Showing posts with label Gender Queer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gender Queer. Show all posts

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Librarians Finally Admit the Reviews They Hide Behind Are Useless

School librarians have spent years telling parents, school boards, and courts that every book in the collection was carefully selected using professional reviews. That claim has been the standard defense. “We follow the selection policy. The books have multiple positive reviews from School Library Journal, Kirkus, Booklist…”

It was also the shield used against parents who dared to object to s[*]xually explicit material in school libraries. Challenge a book? You’re told the professionals already reviewed it. Object too loudly? You risk being labeled a book banner, a bigot, or worse—and in multiple cases sued.

Now the librarians themselves are admitting, in their own research and on their own podcast, that those reviews cannot be trusted.  Audio, transcript, and journal article available below.

In a 2026 study published by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL, a division of the American Library Association), Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being, researchers Misty S. Schattle and Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr. interviewed eleven school librarians in one large Texas district. The librarians reported that collection development now takes far longer because:
“they often feel that the reviews cannot be trusted, requiring the need to read books in their entirety before placement on the shelf.”¹
One elementary librarian put it bluntly:  
“It’s almost like we can’t go on our reviews. I’ve been reading a lot more books.”¹
Dr. Schattle expanded on these findings on the School Librarians United podcast:
“lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn’t really rely on reviews anymore because… they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable… so they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf… they’re just finding that it’s taking so much time… because now you have to read all the books.”²
This is not new. I documented the same problem more than a decade ago.

In 2010, Kalida, Ohio Superintendent Don Horstman removed Lush by Natasha Friend after a fifth grader brought it home. The book contained graphic s[*]xual details. Horstman read it himself and said the glowing professional reviews had omitted those details entirely.³ Similar patterns appear in my 2011 post on incomplete reviews⁴ and my 2009 post on a Kentucky superintendent overriding ALA lists.⁵

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has been even more direct. In August 2026 remarks, he stated that the librarians are the ones responsible for the presence of “dirty, filthy, and vulgar books” in school libraries, that they know what is on the shelves while many superintendents and teachers do not, and that the American Library Association trains librarians and considers such material “just fine.”¹⁰

Librarians themselves have used the same defense when suing parents. Amanda Jones, who filed a high-profile lawsuit against parents who criticized materials in her library, has stated: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”¹¹ Her justification for the books she selects rests on the very reviewing sources that Schattle’s research and the librarians she interviewed now say cannot be trusted to flag “something that is questionable.”

Meanwhile, the American Library Association itself continues to elevate those same professional reviews. Through its Unite Against Book Bans campaign, ALA created “Book Résumés”—documents packed with awards and glowing professional reviews, designed to be handed to boards and review committees.⁶ The résumé for Gender Queer is a perfect example: starred reviews from Booklist and School Library Journal, YALSA and Rainbow Project lists, the Alex Award, and more. What it carefully omits is any actual content from the book.⁷

At the same time, ALA’s official policy forbids the rating systems that do document content.

The 11th edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2026) is explicit. On page 8 it notes that school boards and lawmakers use ratings produced by “religious and political groups” to limit access to library books and control what is added to school libraries. Chapter 7 contains an entire section on rating systems and states:
“Using, enforcing, or approving of ratings systems violates the Library Bill of Rights.”
It further warns that rating or labeling materials based on assumed age-appropriateness “may be perceived as restricting access.”⁸

On page 145 the Manual specifically addresses the sites parents actually use:
“websites like BookLooks.org and RatedBooks.org often use legal-sounding language to falsely imply that certain books that do not comply with their moral or religious beliefs are illegal and ‘harmful to minors.’ … Their claims are false and have no basis in law. Libraries should not use ratings from these sites to justify removing books from their collections, limiting access to library resources, or making decisions about what books to purchase for library collections. … publicly funded libraries should not use private content rating systems to restrict access to materials. This policy should apply to all users, including children and young adults.”⁸
Kelly Jensen at Book Riot has likewise dismissed BookLooks, RatedBooks, and similar sites as “unprofessional, biased book reviews” and “politically-driven.”⁹ Tools such as RatedBooks and the National Book Rating Index (NBRI) that actually catalog explicit content are rejected, while the professional reviews that leave librarians unsure whether a book contains “something that is questionable” remain the approved standard—until parents notice the problem, at which point the response is often a lawsuit.

So the position is now fully circular:
  • The professional reviews ALA has long promoted as the gold standard for selection and defense of books are admitted by ALA’s own researchers (in an AASL journal) to be inadequate. Librarians say they can no longer rely on them and must read the books themselves.
  • The rating systems that actually describe s[*]xual content, language, and other details are denounced by ALA as illegitimate tools of “religious and political groups.” Using them violates the Library Bill of Rights.
  • ALA’s Book Résumés lean on the same professional reviews while omitting the content those reviews fail to flag.
  • When parents point out the resulting problems, some librarians sue them for defamation while continuing to cite the very reviews now acknowledged as unreliable.
Either the approved reviews work, or they don’t. If they don’t—as Schattle’s study and the librarians themselves now say—then the tools that do provide useful information about content are the ones ALA explicitly forbids, precisely because those tools can be used to keep inappropriate material away from children.

I spoke with Brooke Stephens, founder of RatedBooks.org and the National Book Rating Index (NationalBookRatingIndex.com). RatedBooks creates reports based on a content rating scale that uses the book’s own excerpts to justify each rating. The National Book Rating Index aggregates nearly 38,000 reviews from multiple sources and can be searched for free or used by librarians to process entire library inventories and generate rating reports on matched titles. The more the ALA defends giving mature content to minors while declaring professional reviews inadequate and parent-created rating tools illegitimate, the more obvious the need for these resources becomes. Stephens is both amused and grateful for the free publicity the ALA has given her work. She sees their rejection of transparent content rating systems as further diminishing any remaining need for the organization itself.

