PEN America Fakes School Book Bans in The Hill; Pico-Violative Material May Be Removed Legally

PEN America fakes school book bans and almost everything else in The Hill.  

Below I republish the entire opinion piece, then intercalate what's really going on.

• "False Stories of 'P[*]rn in Schools' are Decoys for Book Bans," opinion editorial by Kasey Meehan (director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program), The Hill, 2 May 2026, hyperlinks omitted.

In 2021, alarming accusations of "p[*]rn in schools" — sounded by the conservative Florida Citizens Alliance in its 2021 P[*]rn in Schools Report and later championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — spread like lice in a classroom. 

[FALSE - "Lice in a classroom" already sounds disgusting, sounds like a real horror show.  It's a manipulative statement to make, and here it is in sentence one.  It puts the agitation in agitprop. "Alarming accusations" is more agitprop.  REALITY - Inappropriate books are numerous in school libraries as a direct result of over 60 years of effort by American Library Association to eliminate parental rights and eliminate the application of various laws and US Supreme Court cases like Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), that allows schools to immediately remove pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable school books, often referenced in short as "p[*]rn in schools." The "alarming accusations" are simply parents who have become aware of Pico-violative material in school libraries and who seek redress of their government under constitutional state and federal law to have such material removed per the law.] 

The so-called p[*]rn targeted by the report was not AI deepfakes or internet sites, but books for children and teenagers. Shockingly, its false message took hold far and wide. 

[FALSE - "The so-called p[*]rn" is a manipulative tactic to use language to sway how people think.  More agitprop.  The "p[*]rn" is actually Pico-violative material and may be constitutionally removed immediately from shelves.  So it's not "so-called."  It's an actual problem reworded as "so-called p[*]rn" to give the impression that there's no p[*]rn in school libraries, and there isn't, but there definitely is Pico-violative material and it can be and has been removed from schools.  PEN America wants to put an end to that by manipulating how people think about the issue to the point where no one thinks Pico applies anymore.  So it's a cleverly worded phrase that sounds good but leaves out the truth.  Again, agitprop.  The truth is Pico-violative material is legally removable under the law.  So it's not "so-called p[*]rn," it's material that violates the Pico case, and it may be removed immediately from public schools.  If PEN America's agitprop is accepted as truth, not a single book will ever be removed from any school library.  We know that is false.  So we are not going to fall for PEN America's agitprop.]

Now, Congress is seizing on that fear with the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act [HR 7661], which would withhold federal money to schools and libraries over books and materials with what its sponsors determine to be "s[*]xually oriented material".  

[FALSE - "seizing on that fear."  After PEN America set up the straw man, namely, p[*]rn in schools, it then attacks the straw man and calls opposition to it "fear."  More agitprop.  But at least PEN America didn't echo the American Library Association lie that the Act is called the "Book Banning Bill."  The agitprop continues in the same sentence.  "What its sponsors determine to be 's[*]xually oriented material'" is another way to say trust the school librarians who say anything goes, there are no limits, rather than an entire legislature that, stung by American Library Association rules applied by school libraries that have filled school libraries with Pico-violative material, have decided to explicitly oppose "s[*]xually oriented material."  It's not a "fear" of inappropriate material in school libraries, it's a reality, and it's a reality that groups like PEN America want to lie to the public and to legislators (hence the opinion piece in The Hill) that no books may ever be removed from school libraries

—whatever ALA from Chicago says goes—in every school nationwide.  Something ever more subtle is a lie about HR 7661 that might withhold federal money over "s[*]xually oriented material" and how it's bad to withhold money for learning  First, there's a major case ALA lost on that very point, but in the context of internet filtering in libraries: United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  The Court plurality found the government has the right to withhold funding if the libraries did not use internet filtering against inappropriate material.  The Court found, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Yes, it's common sense, but PEN American wants people to get over any concern for any common sense so as to mislead people into allowing children access to inappropriate material—on the public dime, no less.  Second, Illinois Public Act 103-0100, drafted by ALA and called the "Right to Read Act" or the "Freedom to Read Act," explicitly adopts ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," and explicitly takes away state grants if school don't adopt ALA's aspirational creed by name or by substance.  So denying money to drive compliance with ALA diktat is okay when it ensures school kids continue to get "s[*]xually oriented material."  Third, ALA redefined what's "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors" as "diverse materials ... about inclusion."  So when PEN America speaks about it being wrong to deny funding for "s[*]xually oriented material," they essentially define it as "diverse materials ... about inclusion."  All together, PEN America is misleading people to thing it's wrong to do what the US Supreme Court already allowed and what even ALA itself already allowed, only in the opposite sense where state funding was withheld if schools did not allow children access to inappropriate material.  It's another ALA double standard.]

Source: youtu.be/XvD_gg1fQXI

In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book that contains p[*]rnography. Why? Because distributing p[*]rnography in schools is a felony that can carry a prison term. Of the thousands we've seen removed from classrooms and school libraries supposedly for p[*]rn, none meet the legal or even informal definition.  

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place.  It completely misses the mark, intentionally so, with the intention to mislead people into allowing school librarians to continue exposing school children to harm formulated over 60 years ago by Chicago's American Library Association.  By the way, the last USA book ban was in 1963.  So "In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book" is inadvertently truthful.  But now I have a primary source to say in five years of checking, PEN America hasn't found a single book ban.  Welcome to reality, PEN America!  Further, another straw man argument: "none meet the legal or even informal definition" of p[*]rnography.  That's irrelevant.  Pico did not address p[*]rnography.  The issue is pervasively vulgarity and educational unsuitability.  P[*]rnography makes a great straw man argument though.]

We have found that, overwhelmingly, books wrongly identified as p[*]rn represent gay and transgender characters and themes, depict race, racism, s[*]xual experiences that do not constitute p[*]rn and themes that may be challenging, even uncomfortable, like gun violence and s[*]xual abuse.  

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place.  In reality, such books listed comprise Pico-violative material and as such may be removed immediately from public school libraries.  The issue is whether the material violates Pico.  PEN America intentionally confuses people by adding in factors that are entirely irrelevant to a Pico determination.  The Pico Court did not rule that inappropriate material may be removed unless it deals with s[*]xuality, racism, gun violence, and s[*]x abuse, then it stays in the library no matter what.  That was not the Court's decision.  But it's what PEN America wants people to think.  More agitprop.]

Book banners promise that removing these books will keep kids safe from supposedly scary, criminal and harmful stories. 

[FALSE - "Book banners."  They just said they didn't see any book bans after checking for five years.  Now the parents who complain are smeared as "book banners."  Not a single parent anywhere ever banned any school book.  They have the legal right to ask a school board for redress of a concern, and it's the school board that may apply the Pico case, never any parent.  So to call all parents "book banners" it just more agitprop from PEN America.] 

We disagree. Books and storytelling are an essential part of public education. 

[TRUE in principle, FALSE in application - but Pico-violative material has been legally excluded by the US Supreme Court from being "an essential part of public education."  Indeed, the Pico case allows for various works to be removed and removed immediately.  After all, it's common sense.  Calling all parents "book banners" is an effort at language contamination intended to mislead people into simple ignoring the Pico case and substituting instead the judgment of Chicago's American Library Association.  Now who do you trust more, the US Supreme Court or the Chicago American Library Association?] 

We oppose book bans and advocate for access to diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences or introduce new worlds, identities, histories and perspectives.  

