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

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:



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 Associations 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)

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
   

Friday, December 20, 2024

Insider Reveals Truth on Why New Hampshire Defunded American Library Association

An insider has revealed the truth on why the state of New Hampshire dropped out of the American Library Association.  I have permission to republish.  Here is the original story:


New Hampshire Defunds the American Library Association

A Very Newsworthy Story

A recent article on the New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR) website regarding Governor Sununu’s withdrawal of his state librarian nominee confirms that the previous state librarian withdrew the New Hamphire State Library (NHSL) from the American Library Association this year.  While the reason given for this withdrawal was that “the yearly dues were not worth what the association provided,” there is more to this story.

Last February, as a New Hampshire State Representative and a librarian opposed to the ALA’s agenda, I wrote the letter below to Sarah Stewart, the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Natural and Cultural Resources that oversees the NHSL.  This letter was co-signed by 100 other state representatives who shared my opposition.  Along with fellow Representative Mike Drago (Raymond, NH), I met with Commissioner Stewart and State Librarian Michael York at the State House.  We explained the reasons for withdrawing from the ALA as detailed in the letter that I presented to Commissioner Stewart at the end of our meeting.  It appears that our demands were heeded and that New Hampshire has joined the growing list of states that has defunded the ALA!

Here is the text of my letter:

29 February 2024

Dear Commissioner Stewart,

Recently, a bill that sought to prohibit egregiously obscene materials from being included in public school library collections (HB1419) failed on the House floor.  Rather than just trying to pass legislation to remove such books, however, perhaps we should be asking how these books get on school library shelves in the first place.  For example, how did such a notoriously inappropriate book as Gender Queer ever get into numerous school libraries in New Hampshire to begin with?  Part of the reason is likely the glowing review that appeared in the American Library Association’s publication Booklist, in which the reviewer gushed, “Highly recommended reading for those on their own journey of exploration or those supporting the explorers in their own lives.”  In addition to the ALA’s stellar review of Gender Queer, this infamous graphic novel also won the 2020 ALA Stonewall Award, which annually recognizes books on LGBTQ+ themes, as well as one of its Alex Awards which are given to adult titles that “have special appeal to young adults, ages 12 through 18.”  The ALA gives out numerous other awards each year that disproportionately honor and publicize books on racial and sexual themes, while its review source Booklist similarly celebrates such books.  Meanwhile, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the Director of ALA’s “Office for Intellectual Freedom,” who has worked for the ALA for almost a quarter century, recently admitted to carrying out a “sustained messaging” program to “reframe” and “promote” inappropriate books especially on sexual themes as “diverse materials ...that are about inclusion and fairness.”


The American Library Association is clearly a political organization far more than a professional one.  Its political agenda is further reflected in the “professional” literature it publishes for librarians and library staff.  In a recent ALA Publishing catalog, the vast majority of the books included were on topics such as EDISJ (“equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice”), “cultural humility," and so-called “book banning.”  The ALA has clearly revealed its liberal agenda that seeks to undermine parental authority and destroy the family.  To quote its own website, it “opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.”  It promotes and defends “drag queen story hours” by providing resources on its website for librarians to use when patrons object to these events.

The American Library Association, as those who follow the news regarding this organization already know, currently has a self-proclaimed Marxist, Emily Drabinski, as a president this year.  While she will be replaced next year by a new elected leader, this will not stop the ALA from promoting its insidious agenda.  Because Drabinski is merely a symptom of the ALA agenda rather than its cause, the next president will likely espouse similar views.  The ALA also has around three hundred permanent employees, many of whom support the agenda that has been promulgated by their employer for years, most notably the aforementioned lawyer, Deborah Caldwell-Stone.  The ALA’s connections with the infamous George Soros also reveal its long-standing political agenda.  In 1997, Soros was awarded the ALA’s James Madison Award, which honors individuals “who have championed, protected and promoted public access to government information,” and in 2008, his organization, Open Society, gave the ALA a $350,000 “seed grant.”  The ALA’s egregious agenda obviously started long before Emily Drabinski became president and will continue after her departure; she merely exposed it for all to see, especially last September when she asserted at the Socialism 2023 conference that public schools and libraries need to become “sites of socialist organizing”!