Parents who challenged books and were attacked for it were right. The professional reviews were never the rigorous safeguard claimed. They were a convenient shield. ALA still promotes that shield through Book Résumés and selection policies while simultaneously declaring the more accurate content ratings off-limits and supporting legal action against those who notice the gap.

The result is predictable: children retain access to material that even the librarians selecting it now say they cannot trust the reviews to identify—and, as Lt. Gov. Patrick noted, the librarians are the ones who know what is on those shelves.

NOTE ADDED 23 August 2026:

This article will have a followup article about teachers who truly are trusted experts and who truly care for teaching children, instead of indoctrinating them, like the requirements American Library Association added to all the various state Freedom to Read Acts and Right to Read Acts.  These teachers who truly care were directly vilified by American Library Association and its librarians, such as by Amanda Jones who is suing me for defamation calling one of them "a menace and a bully."  The only menace is to ALA as people wake up and realize the emperor has no clothes, something that Misty S. Schattle described in detail when we learned librarians have to read all the books for themselves.  Then when teachers do read all the books for themselves and decide some books are inappropriate for schools, they are vilified and sued, such as by PEN America, a partner with ALA in "Unite Against Book Bans."  So stay tuned for the upcoming post.

Endnotes:


1. Misty S. Schattle & Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr., “Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being,” School Library Research 29 (2026), https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/schattleandoconnor.pdf.

2. Dr. Misty Schattle, “Censorship’s Impact on School Librarians and their Libraries,” School Librarians United with Amy Hermon, Episode 372, August 21, 2026, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/censorships-impact-on-school-librarians-and-their/id1434321470?i=1000784807311.

3. “School Excoriates Book Reviews that Fail to Disclose ‘Graphic S[*]xual Details’ in Books for Children; Lush by Natasha Friend is ‘Wildly Inappropriate’ for Certain Children,” SafeLibraries, December 16, 2010, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/12/school-excoriates-book-reviews-that.html.

4. “False Censorship Claims Exposed by WSJ Author Attacked for Exposing Truth About Young Adult Books; Meghan Cox Gurdon Decries Incomplete and Uninformative Book Reviews,” SafeLibraries, June 8, 2011, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/false-censorship-claims-exposed-by-wsj.html.

5. “Kentucky School Superintendent Exposes False Cries of Censorship; Removes Educationally Unsuitable Books from Curriculum Despite Being on ALA’s List for Reluctant Readers,” SafeLibraries, November 30, 2009, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/kentucky-school-superintendent-exposes.html.

6. Unite Against Book Bans (American Library Association initiative), Book Résumés, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/.

7. Book Résumé for Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, Unite Against Book Bans / ALA, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/kobabe_GenderQueer_20240214.pdf.

8. American Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 11th ed. (ALA Editions, 2026), pp. 8, 145 (and Chapter 7 on rating systems). See also ALA’s related “Labeling and Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.”

9. Kelly Jensen, “BookLooks, RatedBooks, and Other Unprofessional Book ‘Review’ Sites to Know: Book Censorship News, January 10, 2025,” Book Riot, January 10, 2025, https://bookriot.com/booklooks-ratedbooks-and-other-unprofessional-book-review-sites/.

10. “Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Opposes Explicit Books In Schools, Pleas for Parents to Act to Get These Books Removed, Calls Out School Librarians,” SafeLibraries, August 20, 2026, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-opposes.html (quoting Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s remarks holding school librarians responsible for the presence of explicit materials and noting ALA’s role in training them).

11. Maggie Heyn Richardson, “Livingston Parish’s Amanda Jones landed in a national fight about book banning. Now, ‘That Librarian’ Has Written a Memoir,” 225 Magazine, August 8, 2024, https://www.225batonrouge.com/our-city/livingston-parishs-amanda-jones-landed-national-fight-book-banning-now-librarian-written-memoir (quoting Amanda Jones: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”).


Hear the Admission:


Listen to the librarians themselves discussing how professional reviews can no longer be trusted, followed by a transcript of what they said:



Transcript:


Amy Hermon:
[Y]ou know, these attacks on their collections were happening. 

Dr. Misty Schattle:
So what I found, and you have to keep in mind, this was a, this was, very much a small group of people. They were eleven librarians that I spoke with from one district, so you're talking about a very tiny population. But, they all found that their collection development processes were taking far longer than they ever had before. So, they, you know, we, we, all, as librarians, we, we read reviews, that's what we do, because unfortunately, as much as we would love to, we cannot read every book, there's just way too many out there. But I was finding that, that lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn't really rely on reviews anymore because, you know, they didn't know, were they going, you know, they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable, um, you know, like, and then so they would, they might read a review and they might get something but then they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf, or maybe they were going to public libraries and trying to find books so they could read them before they bought them. But then, you know, they're, they're still like, they're just finding that it's taking so much time, so much time that they don't have, right? And collection development, it's, it's a lengthy process anyway. Right? I mean well, maybe not, if you don't have much money to spend it don't take much time. But, if you, if you have a decent budget, you know, I, I, I don't know a single school librarian anywhere that's been like, "well, I had all this money to spend, so I was just buying whatever." I mean, nobody does that.

Amy Hermon:
Uhhh, (laughter) I, I was gonna say, back in the, uh, the ESSER days when we had ESSER funds, uh, after the pandemic, ah, there was something that I was aware was never gonna happen again in my career, but it involved a, a very small window of time and spending an amount of money that I could, could barely believe this was actually happening, it was like winning the lotto or something. But um, no, but I, I think that especially when you talk to people for whom they are not rookie librarians, these are not rookie librarians, you're dealing with people who are, in some cases, seasoned, they are veterans, they, they, this is not their first rodeo. They have built a collection repeatedly and you'd like to think that at some point you get better at this, and and you start to trust your, um, your judgment as a professional, and the longer you do this, in. The hope is that you become more confident in the decisions that you're making and you're not second-guessing yourself. But when somebody calls into question what you're doing, all of a sudden that hyper scrutiny that, that is imposed on, on the collection that we're building, this becomes an absolute, colossal, e-, e-, expensive time that we have to, to use, just to satisfy, uh, community members who have made it their life's mission to upend whatever sense of normalcy we have in our spaces.