[FALSE - This is the most massive lie so far because, while it sounds legitimate, it is based on unseen material PEN America doesn't disclose, and intentionally so.  Access to "diverse reading materials" sounds legitimate, and even compelling.  But what PEN America doesn't disclose is that the definition of "diverse reading materials" means something completely different than what anyone thinks.  It's a huge deception.  Pure agitprop.  PEN America did not disclose that American Library Association changed the definition of "diverse reading material" to explicitly include "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors."  The then top lawyer for American Library Association provided training to librarians that changed the meaning of "diverse reading materials" to "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors."  In full, here is what was said by the ALA lawyer during the training, 

But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody's right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library. 

So when PEN America says they "advocate for access to diverse reading materials," which sounds legitimate, what is meant is, "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, ... promote[d] ... as diverse materials."  That's what PEN America is deceptively hiding.  All in an effort to convince people to expose more school children to more "diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences" that has been reframed to that from "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors."  It's truly disgusting, and here it is in The Hill to attempt to fool the Washington, DC, legislators—so more kids will be harmed by ALA.]

Laney Hawes, co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project, once said: "Fear is effective." Nothing is truer in the book banning crisis. A fear of p[*]rnography morphed into a fear of diversity, equity and inclusion, of educators and librarians supposedly indoctrinating kids and ultimately, of transgender and genderqueer kids themselves. Fear has led to laws, policies and executive orders about material in schools being "harmful to minors" or "s[*]xually explicit."  

[FALSE - Laney Hawes is not the co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project.  That group was created by American Library Association as a local ALA affiliate, built in such as way as to give the appearance of being a local advocacy group.  Here's PEN America repeating the lie.  The reality is ALA has set up hundreds of local ALA groups nationwide, all of them called "grassroots," while none are grassroots and all were ALA created.  It's bragged about by ALA leadership.  It's stated in 990 tax forms submitted to the federal government.  Sometimes the groups themselves inadvertently acknowledge ALA's involvement publicly.  Yet here's PEN America talking about it like it's some grassroots group.  It isn't.  It's a ALA-created local ALA office.  And look, she spread the ALA message: "fear is effective."  Well lying is effective too, Laney, and you're lying.  In reality, school libraries are suffused with inappropriate material that could be removed under Pico.  You and PEN America want to keep it all on the shelves.  Then PEN America goes on with the "book banning crisis."  There's no book banning, and the "crisis" is that parents have finally woken up to the Pico-violative material filling school libraries, and American Library Association is trying to stifle that, and PEN America partnered with ALA to mislead people about Pico in Unite Against Book Bans.  There's your crisis.  It's that the people harming the kids are finally getting noticed by the parents and thereby the legislators.  That's the crisis.  So it's not a crisis, it's a healthy reaction by parents after they finally became aware of the harm being done intentionally to school children by ALA-trained school librarians.  The rest of the paragraph talks about the "fear of p[*]rnography."  So right there two lies are mashed together into one giant lie.  The remainder of that paragraph expands on that giant lie.]

My organization has documented how vague language leads to overcompliance and sweeping restrictions on all types of books. If this new bill in Congress passes, will schools be afraid to buy Maurice Sendak's children's classic, "In the Night Kitchen" because of young Mikey's nudity? Or Michael Hall's "Red: A Crayon's Story," with its messages about acceptance often applying to gender and s[*]xuality?  

[FALSE - here PEN America adopts the research of American Library Association that proves if you talk about innocuous books instead of the ones really at issue, then you can fool a lot more people.  The Sendak case, for example, is innocuous and involves librarians, not parents, who drew underpants on a child character.  It's blown up by ALA and PEN America into a giant cause célèbre.  Hence Kasey Meehan used it in her op ed for the politicians to see and blindly believe.  It's a little nothing case committed by a few librarians.  But the books about teaching kids how to use Grindr to meet a man for a night, that's not the book PEN America used as an example.  It's pure manipulation, and it's based on focus group testing by ALA to maximize the indoctrination and s[*]xualization of children.  It's agitprop.]

And although the bill includes exemptions for a list of "classics" identified by Compass Classroom — developed as homeschooling teaching tool for a Bible-based perspective — modern classics like Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner" and Toni Morrison's 'The Bluest Eye" are not exempted. These books would likely land on a no-purchase list due to depictions of s[*]xual violence. Most explicitly, the bill would block the purchase of books about transgender people, censoring titles like Ami Polonsky's tale about a transgender 12-year-old, "Gracefully Grayson."  

[FALSE - "modern classics."  First, ALA focus group tested talking about "classics" as more effective to move people than being honest about reality.  Second, there is no "modern classics" exemption to Pico-violative material.  If it violates Pico, it's out, even if it's a "modern classic."  And "transgender people"?  That's a ridiculous lie.  There's no such thing as a transgender person.  No person has ever been nor will ever be transgender.  It's a harmful lie, harmful to children most particularly, and recent medical studies have quantified the harm, and it's quite significant.  Why does PEN America promote harmful material to children?  Why is it trying to mislead Washington DC legislators into allowing this harm.  It's Pico-violative material.  It could definitely be removed, and immediately.  There's no such thing as "a transgender 12-year-old."  Everyone knows that, even PEN America.  But it's useful as an excuse to promote more harm to more children.  That's what PEN America is doing writing this opinion piece in The Hill in the first place.]

This bill would mean school districts across the country that reject book censorship would be thrust into this maelstrom. Just this week, over 100 organizations urged people who care about education, books, young readers and libraries to call their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote against this bill.  

[FALSE - it's just more manipulative language based on the lies and merged lies from above.  This time the word "censorship" is thrown into the mix.  Again, the meaning of the word has been intentionally changed by American Library Association so that it no longer means censorship.  And the "over 100 organizations"?  All are ALA, created by ALA, or partners with ALA.]

Misleading tales of p[*]rnography and dangerous books, librarians and teachers are false narratives that have been woven in community after community, affecting the quality of education kids receive. But the more you read, the more you are able to spot an unreliable narrator claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there. That narrator presents contradictory and inconsistent messages, where logic is absent and truth is hidden.  

[FALSE - same lies as above, but look at "woven in community after community."  ALA creates hundreds of local ALA offices nationwide and calls them "grassroots," while in an act of pure projection, "false narratives" have been "woven in community after community."  So now agitprop works?  "Logic is absent and truth is hidden"?  Seriously?  PEN America (and ALA) never discloses the logic and always hides the truth.  For example, despite my repeated attempts, PEN America's leader refused to debate me on these issues.  The invitation is still open, Kasey Meehan.  Indeed, you will never see anyone at PEN America ever engage in debate with a parent like me, precisely because the truth is hidden, and PEN America (and ALA) intend to keep it that way.  So while parents get the blame from PEN America as "unreliable narrator[s] claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there," the reality is it's PEN America that's unreliable and continues to hide the truth by refusing to debate the issue publicly.  By the way, as to hiding the truth, librarians are trained to hide the truth.  It happens frequently, but just days ago Kelly Jensen published this about using subversion or direct activism to promote potentially harmful material to children—and librarians should no longer be considered "trusted experts":  

Among the suggestions below, you’ll have easy-to-implement and manage ideas, alongside some that will likely need to be done more subversively. Maybe subversively isn’t the word, honestly. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is that some of these suggestions may bring direct activism into the picture in a way that has not always been common in public libraries.

Speaking of Kelly Jensen, let's get back to "unreliable narrators."]

Unreliable narrators like DeSantis conceal a larger agenda to weaken public schools in favor of vouchers and private school options as outlined in Project 2025. Others, such as outraged parents who see book excerpts taken out of context on Facebook, campaign to remove them, even though there is no evidence at all that reading books causes harm.  