The American Library Association, like many organizations, offers discounts on products and provides a variety of services to its members.  Some supporters might argue that these socalled “benefits” justify the small amount that the New Hampshire State Library pays in dues each year for membership.  In light of the organization's true agenda, however, this argument falls flat because membership is ultimately injurious rather than beneficial.  If the state library discontinues its membership with the ALA, as we believe it should, it may technically only save a few thousand dollars, but this action will send a clear message to library trustees and school boards throughout the state that they don’t need to support the ALA and that, in fact, they should not.  If New Hampshire cuts its ties with the ALA, as Montana, Texas, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, and Florida have already done, this will send an even stronger message to the entire country that this pernicious organization needs to be defunded.



The American Library Association, a political organization that clearly promotes principles that are toxic to our republic, is truly an enemy of our state, and we believe that any support of this organization with taxpayer dollars must stop immediately.  Following the withdrawal of Texas last August from the ALA, State Representative Brian Harrison wrote in a letter to all Republican governors, “By sending tax dollars to the ALA, you are forcing your constituents’ money to be weaponized against them, their values, and their children.”  To prevent our constituents’ tax dollars from being used to attack our state, we, the undersigned representatives of the General Court demand that you, as Commissioner of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, which oversees the New Hampshire State Library, order the NHSL to cut all financial ties with the American Library Association.

Respectfully, Rep. Arlene Quaratiello and 100 fellow members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives (some of whom agreed to sign this letter as long as their names were not made public which is why I have not included the names of the signers here).

Thanks for reading No Shushing Now: Exposing
Today's Woke Libraries! Subscribe for free to
receive new posts and support my work.


See also:

Monday, March 18, 2024

Moms Countersue School Librarian Roxana Caivano

COYLE & MORRIS LLP
201 Littleton Road, Suite 210
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
(973) 370-0592
jcoyle@coylemorris.com
John D. Coyle 029632001
Attorneys for Defendants
Christina S. Balestriere and Kristen Cobo

__________________________________________
ROXANA M. RUSSO CAIVANO, 
     Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS SERETIS, CHRISTINA
SCARBROUGH BALESTRIERE, KRISTEN
COBO, AND KATRINA ALBO, and/or 
JOHN DOE 1-5 (fictitious names), JANE DOE 
1-5 (fictitious names),

     Defendants, 

CHRISTINA SCARBROUGH 
BALESTRIERE and KRISTEN COBO,

     Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTHONY P. CAIVANO,

     Third-Party Defendant.
__________________________________________


SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MORRIS COUNTY

Docket No.: MRS-L-485-23 
Civil Action

ANSWER, COUNTER-CLAIM, THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY, and JURY DEMAND


Christina S. Balestriere (“Christina”) and Kristen Cobo (“Kristen”), by way of Answer to the Complaint of Roxana M. Russo Caivano, say:

FIRST COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

1

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 2 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
2. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

3. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

4. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

5. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

6. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

7. Denied.

8. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

9. Denied.

10. Denied.

11. Denied.

12. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs. 

13. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

SECOND COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 3 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
2. Denied.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.

5. Denied.

6. Denied.

7. Denied.

8. Denied.

9. Denied.

THIRD COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Denied.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.

5. Denied.

6. Denied.

FOURTH COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

3

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 4 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
3. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

4. Christina and Kristen lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in this paragraph and leave Plaintiff to her proofs.

FIFTH COUNT

1. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

2. Denied.

3. Denied.

4. Denied.


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Second. Christina and Kristen assert their First Amendment right to freedom of speech regarding their opinions.

Third. Christina and Kristen assert their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress and the legal protections of their statements made pursuant thereto. 

Fourth. Christina and Kristen deny that any statements made were defamatory.

Fifth. Christina and Kristen are protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege.

Sixth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were true and thus, not defamatory.

4

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 5 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
Seventh. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were substantially true, and thus, not defamatory.

Eighth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were opinion, and thus, not defamatory.

Ninth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen are protected by qualified privileges.

Tenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were made in good faith. 

Eleventh. Plaintiff was not damaged by the statements made by Christina and Kristen. 

Twelfth. Plaintiff has received elevated status and not suffered any harm as a result of the statements from Christina and Kristen. https://youtu.be/i4pgUgEn99Y





Thirteenth. Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages under the claims asserted here. 