Dr. Misty Schattle:
Yeah. It, it's just, you know, it's just crazy to me, like, I don't know. We have these degrees and, you know, we, we want to do our job, but sometimes it, it's hard, just finding the time to, to do all of the, the reading of, you know, all the books, because now you have to read all the books.

Amy Hermon:
So, I regularly hear from school librarians that there aren't enough hours in the day to do our jobs. We arrive before school early, we work through  lunch, we stay late. I'm already aware that there are, uh, a number of us who have extended calendars where we have built in days where we are working either, ah, before the school year starts or well into, uh, after the school year ends. Our professional training, our judgment, apparently isn't good enough when it comes to selecting the books that we oversee. And it's just, it's not just insulting, the burden that we now have to satisfy, uh, uh, somebody's expectations of, of how we are, are, you know, supposed to be doing our jobs.

Dr. Misty Schattle:
Yeah. I think it definitely makes that harder, because, like you said, we have training for this, we go to school to, to learn how to develop collections, and, you know, I, I'm sure you did as I did took classes on collection development, but not just that, I took children's literature, I took young adult literature. I mean, I enjoyed them. Honestly I was exposed to books I probably would've never picked up on my own. And I know, like, even now looking back, looking back at those classes, I can still, you know, recall some of those books that I read in those classes back in 2007. I can say, you know like, I know that I've put specific books that I read because of those classes in specific children's hands, because that was what they needed at that moment. I've always said that my most favorite part of my job as a school librarian was connecting kids with that just-right book for them. With that book that they didn't know they needed, but they needed.

Amy Hermon:
At Wayne State University, we had to pick two of the three categories, so we had, there was a young adult course, a middle grade course, and a, ah, children's, ah, literature. And these were actually the three classes that overlapped with our School of Education. And, so that was really interesting. And I'll never forget, it was the, you know, the, the assignment was legend, it was the hundred book project. And the hundred book project, the expectation was is that we would familiarize ourselves with a hundred books during the semester and write up synopses and, and all sorts of, ah, write ups and, and critical reviews, and, and, you know, we thought it absolutely daunting at the time, but now that I think about it, it was ay, some of the most memorable activities I did and I really, really enjoyed it.

Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 225 N Michigan Ave #1300, Chicago, IL 60601, USA

Monday, August 10, 2026

Silenced for Speaking Up: When Opposing Explicit Materials for Children Triggers Free Speech Restrictions in New Jersey

When the topic is children having access to s[*]xually explicit or otherwise inappropriate materials in school and public libraries, free speech in New Jersey is frequently restricted. Boards cut off parents reading from the books themselves, deny public comment, end livestreams, and even silence fellow elected board members. The pattern is consistent and documented.

Two recent examples illustrate the problem clearly.

In Freehold, the Public Library Board of Trustees held a special meeting on August 5, 2026. The agenda focused on personnel matters involving Library Director Kathy Mulholland after an independent investigation into workplace concerns. Those concerns included the director’s stance allowing patrons to view p[*]rnography on public computers, including in view of others and children. Despite a motion from Freehold Borough Mayor Kevin A. Kane (Democrat) to allow public comment, the board voted against it. Attendees were left to protest as they left the room. I stated, “So much for free public speech in a public library,” and received audible support from others present. A board member claimed the board values free speech; the reply was that a vote against public comment demonstrated otherwise.¹

The library’s own Code of Conduct reinforces the problem. Adopted March 26, 2024, it lists among prohibited behaviors: “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.” By limiting the ban to obvious consumption, the policy implies that non-obvious (discreet) viewing or sharing of obscene material is permitted. This is consistent with reports that the director treated the viewing of p[*]rnography on public computers as acceptable so long as it was not blatant. A policy that effectively allows obscenity inside a public library—including potentially in the presence of children—is the opposite of protecting minors.²

In Bridgewater-Raritan, elected Board of Education member Jeremy Li has repeatedly been shut down when he attempts to place inappropriate library materials or parental notification measures on the public record. Video from a recent meeting shows Li speaking about prohibiting visual or explicit written descriptions in elementary and middle school libraries. The superintendent and board president walked out. The public stream was then ended. Li has described earlier instances in which a recess was called and his microphone cut mid-speech while he advocated for a parental notification amendment that would allow parents to prevent their own children from checking out s[*]xually explicit books. The amendment did not remove any books; it sought to put parents “back in the driver’s seat.”³

These are not isolated incidents of “decorum.”

Elected Officials Silenced

Jeremy Li’s experience is particularly significant because he is an elected official exercising oversight. The board is supposed to oversee the superintendent, not the reverse. When discussion of library materials is terminated by walkouts and by ending the public record, the public is denied the very transparency school boards are required to provide.

Parents and Citizens Silenced

In Wayne Township in October 2021, parent Pamela Macek stood at the podium during public comment and began reading passages from Gender Queer: A Memoir, a book available in the high school library that contains explicit illustrations and text. Within approximately 14 seconds, Board President Catherine Kazan interrupted her, stating it was inappropriate with young people present and that she should “verbalize [her] complaint without reading the book.” Macek continued. Her microphone was cut. She kept speaking without it. The president called for police assistance and threatened to clear the room.⁴

The Freehold denial of public comment follows the same logic: the substance of the complaint (children’s exposure to p[*]rnography on library computers) is treated as grounds to restrict speech about it.