[FALSE - the "unreliable narrator" lie is now so big that PEN America applies it to the Governor of Florida.  Essentially, anyone who disagrees with indoctrinating and s[*]xualizing school children right in their schools using taxpayer money is labeled an "unreliable narrator" by one of the very groups seeking to maintain its grip on people so they continue to harm children as PEN America wants but can't force them to do, unless they first lie to the people so they think what PEN America wants them to think.  Again, agitprop.  Again, to harm kids.]

Meanwhile, students, parents, teachers, librarians and authors resist the efforts to remove books from schools. These more reliable narrators spread the message that books aren't harmful, and the opposite is true. Studies have demonstrated that reading, particularly reading for fun, helps advance critical thinking skills, academic achievement and empathy, and reduces stress.  

[FALSE - all those people were all activated by American Library Association into doing what ALA wants and has been working to achieve for over 60 years.  PEN America wants people to think the "book banners" are in the minority.  The reality is the people seeking to keep children from Pico-violative material are the vast majority, and the minority is the Chicago ALA and all the people it has already convinced into harming school children.  We heard about "unreliable narrators" before.  Now we hear about "reliable narrators" who somehow agree Pico-violative material is just fine for kids, we don't need Pico, we don't need obscenity laws, we don't need common sense and community standards, we just need kids to read anything approved by ALA—so anything, anything at all, even the books about sneaking behind your parents back to score a man for a night.  And "empathy."  Don't get me started.  As if PEN America trying to harm more children cares a whit about empathy, another word that has been given a new definition that has nothing to do with empathy.  

And "reliable narrators"?  American Library Association published last year a movie call "The Librarians."  It has huge even laughable lies in it.  It quotes Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example, talking about don't join the book burners.  It leaves off what he says after a comma where he essentially said matters of decency should be the only form of censorship.  No kidding!  The laughable deception is when a librarian shown only in the shadows for dramatic effect is finally revealed—in the last 30 seconds of the movie before the credits roll.  You immediately feel you've been had.  Even the promo poster features the hidden character gimmick.  So "reliable narrators" is what they want you to think, not the actual reality that is quite the opposite.  In full disclosure, I appear uncredited in the film.]

A colleague and I previously wrote how learning about s[*]x in a romantasy novel or through s[*]x education doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous. It instead offers information about consent and healthy relationships, keeping young people safer.  

[FALSE - PEN America just lied to us over and over again, then merged the lies and made them bigger.  Can we definitely trust PEN America that kids reading Pico-violative material "doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous"?  No.  If PEN America is saying that, the exact opposite is true.  There's no "consent and healthy relationships" exception to Pico.  "Keeping young people safer" is another lie that sounds good, but not when the true meaning of the phrase to PEN America is revealed.  But don't worry, PEN America doesn't do interviews with anyone who potentially might disagree.]

Students want the right to read freely, and most parents want that for their kids too. It's also okay to be offended, shocked or scared by a book. But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives.  

[FALSE - that last sentence just completely eliminates Pico.  Eliminates obscenity laws.  Eliminates community standards.  Eliminates common sense.  Everyone everywhere protects children from harm—except school librarians.  Now why is that?  "But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives."  Hey, Kasey Meehan, ever heard of Pico?  Did you know it has resulted in the removal from schools of many books?  Better yet, will you debate me publicly? 

And "most parents want that for their kids too" is an ALA-polled lie.  When Harris or Rasmussen runs a poll, then most parents oppose explicit books in public schools.  But ALA asked the question in a why that gave them the desired answer, and here's PEN America reeling it off like it's the truth.]

Reading for fun among children declined by 40 percent over the last two decades. Now more than ever, we need more readers, especially those who can spot an unreliable narrator.  

[FALSE - And this lie is a wow.  She is now implying that children should be able to determine when their own parents are "unreliable narrators" so they should be ignored.  Eliminating parental rights is the 60 plus year goal of ALA.  Now it is also the goal of PEN America, and there it is in black and white.  I'm certain the school board in Escambia County, FL, that PEN America is suing will be interested in learning this.]

Kasey Meehan is director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program.

By the way, the readers of The Hill aren't buying it:

Also, see my own opinion in The Hill:

• "Shame on PBS: 'The Librarians' is One Big Lie to Parents and Kids," opinion editorial by Dan Kleinman, The Hill, 2 February 2026.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/pen-america-lies-about-school-books.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Rutherford County Library System Being Bullied by American Library Association Mirrors

Rutherford County Library System is about to be bullied by the American Library Association and other major national groups that are part of ALA's Unite Against Book Bans, including American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship.  

On March 16, 2026, the library board voted 8-3 to move books, mainly about so-called trans children, to the adult section, likely because many now believe medical transitions for children involve horrible mutilation with life worsening and shortening consequences, let alone sterilization. The library director Luanne James refused to comply with the board's directive.  Now ALA is bringing its full weight to bear on Rutherford County as it does in hundreds of communities nationwide.  This article will disclose some of the ways in the present case.

To start, the ALA has created a local group called "Rutherford County Library Alliance."  See:

• "Tennessee Walking Horses - TN Parents Astroturfed by ALA Use High Stepping Lies to Overwhelm Rutherford County Library Board; It's an ALA Pattern Nationwide," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 December 2023.
• "ALA Details Bribes to Convince Governments to Sell Out Children," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 12 March 2024.
• "so we reached out to a, we reached out to a group and formed the alliance" https://www.youtube.com/live/Zisf2MWKcLk?t=87
• $28,999 - "Created and supported 18 local library Alliances to conduct public education and outreach about the First Amendment in Libraries, along with research into book bans."

Rutherford County Library Alliance is a bought and paid for astroturf group for ALA.  RCLA even admitted it ("we reached out to a group and formed the alliance").  ALA (via EveryLibrary) 990 filings show its standard operating procedure is to "create and support ... local library Alliances," as shown above.  Yet media treats RCLA as if it is truly local, not an astroturf group created and funded by Chicago's ALA to be the Rutherford County branch of the Chicago ALA.  The Tennessee Freedom to Read Project (TFRP) is another ALA creation, only this one admits to it: "EveryLibrary, the national political action committee for libraries, supports TNFRP's website and digital engagements."

EveryLibrary 990: "create and support ... local library Alliances"

ALA then has its specially awarded librarians write letters in support of the local group and of the library director defying the library board.  One such librarian, Kelly Jensen, who previously trained librarians how to block Christians from book readings in public library meetings rooms, has written an article listing the email of every board member and urging all of her readers to write to the board in support of the library director.  The ALA-astroturfed local group will then be at the next meeting handing out purple shirts (an ALA plan to represent red and blue voters united, which they are not when it comes to harming children in libraries) that are provided by ACLU, and books provided by NCAC.  Someone let me know what books so I can update this post.

Another way ALA is bringing pressure to bear is by doing what it usually does, namely, lying.  Recently Campbell County Public Library in Gillette, Wyoming, had a library board decide to jettison all ALA policy.  Library director Terri Lesley decided to adhere instead to Chicago's ALA diktat instead of the board's new rules.  So she was fired.  She then got help from ALA (though I have no proof for that other than it's obvious given ALA is funding multiple lawsuits nationwide) to sue the library.  Without even mounting a defense, the library settled for the full amount of insurance coverage.