Fourteenth. Plaintiff was a public figure and thus, the statements made by Christina and Kristen are not actionable.

Fifteenth. Plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure, and thus, the statements made by Christina and Kristen are not actionable.

5

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 6 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
Sixteenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were made regarding a legitimate public concern.

Seventeenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were not made with actual malice.

Eighteenth. The statements made by Christina and Kristen were not made with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false.

     WHEREFORE HAVING FULLY ANSWERED, DEFENDANTS CHRISTINA. S. BALESTRIERE AND KRISTEN COBO DEMAND THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AGAINST THEM WITH AN AWARD OF COSTS AND FEES.


JURY DEMAND

Christina and Kristen demand a trial by jury on all issues involved herein.


TRIAL COUNSEL DESIGNATION

Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, John D. Coyle, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel in the within matter on behalf of responding defendants.


RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other Court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, nor is it contemplated that the matter in controversy will be the subject of any other action or arbitration proceeding. I further certify that I am not presently aware of the identity of any other party whose joinder is required by law.

6

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 7 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 

RULE 1:38-7 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that all confidential personal identifiers have been redacted and that subsequent papers submitted to the court will not contain confidential personal identifiers in accordance with the provisions of this rule.


COUNTER_CLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM

Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Christina S. Balestriere and Kristen Cobo, by way of Counter-Claim against Plaintiff, and Third-Party Complaint against Anthony Caivano, hereby state:

1. Plaintiff Christina S. Balestriere grew up in West Orange, NJ and graduated from Mount Saint Dominic Academy. She went on to receive her Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from Drew University and eventually her Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing for Teacher of Students with Disabilities from The College of Saint Elizabeth.

2. A former Catholic school Physical Education teacher and most recently a public school Special Education teacher, Christina moved with her family to Roxbury in 2014 and chose to stay home and raise her 3 young children. She is a member of St. Therese Church and an active member of the community with her children involved in multiple sports and activities.

3. Having 3 boys moving up through the public school system and having been an educator herself, Christina understands the importance of being involved in her children's education both present and future.

4. Plaintiff Kristen Cobo moved to Roxbury at age 6 and attended Roxbury schools from 1st grade, ultimately graduating from Roxbury High School in 2003. She went on to receive her Bachelor of Social Work degree at Ramapo College, receiving advanced standing in her major.

7

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 8 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
Kristen then attended Fordham University and received her Masters of Social Work degree with a specialization in children and families in just one year.

5. Kristen went on to receive her LCSW(Licensed Clinical Social Worker) and beyond that, a certificate in clinical supervision which enables her to supervise and train new therapists; a requirement prior to becoming licensed. She has worked in the mental health field for 18 years and has seen the detriments of adults who are unable to put the safety and wellbeing of children first. Kristen worked at St. Clare’s Children’s Crisis Unit, High Focus Centers Children’s Psych, and for Effective School solutions for 9 years at which time she was a direct clinician and ultimately a Regional Clinical Director overseeing the intensive clinical mental health services being provided to the most at risk students in school districts all over NJ.

6. She currently has her own private practice which she opened in 2022. In 2022, Kristen was appointed by the Roxbury school principal to her children’s school crisis response team, a volunteer position. She has been an active member at St. Therese RC Church in Succasunna for the last 31 years, attending church every Sunday with her family. Kristen currently resides with her husband of 10 years and two children. Kristen enjoys volunteering in the many activities in which her children participate, including Girls Scouts of America, CCD, coaching little league baseball and many other activities at her children’s school.

7. In or around August of 2022, Christina and Kristen became aware of three books that were in the Roxbury Public School library which is used by students as young as age 13.

8. Subsequently, Christina and Kristen learned that the books, “This Book is Gay,” “Lawn Boy,” “Gender Queer,” “Fun House,” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” were in the library.

8

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 9 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
9. Christina and Kristen contacted Roxbury School Superintendent, Dr. Radulic, to advise her of the presence of these books as well as the explicitly sexually explicit illustrations in said books.

10. Dr. Radulic advised Defendants to contact the school librarian, Plaintiff Roxana Caivano, to raise their concerns.

11. On August 29th 2022, Dr. Loretta Radulic emailed Roxana Caivano explicitly requesting her to remove the books. “......I’m sure Dominick already shared with you that we will temporarily pull the books off the shelf and ask the parent to complete a ‘challenge ’form for review.”