Even Discussing an Ethics Complaint Is Restricted

In North Hunterdon-Voorhees, I filed an ethics complaint in October 2024 concerning the board’s handling of school library materials. When I attempted to discuss the status of my own complaint at subsequent meetings, I was shut down—first by the board attorney, later by the board president—over speculative concerns about confidentiality or potential defamatory statements. A prior speaker who criticized the same complaint was allowed to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reviewed the record and sent a letter to the board. FIRE described the selective enforcement as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional. The letter asked the board to rescind any policy or practice that prohibits referencing ethics complaints and to allow commenters to discuss relevant district matters.⁵

Why This Pattern Exists

The consistent silencing of parents, citizens, and even elected board members who object to s[*]xually explicit materials for children is not random. It follows directly from American Library Association policy.

In its official interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights titled “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” the ALA states that “all people, of all ages, should have equal and equitable access to all library resources and services.” It explicitly declares that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources and services as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights. Article V of that document provides that a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” The ALA interpretation treats any restriction based solely on age, apparent maturity, or educational level as a violation of that principle.⁶

Under this framework, efforts to keep inappropriate materials away from children are reframed as age discrimination. Libraries are instructed not to act in loco parentis; only parents may restrict their own children’s access. The practical result is that public and school library boards, trained and guided by ALA standards, treat parental concerns about explicit content as an attack on intellectual freedom rather than a legitimate request for age-appropriate standards. When citizens or board members challenge that orthodoxy, the institutional response is often to shut down the discussion itself.

How to Fix This

The silencing of parents, citizens, and elected board members is a downstream effect of a single upstream decision: the adoption of American Library Association policy as if it were binding law.

It is not.

The Library Bill of Rights and its interpretations—including the one that treats age-based restrictions as discrimination—are internal documents of a private trade association. They have no force of law. No statute requires any public library or school library in New Jersey (or anywhere else) to follow them. Boards that claim they are “powerless” to keep inappropriate material away from children are not powerless. They have simply chosen to subordinate local authority to ALA guidance.

The remedy is straightforward:

1. Remove all ALA policy from library and school board policies. 
Delete the Library Bill of Rights, every interpretation of it, and any language that incorporates ALA standards on intellectual freedom, access for minors, or collection development. These documents function as the camel’s nose under the tent, pictured top right. Once adopted, they are used to argue that any effort to protect children is censorship or age discrimination.

2. Return to local law, community standards, and common sense.
Public libraries and school libraries operate under state statutes, local ordinances, and the authority of elected or appointed boards. Those boards have both the legal power and the responsibility to set age-appropriate standards, require parental consent where appropriate, filter content, and remove materials that violate community standards or applicable law (including New Jersey’s obscenity statutes regarding minors, like N.J.S. 2C:34-3).

3. Assert that authority clearly.
Boards should adopt policies that explicitly state they are not bound by ALA guidance and that decisions about materials available to children will be guided by local community standards, parental rights, and the best interests of minors—not by a private organization’s ideological framework.

Libraries are not required to treat a 10-year-old the same as a 40-year-old. They never were. The claim that they must do so comes from ALA policy, not from the US Constitution nor New Jersey law. When boards delete that policy and reclaim their own authority, the institutional pressure to silence parents and dissenting board members loses its foundation.

The power has always been local. It simply has to be exercised.

———

Endnotes


1. Freehold Public Library Board of Trustees special meeting, August 5, 2026. Contemporaneous reporting and video documentation of the vote against public comment; Shore News Network, “Head Librarian Who Allowed P[*]rn Use on Computers Faces Uncertain Future in Freehold,” August 6, 2026; contemporaneous posts from attendees including the author.


2. Freehold Public Library, Library Code of Conduct, adopted March 26, 2024, p. 3. Available via the library’s Services page: https://freeholdpubliclibrary.org/services.php (Google Drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-UeGKjZIV35sAhQEs9h4UOaMYW7C0QGh/view). The policy prohibits only “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.”




3. Video of Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education meeting showing walkouts and the stream being ended while Jeremy Li addressed library materials; Jeremy Li public statements and Facebook posts describing earlier microphone cuts and recesses during discussion of a parental notification amendment for s[*]xually explicit books (2025–2026).  Start at 1:37:36 and go to 1:45:32.


4. ProPublica, “The Conservative Transformation of the Wayne Township School Board,” June 29, 2023 (detailing the October 2021 meeting); TapInto Wayne and local coverage of the October 7, 2021 Board of Education meeting, including video of the interruption and microphone cut while Pamela Macek read from Gender Queer.

5. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “New Jersey school board shuts down speaker for discussing his own ethics complaint,” June 18, 2026. The article documents the selective restriction on discussion of my October 2024 ethics complaint regarding North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board handling of school library materials and FIRE’s formal letter to the board.

6. American Library Association, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors (accessed August 2026). The interpretation states that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights and that any restriction based solely on age violates Article V.

—
URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/silenced-for-speaking-up.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: New Jersey, USA

Thursday, May 14, 2026

Seeing through the Smoke and Mirrors from the ALA

​

Adult books are available to children of all ages in public libraries

Abortion, alcohol/abuse, alternate gender/sexual ideologies, animal cruelty/neglect (severe), anxiety, assassinations, bestiality, BDSM, body horror, blackmail, cannibalism (themes/threats), controversial commentary, cults and ideological zealots, dark content, deception, derogatory terms, demonic content, depression, divination, drugs/drugging, erotica, explicit sexual activities/nudity,  fetishism, gore, inflammatory commentary,  incest (themes), mental illness, molestation, murder, necrophilia (themes), patently offensive content, paraphilias, pedophilia, Pervasively Vulgar content,  profanity (multiple languages), prurient content, prostitution, rape, Satan worship (themes), self-harm, sex trafficking, smoking, stalking, suicide ideation, theft, torture, violence and Voyeurism. (This is a topic summary in Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon). 

That's quite a list.  

And yet, thousands of public libraries can't find one single reason to keep a book with all of these adult topics out of the hands of children. There are tens of thousands of sexually explicit books and materials with no limits, restrictions, guidelines, or protections of any sort,  available to children all across the United States. The public library and school policy of open access to all materials to all ages has repeatedly exposed children to content that would be considered obscene and illegal in any other setting.  

