL’s public access computers.

....

Most importantly, just as a public library has discretion to make content-based decisions about which magazines and books to include in its collection, it has discretion to make decisions about Internet content.  A public library can decide that it will not include p-rnography and other adult materials in its collection in accord with its mission and policies and, as explained, no unconstitutionality necessarily results.  It can make the same choices about Internet access.

A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons’ use.  We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons.
Let that be a lesson for any public library and community struggling with how to control p-rn in the public library even when that p-rn is legal.  Legal p-rn may be removed legally by Internet filters.  The ALA may be outdated and dogmatic in promoting its "anything goes" views on local communities, but those communities can now see through the propaganda and apply community standards, not ALA standards, and do so legally.


Local Law May Preclude P-rn and Libraries Acting Outside the Law May Be Reined In by Local Governments

Look at the local law that created your library.  It shows the library was created for a purpose.   P-rn is usually not part of that purpose.  If your local library is allowing p-rn, it may be acting outside the law, or ultra vires.  In such a case, the usual veil of autonomy no longer applies.   You see, libraries are intentionally made autonomous precisely to prevent political control.  But where the library acts outside of the law, then the local government may act to require the library to adhere to the law.

So, not only may local libraries act to preclude p-rn in the libraries, but local governments may act as well.   It all depends on the law and the circumstances, of course.


The US Supreme Court Also Allows Libraries to Preclude P-rn

Even the US Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of p-rn in the public library.  In US v. ALA, the Court said:
US Supreme Court, 2003
To fulfill their traditional missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons.  ....  Internet access in public libraries is neither a "traditional" nor a "designated" public forum.  ....  Internet terminals are not acquired by a library in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves.  Rather, a library provides such access for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality.   The fact that a library reviews and affirmatively chooses to acquire every book in its collection, but does not review every Web site that it makes available, is not a constitutionally relevant distinction.  The decisions by most libraries to exclude p-rnography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online p-rnography any differently.  Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not.  While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review.  Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything made available has requisite and appropriate quality.   Concerns over filtering software's tendency to erroneously "overblock" access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories software users intend to block are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled.  ....  The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.
All Members of the Court agree, but the ALA does not.  Let me add that the ALA advises local libraries how to skirt US v. ALA by using CYA language.  So which institution should be authoritative in your own community, the US Supreme Court or the ALA that advises skirting the Court?


Parting Words from Dean Marney: Safe Libraries are a Dirty Little Secret

Dean Marney is really admirable, especially since he is willing to oppose the ALA dogma.  See what he says here:
In their ruling, they say that just as libraries don't buy all books that are available, especially those that are p-rnographic, so they're not obligated to provide access to every Internet site.

Director Dean Marney says the ruling affirms his district's policy of making libraries safe places for all of its patrons.

Dean Marney: “I think this has been libraries' dirty little secret forever, that we've had to deal with this; that we can protect kids, we can protect employees, stay true to our mission.”

Washington state librarian Jan Walsh says the ruling may convince other libraries that don't use filters to adopt them.
Source: "Washington Supreme Court Says Libraries Can Filter Internet Computers," by Doug Nadvornick, Northwest News Network, 6 May 2010.

A dirty little secret!  Safe libraries for children and employees!  Imagine that!



Others Say the ALA is Misleading the Public


Dean Marney is not the only person telling communities that the ALA is misleading communities.   Here are a few others:


P-rnHarms.com Logo
Pat Trueman, former chief obscenity prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-p-rnography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep p-rnography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries out of having filters."  Mr. Trueman now runs National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

Kenneth Warren, Lakewood Public Library Director, "dropped his membership from the [ALA] group after it suggested libraries erect privacy screens for public-access computers[, believing, i]f you need privacy, you should get your own computer."  Privacy screens are known to be worthless.

Then there's the Library Journal's Annoyed Librarian, much beloved within the library community:
We're talking about libraries providing publicly subsidized p-rn.  The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet p-rn at the taxpayer's expense.  An Internet filter for p-rn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core p-rn magazines for their public library.  It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library.  The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it.  That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise.  Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to p-rn.  Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to p-rn is a public good?
Annoyed Librarian
You simply have to read the above and the remainder of her comments on the issue of access to p-rnography in public libraries.  If I wrote those words myself, I would reprint them here.  Please read in its entirety:  "Library P-rn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007. 


Conclusion

It is perfectly legal to legally block/remove legal p-rnography from public libraries and to use Internet filters for doing so.  It is perfectly legal to determine if a request to unblock a certain web site meets the library's selection policy.  When challenging the ALA's influence in your own libraries, you will be in good company despite the guilty-until-proven-innocent effort that will be made to immediately cast you as a censor.  Point out how the ALA misleads communities.  Show how library directors are standing up to denounce the ALA for its outdated dogma.  Use the above as examples, though there are many more.  Consider taking the "Library P-rn Challenge."  Don't let the ALA redefine censorship.  Read US v. ALA.  Local communities should control local public libraries, not the ALA.  Get ready for the ALA onslaught that may even include silent payments to local citizens.  SafeLibraries will provide assistance upon request.



  Further Reading on Legally Removing Legal P-rn from Libraries
Newspaper Cartoon About Ease of
Getting P-rn in Public Libraries
Cartoon by Ackerman in The Oregonian

The following are worth reading on the topic of removing legal p-rn legally from public libraries:


Note

This post is about legally removing legal p-rn from public libraries.  I take no position as SafeLibraries on whether legal p-rn should be opposed generally.  I have, however, publicly opposed illegal p-rn.  Legal, illegal, there's a difference—one's illegal.  I oppose anything that's illegal.  Don't most people?

Further, in specific cases, I will support communities attempting to remove legal p-rn from public libraries.  Indeed, that is the very genesis of SafeLibraries many years ago.  I am fair, though, so sometimes I will support libraries being wrongly accused.