ALA brags everywhere that this is a warning to library boards that library directors will follow ALA diktat, not library board rules.  It sounds that way, right?  Well it's an ALA lie.  You see, ALA in the past argued that legal settlements mean nothing.  Suddenly its library boards better dare not challenge the power of ALA diktat.  ALA argued legal settlements mean nothing when multiple lawsuits by multiple librarians for being s[*]xually harassed by p[*]rn viewers allowing by ALA policy all settled for the limits of the policy.  ALA said they were just settlements to get rid of the case, that no librarians have ever been s[*]xually harassed, and that proving such a thing in court has nearly insurmountable odds.  So when the settlement favors ALA, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  But when the settlement exposes the harm done by ALA to local communities, suddenly the settlements mean nothing and the underlying claims of s[*]xual harassment are "dubious."  So, by ALA presenting half the story, it is effectively lying.

In a nutshell,  ALA is creating then getting its local group to get ALA partners ACLU and NCAC to make a personal appearance at the board meeting to overwhelm the voting public.  And ALA-awarded librarians are writing posts to get its nationwide pressure network to bring its guns to bear on the board.  ALA itself is lying about library directors being fired for refusing to follow board directives as required by law.  In Tennessee, see § 10-3-104 - Powers and duties of library board.

So what will the board do?  Will it follow Tennessee law and stick to protecting local children from material that directly harms them, or will it cave to a massive pressure wave built up by an organization from Chicago that has been working for over 60 years to eliminate parental rights and uses various groups to give the appearance of legitimacy, including ones it created and funded, to give the appearance of local interest in ALA goals?

We shall see.

And naturally, I'll send this in an email to the board, via email addresses I got from a prominent member of ALA's pressure wave.  I'd be curious to find out just how many people showed up or wrote emails in response to the pressure wave.  I can guarantee you local citizens have no such organized action network as ALA has where essentially every entity opposed to the board is ALA, ALA generated, or ALA aligned.  It's like being attacked by multiple mirror images and giving up because you think you're outnumbered.

Let's hope the local Tennessee children win, not the Chicago ALA (ALA), the Chicago ALA (EveryLibrary), the Chicago ALA (RCLA), the Chicago ALA (TFRP), the Chicago ALA (ACLU), the Chicago ALA (NCAC), the Chicago ALA (Luanne James), the Chicago ALA (Kelly Jensen) and the Chicago ALA (media).

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/rutherford-county-library-system.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

IMLS is the Latest Target of American Library Association with Kelly Jensen Smearing It As Doo Doo

Kelly Jensen does doo doo smear on IMLS

Kelly Jensen uses hate and projection to smear IMLS (United States Institute for Museum and Library Services).  IMLS gets smeared like doo doo, because this is one underhanded, disgusting technique ALA uses to push its efforts to indoctrinate children in schools and libraries using the taxpaying public's money to do so.  

Kelly Jensen's doo doo references, themselves a form of projection, start right in the title of her latest IMLS hit job, the first significant word:

"The Ensh*ttification of the Institute of Museum and Library Services Trucks On: What's Happening and What You Can Do; Nearly a Year After the Institute of Museum and Library Services was Dismantled, What's Happening At the Agency? What Can We Do to Help Out?," by Kelly Jensen, Book Riot, 2 March 2026.

Oh look, she censored the word in the title by using an asterisk, but it's spelled out right there in the URL.  So it's okay for kids and URLs but not for Book Riot by Riot New Media:

• https://bookriot.com/the-enshittification-of-the-imls/

In fairness, she did use the word in the text, in one of many efforts to smear IMLS:

"further enshittifying democracy, rather than serving the American citizenry."

And these people are supposedly "trusted experts" for children, set into law by ALA's "Freedom to Read Act" that ALA is spreading across America and the federal government.  

School librarians are not trusted experts.  If anything, they represent the "ensh*ttification" of public education throughout America, and the scatological reference is just more projection.

Trusted expert Kelly Jensen is an awarded hero of American Library Association with a Presidential Commendation from ALA's American Association of School Librarians (AASL).  That means she's a trusted expert for ALA itself.  ALA librarians award each other, like they award books they want kids to read, like Gender Queer.  Awards are given to people and books for the most kids harmed or the best potential to harm kids.  This is sort of like "Library Girl" Kendra Sunderland won multiple awards from the adult entertainment industry.

School librarians generally are not trusted experts for school children, given they are trained no book is ever inappropriate for any child and given the vocal ones are uniformly opposed to America and capitalism, like the one suing me who published on Bluesky, "THE REVOLUTION IS OVERDUE," but I digress.  So many other cases, other librarians, I should write a separate story about it.

Back to Kelly Jensen, here is the doo doo level of her AASL Presidential Commendation arguments against IMLS:

• the perfect encapsulation of how the Trump Vance administration is hellbent on destroying an agency dedicated to sharing and protecting truth, facts, and information
• the regime's obsession with and dedication to AI is about bowing to technocrats and further ensh[*]ttifying democracy, rather than serving the American citizenry
• The Trump Vance regime
• No one in the current regime
• IMLS is an arm of propaganda for the Trump-Vance regime
• The IMLS Freedom Trucks stole over $14,000,000 from U.S. taxpayers, intended to serve public libraries and museums, and funneled it directly into the pockets of the right-wing private corporation PragerU
• the Freedom Trucks, which the regime claims celebrate America’s shared cultural history in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary

Maybe if she keeps saying "regime" often enough it will become the truth?  She's a "trusted expert" after all, with a Presidential Commendation.  She writes "regime" 20 times in her one screed.  Here's more:

• a history and philosophy of whitewashing history
• It is infuriating to see that states with lower literacy levels, where schools have become the most targeted by partisan politics (past and present), where books and texts filled with facts and history have been yanked off the shelves "to protect the kids," and where money is being stolen from public schools to fund the private education of the already-wealthy are the ones getting the "treat" of Freedom Trucks
• These Trucks further lie to some of the most vulnerable about this country’s history and further the propaganda that the regime hopes they’ll continue to swallow down without question

Here's where she calls everyone stupid if they allegedly lack "critical" skills:

• Too many of those who will hop aboard the trucks lack the critical literacy skills (of all kinds) to ask questions.

This gutter level of argument and projection goes on and on for the remainder of the hit piece.  I'll skip it now.

Contrast that writing with real journalism, real reporting, presenting many of the same issues, but without the hate and projection:

"Top Library Advocate: Backing Drag Queen Story Hour Supports Parental Choice," by Susan Crabtree, RCP Staff, RealClear Politics, 3 March 2026.

🚨NEW: American Library Association President Sam Helmick (they/them) Says Backing Drag Queen Happy Hour Supports Parental Choice.

Helmick’s statement comes amid a fierce debate over the rights of parents to opt children out of sexual lessons or material in schools and the… pic.twitter.com/yYCna3fSuh

— Susan Crabtree (@susancrabtree) March 3, 2026

Also, Kelly Jensen takes a victory lap that she supposedly forced IMLS to change its home page.  She writes on Bluesky: 

Yes, indeed, the IMLS home page is back to what it was before they spit out AI slop on it last week. 

Guess what works?  Exposing, amplifying, shaming, and pushing back.

Pure propaganda.  First, IMLS likely corrected things on its own.  Second, Kelly taking a victory lap is a joke.  Last year she wrote an article that had absolutely zero effect on IMLS.  She leaves that out of her fakery.  Last year she wrote "The Latest From IMLS and What You Need to Prepare For Right Now," and all that exposing, amplifying, shaming, and pushing back made no difference.  Though back then she used administration 4 times and no regimes.  Now that she's using 20 regimes, that made the difference.  She's a trusted expert on her own delusions of self worth.

Besides, how good is Kelly as a "trusted expert" on IMLS if she brags about and recommends other librarians block federal government accounts on Bluesky?

"Mom, what did you do on your Friday night?" 

Well, I spent it blocking federal departments and agencies on Bluesky, like in any other normal f[*]cking reality.

I'm looking forward to what the new IMLS will do for America.