Who came up with that policy?

The American Library Association has manufactured reasons to override parents and give kids of all ages access to adult books in any format, digital and hard copy. All children, all ages, all access, all the time…that’s the policy whether you like it or not.

To do anything else would be Censorship!                             Book Banning!

Okay, that's not true...

The Supreme Court weighed in with Ginsberg v. New York (1968) and decided that children are NOT entitled to view sexually explicit materials under the Constitution and that "obscenity is variable", which means the content doesn't have to be obscene for adults in order to be obscene for children. Kansas Law (21-6401 and 21-6402) states that adults are prohibited from exposing children to obscene materials, and that obscenity is to be determined at least in part by community standards (not library policies) because minors lack the maturity to process explicit sexual content responsibly (Miller v. California 1973).

Restricting a sexually explicit book based on age in the library or school is not censorship.  Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) decided that books can be removed from school library shelves without risk of censorship claims if the removal is due to vulgarity or unsuitability, and gives school boards broad discretion to do so with Constitutional protection. 

One more time for the people in the back...

The Supreme Court ruled that a book does not have to be obscene to an adult in order for it to be considered obscene for children. Schools and libraries cannot be forced to expose children to adult materials in the name of combating "censorship." The standards for children are, and should be different than the standards for adults. That's literally true in every other situation. Children are not adults, and should not be treated like they are. 

It is the duty of all adults in any setting to protect all children from exposure to anything that may harm them.

Even if the child is too young to read the words, they can look at the pictures of erect penises and teenaged boys in sexual positions. Kids who are little older, maybe by 3rd or 4th grade, can pick up on concepts like anal or oral sex.

Graphic illustrations placed where kids can see. Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe

Accidental and unsupervised exposure to mature content is much more dangerous than a controlled discussion with a parent. Many other librarians and schools refuse to protect children from that exposure. 

Thousands of libraries adhere to the American Library Association's policies that fight censorship where censorship does not exist at the expense of childhood innocence.   

Decades of research from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children (APSAC), the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), shows that early sexualization of children is very damaging and can lead to depression, anxiety, anger, confusion, aggressive sexual behaviors, desensitization, low self-esteem, increased mental health crisis and increased risk of exploitation by adults due to normalization of sexual concepts by children too young to understand the consequences.

That's also quite a list. 

Ignore all of that, though, the American Library Association says that your child can see or read whatever they want, whenever they want as long as it's at the library or on school property. That's not a law, it's a library policy suggestion from a NGO with no accountability to anyone involved, but that's the lead most schools and libraries are following. 

The Library Bill of Rights says that "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." Adults, who are not the parents, use this policy to defend and justify giving materials to children in the library or at school that would be illegal if given to them at a gas station. The "Rights" in this Library Bill are granted by no one, and are legally unenforceable. 

And yet, librarians defend it as if it's the law of the land


Parents have the right and responsibility to oversee their child's upbringing, education and moral development. 

Children do not have the right to read and see whatever they want. 

Librarians do not have the right to expose children to potentially harmful materials under any circumstances. This practice is justified by policy, not law. 

If the Community Standards question the appropriateness of allowing a child to access any material, the librarian should err on the side of caution to protect the child. Librarians who expose children to potentially obscene materials are not constitutional champions even though the American Library Association directs them to "fight censorship." 

There are NO banned books in this country. 

Banning a book means that you can't legally get the book anywhere. If a book is banned, you can't buy it, borrow it, steal it, see it, possess it or read it. 

Book banning is not a thing in the United States.

Adults can get any book from a variety of sources any time. An adult can go into any library and get any book they want. Libraries cannot possibly be required to carry every title--if a book is not available in the library it does not mean it has been banned by any legal true definition.  

PEN America shows on its website that more than 23,000  "book bans" have been documented since 2021 in public schools across the country. The stats are misleading, however--"If the same book is banned in 10 school districts, that would count as 10 bans, but one unique title. A book ban is the removal or restriction of those materials, either permanently or under review (PEN.org). 

It is counted as a "book ban" if a sexually explicit book is moved out of the children's section to the adult section, even though adults are not restricted from access in any way.  The American Library Association and PEN America offers tools to librarians and library boards to fight "when the censors come." (PEN is referring to parents who object to adult materials being offered to their children.)  

What do you call the repeated and excessive use of words like "book banning" and labeling parents as "the censors" who are coming to violate the Constitution?  

Gaslighting. Fear mongering. Manipulation.

What's your problem? Are you a Nazi or something? 

Book banning is a phrase associated with Nazi Germany, and the fervent use of the phrase is intentional to evoke a connection between anyone who objects to childhood exposure to sexually explicit materials and that horrible time in world history. The claim of book banning insidiously weaponizes the fear of those events being repeated in order to get parents to give up their rights over their own children to avoid the comparison. 

Parents aren't Nazis just because they want to decide what their children see and read. Parents have the right to determine when their child is mature enough for the content, and the responsibility to protect their children as they see fit without interference from libraries and schools.  

The fact that the taxpayers buy the books, build the libraries, build the schools, pay the librarians, elect the boards, and fund the NGOs only to have those institutions and organizations band together to strip them of their rights and authority over their own children makes all of this truly insulting.  

Restricting children’s access to adult book titles doesn’t take anything away from parents who want their children to read sexually explicit books. A parent can go check out that book anytime they want to and let their children see it.

On the flipside of that, a parent who wants OTHER people’s children to be exposed to sexually explicit books has NO legal right or authority to do that. NONE. Libraries who fight to keep these policies that override parent rights ARE taking something away from parents—their rights to have knowledge of and to choose what their children are exposed to. 

Why do seemingly normal adults fight so hard to defend putting sexually graphic books in front of children?