About the Author

I'm Dan Kleinman.  I began opposing ALA policy almost a decade ago when the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom policies forced inappropriate material into the hands of my kindergartner.  The school principal eventually removed the material from the public school library stating she found it twice as bad as I had reported.  Now running Safe Libraries and Sexual Harassment of Librarians, I educate people and politicians about who controls public libraries and what can be done to restore local control.  I am consulted nationwide for my expertise in how the negative aspects of ALA influence can be mitigated, and I appear in numerous media reports.  I write regularly and ask people to consider subscribing to SafeLibraries.  Guest posts are welcome.  I track library crimes on Delicious and broadcast my latest crime additions on my SafeLibraries Twitter.  I may be reached at SafeLibraries@gmail.com.

My efforts and those of my late partner, Mark Decker, have been rewarded by the ALA naming SafeLibraries as one of its "prominent" opponents, if not the top one.  See "Intellectual Freedom Manual, Eighth Edition," Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 2010, p.383 [ALA's online version naming SafeLibraries].  Also see:
I am available for media interviews.  This is especially important as the ALA plans a huge propaganda campaign in September 2011 for the 30th anniversary of "Banned Books Week."  I can provide balance with a smile and with solid legal and factual support.  Hint, no books have been banned in the USA for almost 50 years.

This post is dedicated to a certain good-hearted public library director who needs help in telling others how and why legal p-rnography may be legally excluded from his/her library; the ALA will not help him/her.  Hopefully, I will be instrumental in yet another library acting to legally protect children.

==========

Hat tip to AndyW of LISNews for making me aware of this matter.  Please read his critical comments at "Access in the Hands of an Aggressive Filtering Policy," by Andy Woodworth, LISNews, 11 November 2010.


The above is all my opinion, but I do provide extensive and diverse sources for people to decide for themselves (and I keep them updated).


NOTE ADDED 17 NOVEMBER 2010:

This blog post has appeared on P-rnHarms.com at Library P-rn Removal Roadmap and can be seen here:
SafeLibraries Featured on P-rnHarms.com: "Library P-rn Removal Roadmap"

It is also linked here: "Libraries Dangerous for Children - Craigslist Contributes to Sexual Deviance in Restrooms," by , WISSUP = Wisconsin Speaks Up, 15 November 2010.


NOTE ADDED 22 JANUARY 2011:

Short URL for this page:
http://tinyurl.com/ALAdogma


NOTE ADDED 28 MAY 2011:

See also:

NOTE ADDED 13 FEBRUARY 2012:

Dean Marney confirms his opposition to the dogma, and you can hear him speak on the topic here:
Dean Marney's arguments are so persuasive that he even gets the ALA to reverse its years-long false misinformation on library filters:

NOTE ADDED 28 FEBRUARY 2012:

And now the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, Ernest Istook, is also pointing out the ALA's dogma:

NOTE ADDED 10 APRIL 2012:

The jig is up for ALA/ACLU excuses allowing p-rnography on public library computers:
A federal judge has ruled that an Eastern Washington library system is not violating the state constitution by using filters to block internet p-rn on library computers. 
Judge Edward F. Shea, Eastern Washington Federal District Court, ruled in favor of the North Central Regional Library.  The case was brought against the rural eastern Washington library district by the ACLU of Seattle.  The ACLU accused the library district of having an overly broad filtering policy. 
The ruling followed a decision handed down from the Washington State Supreme Court in May, 2010.  The Supreme Court found that the North Central Regional Library, the largest library district in the State of Washington, did not violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution with its policy of filtering the internet. 
"Taxpayers are the winners in this case," said Library Director Dean Marney.  "Libraries should never be forced to use public funds to provide access to child p-rnography or to become illegal casinos.  Libraries should be sanctuaries for people of all ages." 
The NCRL, which represents 28 libraries in the central part of the state, has admitted the filtering policy puts them in the minority.  Other libraries have taken the stance of non-censorship, citing First Amendment rights.
Hey, it's legal!  Media, stop calling it "censorship."  It's not censorship!  The jig is up!  There is no First Amendment right to p-rn in public libraries!  Libraries know this, especially now, let alone since US v. ALA in 2003, so saying otherwise is simply and intentionally false.

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


NOTE ADDED 26 JULY 2012:

After months of essentially ignoring Dean Marney's decisive victories in Washington state and federal courts, the ALA has finally issued a statement.  It basically says Dean Marney's victories apply only to his libraries and no others, so do not use Internet filters or there may be grave legal consequences.  I will be writing way more about this ALA deception soon, including about the possible unprofessional and unethical conduct of its author, but in the meantime, see:



NOTE ADDED 8 JANUARY 2015:

I am updating hyperlinks, and I added an inline note about ALA's top filtering/censorship expert censoring out my comments then eventually deleting her post.  ALA is always right because there is never opposition because they don't report on it or delete it when they can.


NOTE ADDED 9 SEPTEMBER 2016:

I am updating hyperlinks and changing wording accordingly.

As an aside, the American Library Association was directly involved in a federal lawsuit that went on for nearly two years in an effort to silence me and drain me of time and money.  ALA even taught librarians to file fake lawsuits as it could run up costs for child p-rnography whistleblowers up to $500,000.00 to mount a defense. Ultimately I prevailed.  But it goes to show just how hard ALA is working to keep you from reading the above.

Also added the following:

It is notable that Sarah Houghton, ALA's leading expert on Internet filters, helped create false claims of sexual harassment against another librarian, thereby destroying his career, and was the only member of the three fakers not to admit to the fakery.  See:


NOTE ADDED 29 MARCH 2023:

Text updated to add a hyphen into the p word to bypass the censors.