How about you?

—

URL of this page: 

 safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/imls-is-latest-target-of-ala.html

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

US Government Exposes 'Book Ban' Hoax; What Parents and School Boards Can Do Next

The United States Department of Education has found the "banned books" claim by the American Library Association [ALA] from Chicago, IL, is a "hoax."

See:

• "U.S. Department of Education Ends Biden’s Book Ban Hoax," by US Department of Education, Government of the United States, 24 January 2025.
• https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax

It has ended the charade, dropping multiple actions against parents.  The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has:

1. "dismissed 11 complaints related to so-called 'book bans.'  The complaints alleged that local school districts' removal of age-inappropriate, s[]xually explicit, or obscene materials from their school libraries created a hostile environment for students"
2. pointing out this is, "a meritless claim premised upon a dubious legal theory."
3. "Effective Jan. 24, 2025, OCR has rescinded all department guidance issued under the theory that a school district’s removal of age-inappropriate books from its libraries may violate civil rights laws."
4. "OCR is also dismissing six additional pending allegations of book banning"
5. "and [OCR] will no longer employ a 'book ban coordinator' to investigate local school districts and parents working to protect students from obscene content."

We learn from this:

1. Claims of book bans from ALA are and have been a hoax 
1. (just as I have been reporting here for decades)
2. Claims of book bans are "meritless" and "premised upon a dubious legal theory" 
1. (one that ALA made up as part of its approximately 60 year efforts to remove parental rights to better indoctrinate children in schools, powered by taxpayer resources and ALA-trained school librarians: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing)
3. Claims of book bans are such a hoax that the federal government has dropped eleven complaints about removal of inappropriate materials from school libraries.
4. Claims of book bans are such a hoax that policy was rescinded where the policy claims hoax book bans violated civil rights laws.
5. Removing inappropriate books from school libraries doesn't violate civil rights laws.
1. (Pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable books may be removed from school libraries, and removed immediately, without the ALA claim that a review committee is needed, the book must stay on the shelves until the process has ended, etc., all made up requirements from Chicago's ALA that made up these rules in the first place.  So if an inappropriate book is in your school library or a classroom library, it may be removed immediately under the law, namely, the Pico case.  Further, all those trans and gender ideology books are educationally unsuitable, so they may be removed en masse immediately.  That's right, anything educationally unsuitable may be removed immediately.  And when librarians cry foul, remind them they have been working for decades to create an imbalance of books where the trans ideology now vastly outnumbers the books they have slowly weeded out, like Shakespeare and other dead white guys, as ALA puts it.)
6. Six allegations of book banning are being dropped because book banning claims are a hoax.
7. A "book banning coordinator" is being fired because book banning in schools is a hoax.

Based on this, what does that mean, what can parents and school boards do next:

1. All existing Freedom to Read Acts, Libraries For All Acts, Right to Read Acts currently in existence that ALA has promoted, which is all of them, are instantly suspect as they have been based on a book ban hoax.  They should be repealed or legally defeated.  It's law based on a hoax and written by the ALA that perpetrated the hoax in the first place.  It's law that directly harms children.
2. All legislation seeking to create Freedom to Read Acts, Libraries For All Acts, Right to Read Acts are based on the book ban hoax, so they should be dropped or otherwise disposed.  "The elimination of federal oversight in these matters shifts the responsibility of determining which books are available in school libraries entirely to local school boards, districts, and parents.  For proponents of the change, this represents a victory for parental rights and local governance.  It allows communities to shape their educational environments based on shared values and priorities without federal intervention." (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/trump-education-department-ends-biden-era-book-ban-hoax-plan-what-it-means-for-school-libraries-across-us/articleshow/117577727.cms). True.  And the ALA's Freedom to Read Acts, Libraries For All Acts, Right to Read Acts are intentionally designed to take those rights away and leave them in the hands of ALA itself via local ALA organizations, like state associations of school librarians.
3. All school librarians promoting opposition to book bans are promoting a hoax and using public funding to do so.  They should be required to stop promoting the hoax.  If they refuse, or if they claim to comply but keep using fugitive pedagogy to keep teaching the hoax, they should be fired and their licenses to teach anywhere revoked.  Sounds harsh but do it to a few and the rest will get the message that the law controls, not Chicago's ALA community organizers.
4. Parents may now assume, instead of that librarians are experts who must know what they are doing so we should defer to them, that school librarians have been hoaxing them for a long time and that providing school children with explicit material is not right, and parents have the right and the power to force school boards to comply with the law instead of with Chicago's ALA.
5. ALA has reacted to US DOE's action by labeling US DOE, Trump and his voters as arbitrary, cruel, homophobic, racist, dictatorial, and thinking they are above the law, all while wasting tax payer money to defend "book bans."  https://www.ala.org/news/2025/01/book-bans-are-real  Well, US DOE just removed the tax payer waste excuse regarding a situation ALA forced in the first place with its banned books hoax.  And the public now sees ALA's defense is the naked statement "Banned Books Are Real" while attacking people as racist and homophobic, showing they have absolutely no legitimate argument that the banned books hoax they created isn't a hoax.  ALA is just going to keep on attacking people.  Full disclosure, ALA has gotten me involved in five defamation suits to silence me or other parents, and I'm in three now concurrently.  All over the book ban hoax.
6. Parents can stop being intimidated by school librarians crying about nonexistent book bans.
7. School superintendents can stop being intimidated by school librarians crying about book bans.
8. School board members can stop being intimidated by school librarians crying about book bans.
9. School board members can rewrite school policies to remove any references to Chicago ALA's Library Bill of Rights and other diktat.  For example, get rid of the Library Bill of Rights that makes it age discrimination to keep kids from inappropriate material in direct violation of Board of Education v. Pico, allow inappropriate books to be removed immediately in accordance with Board of Education v. Pico, get rid of book review committees that are from ALA and not in the Pico case, and get rid of policies that require books be reviewed only by review sources librarians claim are legitimate.  In reality, that's a significant way ALA librarians force libraries to heavily balance in favor of gender ideology.  Meanwhile, librarians viciously attack wholesome material as inappropriate for public schools: "Moms For Liberty Published Their First Book; And the America First and America Best Group Used a Russian Illustrator For It," by Kelly Jensen, Well Sourced by Kelly Jensen, 25 January 2025.  And recall ALA trained librarians to block Christians from public library meeting rooms, like Kirk Cameron and Brave Books (https://www.kenningtonreport.com/p/alas-banned-books-and-censorship), while at the same time "sneakily" pushing drag queen gender ideology into public libraries (https://web.archive.org/web/20170612040326/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intersections-glbt-book-month-dispatch-small-town-librarian). 
10. Currently lawsuits against parents based on the book banning hoax, including those in which I'm involved, will possibly benefit from the federal government exposing the Chicago ALA's hoax.  ALA and its partners like PEN America have ongoing lawsuits in AL, FL, LA, NH, NJ, TX, WY, etc.  The federal government has already dumped 11 cases and 6 investigations.  We all shall see what happens to the current lawsuits ALA instigated.
11. When you read what the hoax perpetrators themselves say in response to the US Department of Education's action on the book ban hoaxes, notice the response is always to attack the messenger:
• "Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the leader of the biggest book-banning state government in the nation" (https://pen.org/not-a-hoax-trump-administration-dismisses-book-ban-complaints/)
• "Title IX and Title VI were enacted to protect children in schools, and those protections must not be undermined by political agendas or dismissive rhetoric" (https://www.everylibrary.org/trump_administration_ends_school_book_ban_consent_decree)
• "In their cruel and headlong effort to terminate protections from discrimination for LGBTQIA+ students and students of color, the Department of Education advances the demonstrably false claim that book bans are not real." (https://www.ala.org/news/2025/01/book-bans-are-real)

Now, everyone, stop being intimidated by librarians, even if they are in Hollywood documentaries about hoax book bans by Sarah Jessica Parker from which librarians are grifting (https://givebutter.com/pen).  Even if they are saying you have to have empathy, like librarian Martha Hickson says when donating $25 to PEN America, as shown above, since empathy is weaponized against you.  Stop your legislators from passing laws written by Chicago's ALA.  Start demanding your school boards dump the policies written by the hoaxers.  Your children being free from indoctrination and s[]xualization is more important than the feelings or even the jobs of school librarians.