Protests, parades, lawsuits, angry board meetings, hateful social media attacks, threats of violence, cancel culture, lectures and virtue signaling from board members and lawyers...WHY? 

Why do libraries CHOOSE to allow children to have access to adult materials when they don’t have to? What is the motivation behind overruling community objections to facilitate giving sexually explicit material to children that would be illegal in any other setting? It's regulatory displacement...materials that would violate regulatory guidelines and definitions outside of the building are protected inside the building based on location. 

It's still the same children inside and outside of the building.

NGOs like the American Library Association decide what hoops parents have to jump through to protect their own children while shielding the library from any responsibility to do so. Kansas law regarding definitions of obscenity are ignored because of location in the library. 

Library boards of directors choose (but are not required) to adhere to policies from the ALA, purporting that no materials are obscene and that children cannot be prevented (protected) from seeing any materials because it would violate their "Freedom to Read." The American Library Association developed a Freedom to Read policy which has no support from the law. It's a policy, suggested guidance, and means nothing in court. It's not enforceable. 


There is no Constitutional Freedom to Read for Children

The ALA Library Bill of Rights is not law. 

There are no banned books in the USA. 

Curation is not censorship. 

Adults have the right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Protecting children from sexually explicit materials does not infringe on any adult's First Amendment Rights in any way. 

Children's first amendment rights are limited and do not overrule the rights of their parents to exercise authority over their child's upbringing, moral development, and education.

Adults who are not the parents have no right to give a child sexually explicit materials using subjective decision making. 

Policy guidance from private non-governmental organizations cannot override state law. 

It requires the cooperation of complicit public institutions to undermine parents rights and sacrifice childhood innocence in the name of "fighting the good fight" against censorship. 

Ask your local librarian to defend sexually explicit materials in the children's section without using borrowed ALA policy language. 

I'll wait.












—
URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/seeing-through-smoke-and-mirrors-from.html



Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 1201 Main St, Hays, KS 67601, USA

Thursday, December 18, 2025

RealClearPolitics Commentary: 'Wake Up, Parents: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids'

The following "Commentary" is authored by me and published at RealClearPolitics.  Emphasis, hyperlinks, and graphics in original:




Wake Up, Parents: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids
COMMENTARY

By Dan Kleinman


Imagine if your 15-year-old came to my house, and I gave them a book about edgy sex positions? What if I gave your 16-year-old a book with graphic illustrations of oral or anal sex?

Would you be happy with that? Or would you be mighty suspicious of me?

Many parents may not know it, but there is an ongoing fight over certain books and whether they should be given to minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent. That’s what the American Library Association wants. The ALA recently launched a nationwide campaign against so-called “book bans,” with ALA President Sam Helmick (they/them) saying it is about the “freedom to read.”

Except, the ALA’s critics do not want to “ban” anything. Nor do they want to challenge the freedom to read – I know because I’m one of them. We do, however, want people to know that the ALA wants inappropriate materials in your kids’ hands, regardless of your parental preferences.

In 2023, Sen. Mike Lee revealed a video of Deborah Caldwell-Stone, then-director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, admitting that the ALA is reframing sexually inappropriate content for minors as “diverse materials” focused on “inclusion.” Caldwell-Stone said the previously quiet part out loud.

It shocked me because I always thought that ALA librarians were the “good guys.” After all, who ever imagined that librarians would play the part of creepy guy in a trenchcoat?

But some of society’s most trusted leaders misuse their power and prestige as cover, at the expense of our kids (think about the Catholic priest scandals). While a tiny percentage of priests are up to no good, the wrongdoers use the cover of their innocent job titles to engage in perverse conduct. In a similar vein, librarians who want to “reframe” perverse fetish instruction manuals as “diverse education” aren’t thinking about your kids’ best interests.

One of the books in question is “Let’s Talk About It,” which is aimed at teenagers with graphic images of how to insert butt plugs or advice on fetish pornography websites. Another is “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” which contains multiple pages of illustrations depicting oral sex. The explicit images were entered into the congressional record in 2023 for all to see (fair warning). The pictures are worth a thousand words.

I have reported on these developments at the ALA through my blog “SafeLibraries,” exposing those who are advocating for minors to read books like “Gender Queer” without parental knowledge. I have regularly posted on social media about how this exposure constitutes “grooming,” and I have revealed individual librarians who are intent – with the ALA’s backing – on keeping these books available to kids.

One such librarian is Amanda Jones, who has publicly supported “Gender Queer” and “Let’s Talk About It” as suitable for kids. Those who dare to question “Gender Queer,” are in her words, “targeting LGBTQ and other marginalized communities.” Now, Jones has sued me in federal court for defamation and false light for calling that “grooming.” (I have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case with the help of veteran First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, and it is currently pending.) I stand by that opinion.

Let’s be very clear: This is not a partisan issue. So-called “book bans” are abhorrent, and even sexually explicit books like “Gender Queer” have a place on Amazon.com or at Barnes & Noble. However, that place is not somewhere kids have unfettered access.

None of us – Democrat or Republican – grew up in a world with images of blowjobs or butt plugs on the shelves. Is it “banning books” if the public library doesn’t stock Marquis De Sade? Is it “censorship” when sexual content can be found everywhere but the kids’ section?

For the ALA and individual librarians to recommend books about “marginalized communities,” that is one thing. As they grow older, kids should learn about differences in race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But a 14-year-old should never be encouraged by their local librarian to read about oral or anal sex – full stop.

This is not normal. Even left-wing friends of mine have been repulsed after skimming “Gender Queer,” especially at a time when U.S. literacy is plummeting (according to even leftist librarians). Nevertheless, the ALA has joined forces with Hollywood to celebrate Amanda Jones in a new documentary called “The Librarians,” ironically produced by “Sex and the City” actress Sarah Jessica Parker.

I have been called a “Nazi” and a “fascist” for taking this stance, which is shared by parents on both sides of the political aisle. But the ALA won’t silence us, and it is time for all parents to speak out against child grooming – especially in our libraries.