12. On August 29, 2022, Roxana Caivano emailed Dr. Radulic back saying, “I thought we said this morning that I would respond to the parent with the draft I shared and add that I would put the books behind the desk and give them out upon request. I thought we were going to wait and see if this would appease her before we suggested the challenge form.”

13. Dr. Loretta Radulic emailed Caivano back and wrote, “Upon review with Dominick and Chuck and taking a look at the books, our directed [sic] changed a bit.”

14. Jonathan Evison, the author of Lawn Boy told the Washington Post that he “never meant for his book to be placed in school libraries.”

15. Jonathan Evison further told the Washington Post that Lawn Boy is “meant for adults.”

16. Jonathan Evison then added, “If schools want to offer the text, he said, they should restrict access to older students.”

17. On August 31, 2022, Defendant, Christina Balestriere, emailed Roxana Caivano, with her concerns that these books were available to all ages.

9

MRS-L-000485-23 058/0321/2023 26:4228:5457 PM Pg 10 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231262739781550
 
18. In response, on September 9, 2022, Roxana Caivano responded and confirmed that all three books are in fact in the Roxbury High School Public Library. She explicitly stated, “...yes, I have read them all myself.”

19. Roxana Caivano sends twitter messages under the Twitter handle, “Roxbury Media” using @roxburymedia.

20. On September 19, 2022, Roxana Caivano sent a tweet out explicitly recommending that readers read five books, including the three previously identified: “This Book is Gay,” “Lawn Boy,” “Gender Queer,” “Fun House,” and “All Boys Aren’t Blue.”



21. The purpose of display of books in a library is to draw attention to books and suggest they be read.

22. On or before September 19, 2022, Roxana Caivano created an “end cap” display for the library to promote and encourage children to read these 5 books and others.

23. This new library display from Roxana Caivano included other books, such as “Let’s Talk About It.”

10

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 11 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
24. Let’s Talk About It includes diagrams showing the following, labeled “Things to Try:”



25. Through the Twitter post and the library display, Roxana Caivano encouraged children as young as age 13 to read Let’s Talk About It, and thus, encouraged children as young as 13 to “have an assload of fun with a healthy helping of lube.”

26. Through the Twitter post and the library display, Roxana Caivano encouraged children as young as age 13 to read This Book Is Gay, and thus, encouraged children as young as 13 to learn how to access “Sex Apps” including Grindr.

11

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 12 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 



27. According to the Grindr terms of service, the app prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from accessing, directly or indirectly, viewing, downloading, or otherwise using Grindr services.

28. While the Grindr app is specifically identified in This Book is Gay, upon information and belief, the terms of service for all other sex apps prohibit use by minors.

29. Also, by encouraging children as young as 13 to read This Boy is Gay, Roxana Caivano encouraged them to learn such terms as:



30. Through the Twitter post and the library display, Roxana Caivano encouraged children as young as age 13 to read “Gender Queer.”

31. Amazon.com lists Gender Queer as appropriate for ages “18 years and up.”

12

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 13 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
32. Gender Queer includes illustrations where the under-age narrator fantasized about an adult man pulling the penis of a child as the child pulls the adult male to him.



33. Gender Queer also includes illustrations of a librarian “sexting” or sending and receiving sexual messages in a public library.



13

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 14 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 


34. As depicted in the illustration promoted by Roxana Caivano to children as young as 13, the librarian receives a message “I can’t wait to get your cock in my mouth—I’m going to give you the blow job of your life.”

35. Another illustration from the Gender Queer book promoted by Roxana Caivano to children as young as 13 depicts the acts from the librarian’s sexting from the prior panel.




14

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 15 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
36. Another of the books promoted by Roxana Caivano to children as young as 13 was Lawn Boy, which depicts various set acts involving children as young as ten:

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said. ...“What if I told you I sucked it?” ...“I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s dick in my mouth.”
...
“All I could think about while he was chatting me up over the rim of his cappuccino was his little salamander between my fourth-grade fingers, rapidly engorging with blood.”