ALA's house of cards is about to fall.  Let it.

By the way, here's where I proved it was ALA that infiltrated the White House with the banned books hoax:

• "Library Boards Trained to Lie by ALA; Banned Books Wedge Issue Adopted by White House," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 21 June 2023. 
• https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html

R.I.P. to the Book Ban Hoax

The conflation of parents objecting to age-inappropriate, often sexually charged material being in their kids’ schools (even in elementary grades) with “banning” books was always a ridiculous narrative that the left, legacy media and the Biden… https://t.co/xnQpmd1srF

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) January 24, 2025

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/01/us-government-exposes-book-ban-hoax.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Libraries Should Use Book Looks Reviews to Guide Parents and Educators on Book Content

Library boards should use BookLooks.org to provide diversity in book ratings for parents and educators to consider for their children and students.  Unlike the other rating services, Book Looks zeroes in on the potential for inappropriate materials, providing both written and visual evidence.  Book Looks has been so successful in informing parents about book contents that American Library Association [ALA] copied the exact format when it created its own Book Résumés, although that site leaves out excepts and pictures and includes instead glowing reviews from ALA-approved book reviewers and a list of the various awards a book has attained, mainly from ALA itself.

Before ALA copied Book Looks there was a smear campaign against it.  Kelly Jensen of Book Riot, for example, attempting to tie Book Looks to Moms for Liberty, as if that were bad, by stating without evidence, "It is a tool developed by Moms For Liberty being used to push their agendas even further under the guise of protecting children."  Her support for this is only this conclusory statement, "Filed for an LLC in Florida on April 5, 2022, BookLooks is spearheaded by Moms For Liberty member Emily Maikisch, per filings."  What is not reported is that the creator of Books Looks was a former Moms for Liberty member.  There are over 130,000 Moms for Liberty members, compared with almost 50,000 ALA members.  Are we supposed to hold grudges against them and all former members too?  Kelly Jensen, who falsely claims Book Looks was "created, curated, and promoted by Moms For Liberty," also calls parents extremists, Christofascists, and white supremacists, so she's not trustworthy in the slightest.  She also smears the ratings efforts of other parental groups.

Others pick up on that theme and malign Book Looks accordingly.  A man in New Jersey named Guy Citron, for example, wrote a letter to the editor of a local media source saying, "'BookLooks' is for Book Haters."  "Florida-based BookLooks is also publicly tied to the state's local Moms for Liberty, a hyper-political book-banning movement."  No it's not.  He got that from Kelly Jensen who made it up out of thin air.  And there is no "book-banning movement," except that by ALA as mentioned below.  Guy Citron is just being intentionally inflammatory.  He supports his position by saying, "Next, there is no need for the Warren County Library to diminish its credibility by promoting such an unreliable source," and "Clearly, BookLooks and Commissioner Thomas have an agenda.  They want to spread hate about books and restrict their access, rather than understand and communicate their value objectively."

Contrast the smearing and the cries of spreading hate with no reliable sources being given with what I myself wrote to the Warren County Library Commission where I pointed out ALA has been working for decades to take rights away from parents and specifically has targeted ratings systems for censorship and blacklisting, and here they are again sending NJ school librarian Martha Hickson to enforce the Chicago Way and block the use of Book Looks:

Dear Warren County Library Commission,

I have learned from former school librarian Martha Hickson, indirectly, that you are considering using information from BookLooks.org for being an additional source to guide parents on book selection for their children.  I have learned she opposes using that source and claims it is an extremist position to use BookLooks, and anyone supporting that in the Warren County Library Commission is an extremist.

Setting aside that the recent national election proved the people calling parents extremists comprise only 14% of the population, I wish to speak in support of using BookLooks as an additional source for information, and to show that American Library Association from Chicago, IL, that Martha Hickson represents as an employee of ALA, has worked for about six decades to take away rights from parents, and specifically has worked repeatedly to keep parents in the dark about the contents of potentially inappropriate material.  This matter may be new to you, but it’s a long term suppression effort from the ALA.  I hope my information makes you aware of that and helps you vote accordingly—in favor of BookLooks.

BookLooks provides parents and others with accurate information about books and their content. Said information includes multiple exact quotes and multiple graphics. The resource is used extensively by parents, to my knowledge.  It is not connected with any political group, although it was founded by a former member of Moms for Liberty after she left Moms for Liberty.  It is smeared repeatedly by librarians precisely because it gives guidance on the contents of books, and librarians claim you can’t judge books by mere excerpts and pictures.  One particular librarian, Kelly Jensen, has worked for about four years to fabricate lies about BookLooks; she recently wrote that parents who challenge books are white supremacists.  Eventually, American Library Association, having tired of parents getting information from BookLooks, decided if you can’t beat them then you join them.  So ALA created its own book rating source for parents called Book Résumés.  The ALA source gives no excerpts and no pictures but it does give glowing reviews from approved reviewing sources, even its own Book List, and the various awards books have obtained, mainly from ALA sources.  So BookLooks is so effective that ALA was forced to copy it.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

So BookLooks is an excellent source for information, so much so ALA copied it.

ALA has worked for about 60 years to take away rights from parents and ensure via the Library Bill of Rights that children get and retain access to inappropriate material: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing

Specifically as to book ratings, when ALA learned it had a subgroup using Common Sense Media to guide parents, where CSM was providing reviews of explicitness of the books, ALA censored CSM from its own web site, then ordered library school and state library associations to stop linking to CSM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8sytqvlo3asbint/YALSA-IFreportAug2013.pdf?dl=0

Analogous to books and how they are rated for explicitness, ALA ordered librarians to stop using MPAA movie ratings as authoritative: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/keeping-r-rate-films-from-children-is.html

ALA ordered librarians to attempt to block the use of public meeting rooms for Kirk Cameron and his Brave Books, and generally the reading of Christian books in such rooms: https://www.kenningtonreport.com/p/alas-banned-books-and-censorship

ALA even ordered librarians to stop doing anything about patrons viewing child p r n: 

"A librarian is not a legal process. There is not librarian in the country — unless she or he is a lawyer — who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child p()rn()graphy."

"Libraries vs. Police in a Suit Sparked by P()rn; Kent Case Centers on People's Rights and Protections" by Jeffrey M. Barker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (August 13, 2002).

Along comes Martha Hickson working for ALA to argue exactly what ALA has been arguing for decades, and enforcing deceptively, and she wants you not to use Book Looks.

So now is your chance to provide services for your community with diversity of opinion, or put on the Chicago ALA straight jacket and don’t trust parents to be evenly informed and to make up their own minds. 

We just had a national election showing 86% of the population opposes the people indoctrinating and s()xualizing children, now it's your turn to vote for a great resource for parents you serve or for the 14% indoctrinating and s()xualizing children, here represented by Chicago ALA’s Martha Hickson and her calling you extremists and idiots if you support diversity of opinion for your library patrons.