Dan Kleinman is the owner of SafeLibraries educational services. He is also executive director of the World Library Association, an alternative to the American Library Association.




Other URLS:
—
Related URLs: 

Marc Randazza - Jones v. Kleinman: randazza.com/lawsuits/jones-v-kleinman/
Marc Randazza X post: x.com/marcorandazza/status/2001766590044606917 (X set it as "age-restricted adult content" although school librarians make it available to schoo children)

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 225 N Michigan Ave #1300, Chicago, IL 60601, USA

Monday, November 24, 2025

Informing Iowa Legislators About American Library Association

Critique of the American Library Association's Influence on Libraries and Legislation

The American Library Association (ALA), headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, has pursued policies for over 60 years that critics argue undermine parental rights in favor of unrestricted access to materials for children. Central to this is the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," adopted in 1939 and amended multiple times (most recently in 2019), which prohibits denying library use based on age, among other factors. This policy effectively treats age-based restrictions as discrimination, allowing children access to any materials without barriers. For historical context, see Rita Koganzon's analysis of 1970s school book controversies, which highlights how such disputes empowered parents to challenge perceived indoctrination in educational content.

This approach has accelerated the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, prompting increased parental challenges. In response, librarians—often aligned with ALA guidance—portray these complaints as burdensome, despite the ALA's role in creating the underlying policy tensions.


ALA's Push to Codify the Library Bill of Rights into Law

To preempt parental challenges, the ALA has advocated for codifying its "Library Bill of Rights" into state laws, potentially overriding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Board of Education v. Pico (1982). In Pico, a plurality opinion held that school boards cannot remove books from libraries solely due to ideological disapproval but may do so if materials are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable. Books like Gender Queer have been removed from schools under this standard, which ALA opposes.

One court has ruled that the "Library Bill of Rights" holds no legal weight—it's merely aspirational and "means nothing" in a binding sense, as stated in Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019). Despite this, ALA has influenced over a third of state legislatures to consider such codification through initiatives like the "Right to Read Act" (also known as the "Freedom to Read Act"). As of November 2025, at least nine states have passed versions since 2023: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Additional states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and others are considering or have advanced similar bills in 2025 sessions. For a detailed parent-focused critique, see the World Library Association's page on the Right to Read Act, which outlines how it limits parental petitions and grants librarians immunity from obscenity laws.

Part of ALA's push to get laws passed includes building in exemptions or affirmative defenses to obscenity crimes for librarians. That has been a long term ALA goal. See: Reisman, Judith A. and McAlister, Mary E. (2018) "Materials Deemed Harmful to Minors Are Welcomed into Classrooms and Libraries via Educational 'Obscenity Exemptions,'" Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 12: Iss. 3, Article 3. Available at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol12/iss3/3:
Similarly, the American Library Association leans upon First Amendment protections against censorship to justify the obscenity exemption for libraries, often offering derisive remarks about parents' efforts to use "harmful to minors" statutes to remove inappropriate books.
ALA's strategy positions itself as both the source of the issue (unrestricted access) and the solution (legislative protections), aiming for nationwide adoption. In Iowa, from which ALA President Sam Helmick hails, this raises questions: Will Iowa follow suit and embed this Chicago-based organization's creed into state law?


Tactics for Influencing Legislators

ALA employs sophisticated methods to advance its agenda, often through affiliates like EveryLibrary, which provides training on "long-term inoculation"—building relationships with legislators to shape policy preemptively. This includes "getting to know your legislators" and "identifying and activating" supporters to prioritize children's unrestricted access. View the training here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. EveryLibrary's ties to ALA are detailed in analyses showing how it facilitates advocacy while maintaining a "crypto" (hidden) affiliation.

Another tactic involves "sustained messaging" to reframe s[*]xually explicit materials as essential for diversity, inclusion, and self-representation, downplaying concerns about appropriateness. This was revealed in training by ALA's former top lawyer, which Utah Senator Mike Lee highlighted in a 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on "banned books." Lee described it as "saying the quiet part out loud," accusing ALA of grooming and s[*]xualizing children to provide minors with explicit content while hiding it from parents. Watch the clip: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.



The "book ban" narrative has been debunked by the U.S. Department of Education, which dropped actions against parents after investigations. Critics trace this hoax back to ALA influence, used to mislead the public and maintain access to controversial materials.  Official U.S. Department of Education Press Release (January 24, 2025) announces dismissal of 11 complaints, rescission of guidance, and end to the "Biden's book ban hoax." https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax


ALA's "Unite Against Book Bans" and Legal Setbacks

In response to successful Pico-based removals of "Gender Queer," ALA launched "Unite Against Book Bans" to lobby for laws blocking parental complaints and First Amendment redress rights. Recent setbacks include Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), where the Supreme Court affirmed parents' rights to opt children out of certain classroom content conflicting with religious beliefs. ALA has interpreted this narrowly, claiming it doesn't apply to libraries and warning against its misuse for censorship, but critics argue it's spreading misinformation to downplay parental opt-out options.

ALA's policies have real-world impacts, including harm to children. Detransitioner Maia Poet has publicly shared how a school librarian promoted trans ideology, leading to her binding her breasts and lasting physical damage, without parental knowledge. Watch her testimony, also shown below: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606. Another case involves a public library director reporting a child's death linked to ALA-recommended practices: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAKillsBoy.html.


Deceptions and Hypocrisy

ALA often misleads on legal standards, insisting the "as a whole" test from Miller v. California (obscenity) applies over Pico's "pervasively vulgar" threshold, confusing discussions on school materials. It portrays challengers as extremists, ignoring polls showing most Americans oppose explicit books in schools. Tactics include faking "banned books" lists to mobilize communities (e.g., inflating LGBT book challenges until exposed), plagiarizing maps, and funding astroturf groups to overwhelm legislators with emails and turnout. ALA even trains librarians to evade open records laws by, among other things, using private channels like Signal.