37. In response, Christina and Kristen spoke at the Roxbury Board of Education meetings on September 19, 2022 where Kristen, a licensed clinical social worker, with a specialization in children and families from Fordham University, referenced legal prohibitions against displaying certain materials to children.

38. Kristen cited N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4B(5)(B). “Endangering the Welfare of a Child” which states that it is unlawful to knowingly view or possess any media, including video games, that depict a child engaged in a sexual act. The law applies to simulations and actual acts. It also states that exposing a minor to sexual activity in a manner that may debauch or impair his or her morals is a third-degree offense that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison. If the act is committed by a parent or by one who has authority over a child, the crime escalates into a second- degree offense.

39. Christina and/or Kristen attended the subsequent Board of Education meetings to repeatedly ask the school board to remove these sexually explicit materials from the library.

40. Roxana Caivano has refused to stop promoting those books, containing the passages outlined above, to children as young as 13, and continues to do so to this day.

15

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 16 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
41. As recently as May 19, 2023, she widely disseminated an email trying to rally
people to come to the May 23, 2023 Roxbury School Board meeting to “ show up in support so we can silence them” referring to Christina and Kristen.

42. At the School Board Meeting, after triumphantly raising her arms, Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano walked down the aisle yelling at parents and pointing at them, including Christina and Kristen.



43. Roxana Caivano even concluded by hitting the sign of a seated person exercising their First Amendment Rights to petition the government for redress.




Defamatory Statements

16

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 17 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
February 1, 2023 Posting

44. On February 1, 2023, Third-Party defendant Anthony “Tony” Caivano posted a message in a Facebook chat stating that his wife Roxana Caivano “has had multiple book challenges this year from a posse of book burners,” referring to Christina and Kristen.

45. The message was on a chat that was shared with multiple recipients from the conversation and was seen and commented on by others.

46. Anthony Caivano further stated, “We are going to defeat this reactionary bullshit.”

47. Anthony Caivano made those statements knowingly referring to Christina and Kristen.

48. Anthony Caivano made those statements with the intention that a reasonable person would understand them to refer to Christina and Kristen.

49. According to the United States Holocaust Museum(1):
Book burning has a long and dark history.
Book burning refers to the ritual destruction by fire of books or other written materials. Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question.
The burning of books under the Nazi regime on May 10, 1933, is perhaps the most famous book burning in history.

50. The term “book burners” as used by Anthony Caivano to refer to Christina and Kristen was a reference to the practice from Nazi Germany of burning books:
____________________
(1) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/book-burning

17

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 18 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 



51. By referring to Christina and Kristen as “Book Burners,” Anthony Caivano intended for the readers of his message to associate Christina and Kristen with Nazis.

52. Anthony Caivano made these statements with the intention that a reasonable person would understand them to refer to Christina and Kristen.

53. Anthony Caivano made the statements about Christina and Kristen with knowledge that they were not Nazis or with reckless disregard for the truth that they were not Nazis.

February 1, 2023 Second Posting

54. On February 1, 2023, Roxana Caivano referred to parents who question these books as “fascists” on Tony Caivano’s public Facebook page.

55. Roxana Caivano made those statements knowingly referring to Christina and Kristen.

56. Roxana Caivano made those statements with the intention that a reasonable person would understand them to refer to Christina and Kristen.

57. By calling Christina and Kristen Book Burners and Fascists in a single chat, Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano worked together toward a single goal of having the readers identify Christina and Kristen as Nazis.

April 27, 2023 Interview

58. In a televised interview with ABC news on April 27, 2023, Roxana Caivano stated that the
parents she is suing, referring to Christina and Kristen, “called me a pornographer.”

18

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 19 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
59. Roxana Caivano knew that the statement that Christina and Kristen called her “a pornographer” was false, or with a reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.

60. Roxana Caivano knew that the April 27, 2023 interview would be broadcast, intended for it to be broadcast, and it was broadcast on television.

61. It also remains on the ABC7NY.com website as a streaming video clip today.

April 27, 2023 Postings

62. On April 27, 2023, in the Tap Into Roxbury public comments section, Anthony Caivano wrote “...no one has a right to call any librarian a criminal, a groomer or a pornographer, which is precisely what the Roxbury crew did to Roxana.”

63. Anthony Caivano made his statements knowing, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen did not call Roxana Caivano a “criminal.”