Thank you.

Dan Kleinman

SafeLibraries

So I provide cogent argument supporting diversity served by Book Looks, backed up with solid facts and reliable sources establishing a long term pattern of keeping parents in the dark, while those who oppose Book Looks have no reliable sources and instead use scare words like "book haters" and imply library leaders themselves would "lose credibility" if they chose to use Book Looks.

As ALA's point person in New Jersey Martha Hickson says via her @NHVfREADom account on X, smearing one of the library commissioners, "You know a public library is under attack when a library commissioner tries to force BookLooks into the system.  Support the professional staff at the Warren County Library https://www.tapinto.net/towns/phillipsburg/articles/booklooks-is-for-book-haters"  Source: https://x.com/NHVfREADom/status/1859297263576863077

That's projection.  It's the library commissioners and Book Looks under attack, by ALA and its acolytes if they dont bend to ALA's will, and ALA has been doing that nationwide for over half a century.  

It's time for libraries not to be bullied by community organizing efforts based in Chicago, IL, and instead use independent reviews like Book Looks to guide local parents and educators on book content.

Let's hope Warren County Library Commission votes to be inclusive and diverse and include book reviews by BookLooks.org.

NOTE ADDED 22 NOVEMBER 2024:

THE BELOW RESOLUTION HAS PASSED 3-2 IN WARREN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY @WarrenCountyNJ. @ALALibrary got a lot of people to show up but the board supported diversity and inclusion so BOOK LOOKS is staying. Congratulations #parents!#parenting #moms #dads pic.twitter.com/vTukzpVQ9q

— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) November 21, 2024

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/11/libraries-should-use-book-looks-reviews.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

People Who Say 'No Books are Obscene' Think Parents are White Supremacists; It's Misdirection

People who say "no books are obscene" think parents are white supremacists. New Jersey Senator Andrew Zwicker in the hearing to pass the "Freedom to Read Act" (originally written by Chicago, Illinois's American Library Association, as Zwicker admitted to me when pushed, pictured top right) S2421 out of committee to the full senate said, "None of these books has been deemed obscene."  He's been subjected to American Library Association's "long-term inoculation," so of course he thinks what Chicago's ALA wants him to think instead of what New Jersey law requires and New Jersey citizens desire.

New Jersey's leading school librarian proponent of illegal obscenity (in NJ) for school children, the one who got ALA engaged in long-term inoculation of NJ legislators and in bullying school boards around the state to accept illegal obscenity in school libraries, including her own school's library, just announced publicly:

Book banners hate it when we say it, but there’s no p[]rn in school libraries. @veronikellymars explains the realities of the publishing and library professions. https://bookriot.com/books-dont-just-appear-on-library-shelves/

"Book banners," they invariably call anyone who questions any book.  Always using language to advance a political goal.  At least one New Jersey legislator answering to New Jersey citizens instead of Chicago's ALA, NJ Representative Dawn Fantasia, has responded to Martha Hickson's "there’s no p[]rn in school libraries" comment by saying:

Any adult who thinks "educational s[]x ed" includes instructing children to lubricate foreign objects and insert said items into their rectums for pleasure, or who encourages underage girls to take and distribute topless selfies, has lost their way.  Truly remarkable.

Lady, all of your screws are loose.

@Moms4Liberty @SexHarassed @CoboKristen @ChristinaMB122 @wakeupnj @fight4newjersey

Source: https://x.com/DawnFantasia_NJ/status/1841199775095673234 quote tweeting https://x.com/NHVfREADom/status/1841125020094857719 run by Martha Hickson in which she included: "A teen at yesterday’s hearing explains why: 'Educational content is not considered obscene; [that’s] why every s[]x ed & health teacher in the state of NJ has not been arrested.'"

What does this have to do with "white supremacy"?  It's because the people from Chicago promoting inappropriate material for children nationwide despite the law can and will say anything to deflect from the truth.  Like Kelly Jensen, pictured at right, who Martha Hickson promoted in her X post.

Quoting now from that BookRiot article by Kelly Jensen:

And, as always, we know this is not about materials in the public or school libraries. It’s about control, removal, and erasure of any and all materials outside of a singular white supremacist view of the world.

She is openly saying white supremacy is the reason parents challenge books.  She's saying it's the parents attempting to "control" schools, ignoring Chicago's ALA is controlling schools, having pushed for that for about 60 years, such as by making up the "right to read" to take rights away from parents and by inserting "age" into the Library Bill of Right that's in nearly every library nationwide.

By the way, Kelly Jensen is so two faced that she trains librarians to block Christians from using public meeting rooms.  This is the expert Martha Hickson is promoting and Senator Answer Zwicker is repeating:

• "Author Urges Library Staff to 'Bow Out' on August 5th for Kirk Cameron & BRAVE Books Nationwide 'See You at the Library' Events; The First Amendment Ensures Institutions Respect Freedoms, Defines Rights for Expression and Belief, and Protects and Promotes Respect for Others' Rights Too," by Haley Kennington, Kennington Report, 1 August 2023.

So the woman calling parents white supremacists for attempting to remove books from schools under the law is the same person telling librarians, "For libraries that are hosting the Kirk Cameron Brave Book events, it is time to have a plan to let staff bow out that day...."

ALA itself trains librarians to block Christians from reading books in library public meeting room.  Yes, the same ALA that drafted NJ's "Freedom to Read Act" that Andrew Zwicker "wrote":

• "Library 2.0's 'Banned Books and Censorship' Conference Discusses How to Thwart Parents & Concerned Citizens From Challenging Banned LGBTQ+ Books Featuring Explicit Images & Language; 'It Makes It Too Easy for Parents or Community Members to Find Those Kinds of Books. Don't Make It Necessarily Easy for Those Groups to Find.' - Valerie Byrd Fort on Using 'Dummy Covers' on Books," by Haley Kennington, Kennington Reports, 22 June 2023.

Back to Kelly Jensen, now notice how the person decrying white supremacy also repeatedly states no school books are ever obscene.  That's because the opposite is true, but she thinks if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth:

Let’s say hypothetically that an agent sold an editor an obscene book.  First, that reflects on the agent and editor's inability to understand what the obscenity law is; but more realistically, it simply would not happen because the number of books acquired by agents and then editors is already minuscule and extremely curated.

Italics in original.  So no book is ever obscene because Jelly Kensen says so, and laws like NJS 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Person Under 18 don't matter to her.  "It simply would not happen."  Or as Andrew Zwicker put it, "None of these books has been deemed obscene."  Or as Martha Hickson put it, "there’s no p[]rn in school libraries."

Books cannot contain obscenity because it is against the law.  Obscenity has a standard, court-issued definition, by which agents and publishers (as well as their legal teams!) must abide.  It's the three-prong, 60-some-word Miller Test.  Even if one of those two books in our hypothetical situation were obscene, the legal department of the publisher would catch this before it ever went to press.

Italics and hyperlinks in original.  So again, "[b]ooks cannot obtain obscenity."  This time because the "Miller Test" applies, she says.  

I love how she links to Wikipedia and not a constitutional expert like Eugene Volokh: 

• "Removal of Books With 'Lascivious Content' from School Libraries Likely Constitutionally Permissible; So Holds a Federal District Court, Also Stressing That 'This Case Does Not Involve Banning Books': 'A School District Does Not "Ban" a Book When ... It "Decides Not to Continue Possessing [a] Book On its Own Library Shelves,"'" by Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, 9 August 2022.  

And she completely and intentionally ignores that the Pico case applies in schools, not the older Miller case, per attorney Stuart Baggish who has successfully prosecuted obscenity cases.  