Internally, ALA faces hypocrisy accusations. Trevor Dawes, a university librarian, criticized its shift to closed-door meetings, violating its own transparency policies and undermining advocacy for open government. As Dawes notes: "The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship... is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes."

ALA critiques rating systems by parents like BookLooks or Rated Books (https://www.ratedbooks.org/) while creating its own "Book Résumés," (https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/) which omit excerpts and emphasize awards, always deeming books suitable for all ages.  Compare the ratings for Gender Queer on Rated Books with Gender Queer on Book Résumés.


Another significant deception is the claim of an ongoing "culture war." After 60 years of effort by ALA to accelerate the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, to the point where such material is essentially in every school library today, efforts to stop this are characterized by librarians as merely for political gain.  

For example, at the 5:39 mark of ALA's new documentary called "The Librarians," someone says, "Politicians are playing a very dangerous game when they try to make school libraries battlegrounds for their political war, because the only people that that is going to hurt are kids." See https://thelibrariansfilm.com/. So 60 years of effort by ALA cannot be countered by politicians because supposedly the kids are going to get hurt in a very dangerous game, all for politics.  It is a significant deception.


Implications for Iowa

Iowa legislators should scrutinize ALA's influence, given its president's local ties. Past Iowa issues include unfiltered library Internet leading to child molestation (exposed in 2011, prompting failed filtering legislation), s[*]x offenders in libraries (addressed in 2009 law), and misleading claims by directors like LaWanda Roudebush on filters. Recent writings highlight Iowa librarians supporting ALA's Marxist-leaning president https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html and details on stopping indoctrination: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/01/details-on-stopping-indoctrination.html.

Should Iowa adopt laws from an organization that flouts its own standards? Legislators face ALA-orchestrated pressure—expect astroturf campaigns—but prioritizing parental rights and child safety aligns with constitutional precedents.

If more details are needed, let me know.



Endnotes

1. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights” (adopted 1939, latest revision 2019)  

2. Rita Koganzon, “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  

3. States that have passed “Right to Read Act” / “Freedom to Read Act” legislation (as of November 2025)
EveryLibrary Bill Tracking (includes Freedom to Read protections for libraries/librarians): https://www.everylibrary.org/billtracking Note: This page tracks positive "right to read" bills alongside other library legislation. For recent examples, see Delaware's passage announced November 10, 2025: https://www.alsc.ala.org/blog/2025/11/go-delaware-another-state-steps-up-for-the-freedom-to-read/ (confirms Delaware as a new adopter, building on prior states like California, Illinois, and others). ALA's adverse legislation page also contextualizes supportive bills: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/adverse-legislation-states.

4. World Library Association – Detailed parent-oriented critique of the Right to Read Act  

5. Board of Education v. Pico (1982) – key Supreme Court case on school library book removal  

6. Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019) – court rules ALA’s Library Bill of Rights “means nothing” legally  

7. EveryLibrary / ALA training on “long-term inoculation” and building relationships with legislators  

8. Documentation of EveryLibrary as a “crypto” ALA affiliate and its “long-term inoculation” tactics  

9. Senator Mike Lee (Utah) – “saying the quiet part out loud” clip from 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on banned books  


10. Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) – Supreme Court affirms parental opt-out rights; ALA’s response  

11. Maia Poet (detransitioner) testimony on harm caused by school librarian promoting trans ideology  

12. Public library director reports child death linked to ALA-recommended practices  

13. Trevor A. Dawes, “ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values” (July 19, 2025)  

14. Guide for parents/legislators on obscenity law, Pico vs. Miller standards, and stopping indoctrination  

15. Harris Poll and other surveys showing majority opposition to s[*]xually explicit books in schools  

16. Exposure of ALA faking “banned books” lists to inflate LGBT challenges (2011)  

17. ALA caught plagiarizing a student’s “Censorship Map”  

18. ALA astroturfing: creating and funding local “grassroots” groups to pressure legislators  
    Bribes/incentives detail: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/03/ala-details-bribes.html Recently in Alabama, four separate ALA-created groups failed to stop the library board from voting against ALA:
Meanwhile, the board finalized a restriction on transgender books for children and teens. Once approved by legislative services, the code states that “any library material regarding transgender procedures, gender ideology or the concept of more than two genders” must be weeded out of library circulation or moved to the adult section. See: https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/alabama-library-board-finalizes-transgender-book-restrictions-delays-fairhope-funding.html

19. ALA’s deleted article on “sneakily” pushing Drag Queen Story Hour into conservative towns (archived)  

20. Librarians trained to evade open-records/FOIA laws using private channels (Signal, Slack, etc.)  

21. Iowa-specific posts referenced and other Iowa posts covered by SafeLibraries
    - Iowa librarians supporting Marxist ALA president: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html  
    - Child molestation in Iowa library linked to unfiltered porn (2011): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porn-and-sex-abuse-in-our-public.html  "Consider the case of a child molested in a public library bathroom and no one knew that it was the result of p[*]rn viewing!  I was the person who exposed the truth.  As a result of my work, the Iowa state legislature attempted to pass state library computer filtering legislation.  It would not have happened but for my involvement in that community."
    - Davenport Public Library director misleads on filters (2010): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/04/revive-iowa-internet-filtering-law-for.html
    - Unimpeded child p[*]rn viewing in the Council Bluffs Public Library" (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/terminal-cancer-in-council-bluffs.html
    - Iowa nixes s[*]x offenders from libraries (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-nixes-sex-offenders-from-libraries.html
    - ALA ruse keeping p[*]rn in Council Bluffs (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/08/ala-ruse-keeping-porn-widely-available.html
    - Burlington library director misleads on Internet filters (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/burlington-ia-library-director-misleads.html
    - Media needs to wake up to library crime (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-wake-up-to-library-crime-source.html
   

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Des Moines, IA, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)