64. Anthony Caivano made his statements knowing, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen did not call Roxana Caivano a “pornographer.”

65. Anthony Caivano made his statements knowing, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen did not call Roxana Caivano a “groomer.”

May 9, 2023 Interview

66. Roxana Caivano was interviewed for an article posted on NJ 101.5.

67. Roxana Caivano stated that Christina and Kristen objected to the books described above
“because of its LGBTQ content.”

68. Roxana Caivano knew, or had a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen objected to the books based on their sexual content, not because of the LGBTQ content.

19

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 20 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
May 25, 2023 NJ Spotlight News Q&A

69. Roxana Caivano was interviewed for the NJ Spotlight News Q&A article on or about May 24, 2023.

70. In the article posted at https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/05/q-a-roxana-russo- caivano-librarian-in-nj-book-ban-fight/, Roxana Caivano falsely stated that she was called vile names by members of the Roxbury community and that she has sued the group of parents.

71. Roxana Caivano made that statement knowing it would be publicized.

72. Roxana Caivano knew, or had a reckless disregard for the truth, that Christina and Kristen
did not call her “vile names.”

73. Roxana Caivano made that statement intending for others to understand it to be referring to Christina and Kristen.

74. It was reasonable for people reading the NJ Spotlight News online article to believe the Roxana Caivano was referring to Christina and Kristen.

75. Collectively the February 1, 2023 Posting, February 1, 2023 Second Posting, April 27, 2023 Interview, April 27, 2023 Postings, May 9, 2023 Interview, and May 25, 2023 NJ Spotlight News Q&A are referred to hereinafter as the Defamatory Statements.

FIRST COUNT

(Libel and Defamation)

76. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their allegations in the prior paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.

77. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements as alleged facts regarding Christina and Kristen.

78. The Defamatory Statements were published to third persons orally and in writing.

20

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 21 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
79. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements with negligent disregard for the truth of the statements.

80. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements with careless disregard for the truth of the statements.

81. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements.

82. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements intentionally knowing the statements were untrue.

83. Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano made the Defamatory Statements intending to cause harm to Christina and Kristen.

84. As a result, Christina and Kristen suffered harm to their reputation, standing, professional and personal capacity, and have been cast in a false light.

85. Kristen has had clients cancel her services as a result of the defamatory statements from Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano.

86. The Defamatory Statements were defamatory per se.

87. As a result, Christina and Kristen have been damaged.

     WHEREFORE, Christina and Kristen demand judgment against Roxana Caivano and
Anthony Caivano, individually, jointly, and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and costs of suit.

SECOND COUNT

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

88. Christina and Kristen repeat and reallege their allegations in the prior paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.

21

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 22 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
89. As a direct and proximate result of the Defamatory Statements, Christina and Kristen suffered and continued to suffer emotional distress.

90. As a result, Christina and Kristen suffered harm to their reputation, standing, professional and personal capacity, and have been cast in a false light.

91. Kristen has had clients cancel her services as a result of the defamatory statements from Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano.

92. As a result, Christina and Kristen were damaged.

     WHEREFORE, Christina and Kristen demand judgment against Roxana Caivano and Anthony Caivano, individually, jointly, and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and costs of 
suit.

DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4:17-1, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Counter-Claimants Christina Balestriere and Kristen Cobo serve the following requests for answers to interrogatories with this pleading. Responses are due within the time calculated in Rule 4:17-4(b), 60 days after service of the summons and complaint:

1 Identify the “vile names” that you contend that Christina and Kristen called you and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

2 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen are “book burners.” 

22

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 23 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
3 Identify all instances when Christina and/or Kristen burned books and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. The date and time of the book burning;

     b. The location of the book burning;

     c. All persons who were present when Christina and/or Kristen burned books.

     d. Identify any and all photographs, videos, or other media depictions of Christina and/or Kristen burning books.

4 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen objected to the
books identified in the Counter-Claim and Third-Party Complaint “because of its LGBTQ content.”

5 For each for each alleged instance where Christina and Kristen objected because of the book’s LGBTQ content, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

6 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen called Roxana a “pornographer” and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

7 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen called Roxana a “criminal” and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

23

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 24 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

8 Set forth all facts to support the statement that Christina and Kristen called Roxana a “groomer” and for each alleged occasion, set forth:

     a. Whether the statement was made in print or orally;

     b. The date and time of the utterance;

     c. The location of the utterance;

     d. All persons who were present when the statement was made or who heard the statement.

     e. If the statement was written, where the statement was printed and the location thereof.