"Even if [the] books ... were obscene, the legal department of the publisher would catch this...."  Now that's just flat out lying, and she presents herself as an expert on publishing.  And there's more:

But there are not obscene books being acquired and published through traditional routes, and it's rare to find them in self-published material…because it is against the law to publish or distribute such material.

She completely and intentionally misses the point that books that are in schools that, yes, are not obscenity under the Miller case, may still be immediately removed under the Pico case, and in some jurisdictions may still be considered obscenity, such as under NJS 2C:34-3.  Her next statement goes for the throats of parents:

The obscenity arguments dramatically performed in board rooms would be better suited to thinking about what kind of obscene material is readily accessible on any teenager's internet-capable phone.

So parents are overdramatic when they oppose their children being harmed by school librarians to satisfy ALA's 60-year political goals.  Further, she adds, those are not the droids you are looking for.  Look at the iPhones and Androids your kids have, those are the 'Droids, it's way worse than what's in Pico, so just ignore Pico and gosh darn-it, do better parenting!  So publicly funded p[]rn is okay because parents punt on protection.

Parents are in for another spanking:

The rampant mis/dis/mal information about libraries and the materials in them coming from a small set of voices does not bestow those individuals any authority, experience, or knowledge of how to do the work of those trained professionals. Instead, they subvert the reality of the situation: it's their job to actually parent their children and not expect the library to do it for them.

There's another intentional lie buried in there so you don't see it.  See it?  "A small set of voices" versus "trained professionals."  First, librarianship is a job, not a profession.  Second, the "professional" training comes from the MLIS degree.  ALA accredits MLIS schools and has required for accreditation that library schools teach diversity, equity, and inclusion in every single class of the MLIS degree.  So essentially graduates are accredited Marxists.  

Further, diversity and inclusion are the very excuses ALA uses to "reframe" "s[]xually inappropriate material."  Librarians are to "reframe" "s[]xually inappropriate material" as diversity and inclusion.  So diverse and inclusive materials means to "trained professional" librarians materials that are "s[]xually inappropriate," they know it, but they are going to lie to parents and claim DEI.  

Listen to US Senator Mike Lee from Utah demonstrate and explain this in detail: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.  That's not a "professional," that's what Senator Mike Lee calls a "gr[]mer."  His words, a US Senator, during a US Senate hearing on "banned books."  Per the Senator, librarians are trained gr[]mers.  They are spreading this across America via state and federal "Right to Read" or "Freedom to Read" or "Libraries For All" legislation.

"[A] small set of voices."  What does that mean?  It's a constant theme of ALA.  The theme is that a few vocal parents are in the vast minority, they are prudes, Christofascists, white supremacists, censors, and so on, so just ignore that small group.  They're crazy.  Even NJ Senator Vin Gopal called parents "extremists," something ALA people repeat repeatedly, "Extremists who continue to spread misinformation and want to ban books won’t win in New Jersey - just as they attempted against me last year and lost by 20+ points." 

The truth is the exact opposite.  The professional gr[]mers (remember, a US Senator exposed this) led by Chicago's ALA is the small set of loud voices.  Not the parents.  The vast majority are the parents who oppose explicit books in public schools.  Of sure ALA took a poll showing most oppose book banning, but that's not the issue.  A Harris and Rasmussen poll and others show the vast majority of the public opposes explicit books in public schools.  So "a small set of voices" is yet more gaslighting to get parents to feel alone and to back done and to let school children continue to be indoctrinated.

Here comes the DARVO, Divide, Attack, Reverse Victim and Oppressor:

And, as always, we know this is not about materials in the public or school libraries.  It's about control, removal, and erasure of any and all materials outside of a singular white supremacist view of the world.  See the latest attempts to get books pulled even in Little Free Libraries–the lies compound and the goalposts of the movement continue to move.

Hyperlink in original, though I used an archived link to avoid an email request block.  The division is those having a worldview of "control, removal, and erasure." Parents thus set up are then attacked as "singular white supremacists."  The reversing of victim and oppressor is the one case she found where two people merely expressed an interest in Little Free Libraries, so it's really a fake claim of attempted book banning, and just to reverse victim and oppressor, because a weak/fake case is all she's got.

So when people say no books are obscene, it is misdirection.  They also think parents are white supremacists so no books should ever be removed from any school despite the US Supreme Court, the law, common sense, and community standards.  They make parents the bad guys, the extremists.  Librarians and people they've successfully indoctrinated like Senator Andrew Zwicker want us all to ignore our local laws and customs and substitute instead the approximately 60-year goal of an organization from Chicago, Illinois, that now has three Marxist presidents, one even being "nonbinary."  

It's giant gaslighting.  It's misdirection.  Parents have every right to have cases and laws like Pico and 2C:34-3 applied in schools without "professional librarians" using their DEI training to saw anything goes and they know better.  Actually state residents know what's better for the state's children, way better than some Chicago, Illinois, organization that has been working for sixty years to harm as many children as possible.  I know, sounds shocking because we all think librarians are angels, but those days have been over for sixty years.

NOTE ADDED 15 OCTOBER 2024:

1)  In reaction to the above post, Kelly Jensen "Buttered Jorts (fka kelly jensen 🐱🐰)" has doubled down on her white supremacy claim, even shouting about it (by using all caps), proving I'm right over the target, and we all know by now "inclusive books" means ones ALA trains librarians are "s*xually inappropriate for minors" but are to be "reframed" as inclusive:

"You ARE a white supremacist when you ban inclusive books :)

So, to her, banning s*xually inappropriate materials for minors from schools makes you a white supremacist.  Why?  Because she is hiding that parents have every legal right to remove such books.  Only the shouting bullying of people who claim they are professionals using claimed professional sources are dissuading people from doing what's right and what's common sense to protect children from harm.  Are we going to let librarians bully us like this?

2)  And if you don't cower, you get personally attacked.  In reaction to the above post, Kelly Jensen directs her DARVO directly at me.  She apparently reads my blog despite blocking me on social media.  I've been at this for a quarter century so I suppose I have a following among librarians who block me.  One could say she's obsessed with me, I suppose.  After she divided and attacked parents again ("Kids are humans who have rights, too, and it's a parent's job to parent"), she then reversed victim and oppressor by making herself the victim—of me!  DARVO all over again.

"Dan's obsession with me is truly frightening. https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/10/people-who-say-no-books-are-obscene.html"

She's claiming no school books are ever obscene and parents who say otherwise are white supremacists, I report on that, then it's time to attack the messenger and claim he's obsessed and it's "truly frightening."  

What's "truly frightening" is the grip American Library Association has over American libraries and the public employees who serve those libraries so much so that children are regularly and gleefully indoctrinated nationwide while their parents and legislators are gaslit.  And that ALA obsession is six decades old and expanding exponentially.  That's what's frightening.

One final thought.  Kelly Jensen just made the claim that no schools have inappropriate material by praising the publishing industry.  She described in detail how wonderful and hard working they are, so no way illegal obscenity could slip through the cracks.  "If you’re counting, it's likely you have already lost how many guardrails are already in place and we haven't even gotten to the library shelf yet," she says.

Really?  Guardrails?  Okay, then explain how Kamala Harris's publisher, Chronicle Books, allowed SMART ON CRIME to bypass all the guardrails and be loaded with multiple major incidents of plagiarism, even stealing from substandard Wikipedia.

EXCLUSIVE: Kamala Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal-justice book, Smart on Crime, according to a new investigation. The current vice president even lifted material from Wikipedia.

We have the receipts. 🧵

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 14, 2024

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/10/people-who-say-no-books-are-obscene.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org