9 Identify and set forth the factual basis for your assertion in paragraph 3 of the Second Count of the Complaint that Christina and Kristen engaged in a civil conspiracy to jointly attack the plaintiff’s reputation, slander, and libel the plaintiff, defame the plaintiff, deprive the plaintiff of her constitutionally guaranteed rights.
    
10 Set forth the ways in which Roxana’s relationship with her employer has been impacted as set forth in paragraph 3 of the Second Count of the Complaint.

11 Set forth the emotional distress that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

12 Set forth the physical manifestations of the emotional distress that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

13 IdentifyallmedicalproviderswhoPlaintiffhastreatedwithasaresultoftheemotional distress that Plaintiff alleges to have suffered as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

     a. For each provider identified in the answers to the prior interrogatory, execute a HIPAA authorization for the release of medical records.

24

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 25 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
14 Set forth all damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff to her reputation as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

15 Set forth all damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff to her personal reputation as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

16 Set forth all damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff to her employment as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

17 Set forth all facts to support the allegations in the Fifth Count of the Complaint that Christina and Kristen engaged in “purposeful malicious conduct” to interfere with Plaintiff’s employment.

18 Set forth all facts to support the allegations in the Fifth Count of the Complaint that Christina and Kristen engaged in “purposeful malicious conduct” to interfere with Plaintiff’s prospective economic opportunities.

19 Identify any and all prospective economic opportunities that Plaintiff has lost as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

20 Identify any and all injuries that have been inflicted on Plaintiff as a result of the conduct alleged in her complaint to have been committed by Christina and Kristen.

21 Identify all persons with relevant knowledge of the claims in the Complaint, or your affirmative defenses raised in response to this Counter-Claim and/or Third-Party Complaint and for each person identified, set forth:

     a. Their address and telephone number;

     b. The basis of their knowledge;

     c. A description of their knowledge.


DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Rule 4:18-1, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Counter-Claimants
Christina Balestriere and Kristen Cobo serve the following requests for the production of documents with this Complaint. Responses are due within the time calculated in Rule 4:18- 1(b)(2), 50 days after service of this pleading:

25

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 26 of 26 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
     1 Produce a copy of all documents sufficient to identify when the book “Gender Queer” was purchased for the Roxbury Library.

     2 Produce a copy of all documents identified or referenced in your answers to interrogatories.

Dated: May 31, 2023
COYLE & MORRIS LLP
s/ John D. Coyle
John D. Coyle
Attorney ID: 029632001
201 Littleton Road, Suite 210 
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
(973) 370-3519 
jcoyle@coylemorris.com 
Attorneys for Defendants/Counter- 
Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs 
Christina Scarbrough Balestriere 
and Kristen Cobo

26

MRS-L-000485-23 058/3021/2023 26:4282:5475 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20231226379871550
 
Civil Case Information Statement

Case Details: MORRIS | Civil Part Docket# L-000485-23

Case Caption: RUSSO CAIVANO ROXANA VS SERETIS THOMAS
Case Initiation Date: 03/17/2023
Attorney Name: RONALD T NAGLE
Firm Name: RONALD T. NAGLE, PC 
Address: 52 SOUTH STREET 
MORRISTOWN NJ 079600000 
Phone: 9732676780
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : BALESTRIERE, CHRISTINA, S 
Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company
(if known): None
Case Type: DEFAMATION
Document Type: Answer W/Jury Demand
Jury Demand: YES - 6 JURORS
Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Related cases pending: NO
If yes, list docket numbers:
Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? NO
Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: ROXANA M RUSSO CAIVANO? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: CHRISTINA S BALESTRIERE? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: KRISTEN COBO? NO
 
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO
If yes, is that relationship:
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition:

Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO 
If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:

Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language:

Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO

I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)

MRS--L--000485--23 08//02//20232::48::4379PM Pg 2 of 2 TTrarnasnsIDID: L: CLCVV20220322323293895855

08/02/2023 
Dated

/s/ RONALD T NAGLE
Signed


URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org