Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts

Monday, May 11, 2026

Texas Freedom to Lie Project

Texas Freedom to Read Project (TXFTRP) has been caught in a Texas-sized lie.

But first, a bit of background.

If you’ve never heard of TXFTRP, it’s the main ALA astroturf group operating out of Texas. EveryLibrary, a de facto subgroup of ALA, is heavily involved in TXFTRP and has been from the beginning. Both organizations openly acknowledge their close ties.

"The support of EveryLibrary has been instrumental in the launch and the ongoing work of the Texas Freedom to Read Project. As attempts at censorship and book banning have skyrocketed across the state of Texas, the need to protect our First Amendment rights is more important than ever. We are incredibly grateful for and look forward to a continued partnership with EveryLibrary. We are optimistic about the future of Texas as we FightForTheFirst [sic]." - Laney Hawes, Texas Freedom to Read Project. (emphasis added)
Statement from TXFTRP founder thanking EveryLibrary

EveryLibrary works to support communities who are fighting against book bans and censorship by providing a wide range of pro-bono tools, data, funding and training. We previously provided the Florida Freedom To Read Project with a sophisticated website built on the NationBuilder platform. Now, we are excited to provide the same tools to a group of advocates in Texas who are fighting against censorship in school and public libraries across the state. This group is called the Texas Freedom to Read Project and you can visit their website at txftrp.org and sign their petition to get involved. We are also providing them with many of the tools and resources that they need to win! See their press release below for more information. (emphasis added)
Statement from EveryLibrary on TXFTRP launch

Note the mention of “Fight for the First” in TXFTRP’s blurb. Fight For The First is—in the words of EveryLibrary founder and Executive Director John Chrastka—“basically change.org for libraries.” It’s a plug-and-play platform developed by EveryLibrary to get ALA astroturf groups up and running in minutes (source).

Fight for the First “About” page citing EveryLibrary’s role

As an EveryLibrary clone with a Texas twang, TXFTRP is scarcely different from the many other ALA-inspired, ALA-funded, ALA-trained organizations around the country. (For a refresher, here are the ALA/EveryLibrary agenda and playbook.)

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with an advocacy group seeking outside help with its operations or funding. But just know that TXFTRP is no more organic or independent than any other ALA astroturf group.

Which brings us to the present day.

On March 11, TXFTRP published an article saying that, as of February 2026, New Braunfels Independent School District (NBISD) had “banned” 600+ books and aged up 800+ books (i.e., moved them from middle school to high school libraries).

TXFTRP article with scary headline and even scarier subhead

TXFTRP allegation that NBISD has removed or aged up nearly 1500 books

NBISD’s supposed actions were in response to SB 13, a bill passed in the 89th Texas Legislature that was signed into law June 2025 and took effect September 2025.

That bill strengthened protections for public school children by prohibiting library materials that are harmful, obscene, pervasively vulgar, educationally unsuitable, or contain indecent or profane content. Naturally, TXFTRP fought it tooth and nail.

NBISD, along with other school districts around the state, undertook a review of its library collection to ensure it was in compliance with SB 13. TXFTRP, sensing a scoop, requested records from the district pertaining to this review.

After analyzing the data provided to it by NBISD, TXFTRP thought it had a bombshell on its hands. Instead, it had a nothingburger.

Here’s why: At the time the article was published, TXFTRP didn’t know the real number of books NBISD had supposedly removed, since they were going off spreadsheets instead of querying the catalog directly. And in fact it had no way of knowing, since NBISD’s review wouldn’t be completed for another 3 months.

TXFTRP admitted as much, albeit in the final paragraph:
A note on our data and information provided.

We acknowledge there are discrepancies between the "Books Pulled by Who and Why" spreadsheets and NBISD Library Catalogs which still show some of the "weeded: SB 13," aged up, and restricted titles listed as "available." New Braunfels ISD provided the "Books Pulled by Who and Why" spreadsheets in response to a request for records of books "removed" or "deleted" since June 1, 2025, so that is what our conclusions and statements are based on. Unless we are otherwise informed, we anticipate the books listed as "weeded: SB 13" in the spreadsheets provided by NBISD have already been, or will imminently, be removed. (emphasis added)
Disclaimer at bottom of TXFTRP article on NBISD “book bans”

While the disclaimer attempted to clarify what was and wasn’t known, the article itself showed no such restraint. Here’s a sampling:
[Headline] New Braunfels ISD bans 600+ books, ages up 800+ titles using AI & overly-restrictive selection criteria.

[Subhead] Lonesome Dove, The Tattooist of Auschwitz, Guinness World Records & The Three Musketeers among hundreds of books removed from school library collections. ...

The school libraries may be open- but according to public documents obtained by a volunteer for Texas Freedom to Read Project- books are being removed and restricted at an alarming rate. ...

As of February 2026, New Braunfels ISD has removed more than 600 books from its high schools in response to new laws. Additionally, over 800 books have been removed from district middle schools and aged up to the high schools and approximately 60 titles have been removed from New Braunfels ISD elementary school libraries.

While over 450 books are publicly listed as “under review” on the district website, others have been quietly removed behind the scenes. In total, 678 titles are listed on internal tracking logs, obtained through public information requests, as “weeded: SB13.” (emphasis added)
TXFTRP made hay of the titles in the NBISD spreadsheets, stoking alarm across its platforms that beloved classics like Charlotte’s Web and The Three Musketeers were being removed from school libraries in an unprecedented act of censorship.



The sensationalistic narrative was amplified by friendly media outlets like KSAT (ABC affiliate in San Antonio) and the San Antonio Current. Even ALA fellow traveler PEN America got in on the action. They all repeated TXFTRP’s claims uncritically.

When confronted with their methodological errors and NBISD-sourced data showing far lower numbers than those in the article, TXFTRP doubled down.






Finally, on May 1, NBISD published the results of its review: 72 books were preemptively removed before the review commenced; 161 books were deemed non-compliant; 28 were aged up; and 218 were deemed compliant.

Those numbers were rather different from those cited by TXFTRP, to put it mildly. Here are both sets of numbers for comparison:

TXFTRP Number NBISD Number Difference
Preemptively Removed ? 72 ?
Non-Compliant 660+ 161 500+
Aged Up 800+ 28 ~800
Compliant ? 218 ?

It turns out TXFTRP over-reported the number of books removed by more than five hundred and the number of books aged up by around eight hundred.

TXFTRP will argue that they based their conclusions on data provided by the district—which, technically, is true.

However, they failed to ask some (pretty important!) questions:
  1. Does the presence of a book on a spreadsheet mean it has been or will be permanently removed from the library’s collection?
  2. What exactly does the “Weeded: SB13” label mean?
The answer to the first question is “Probably not,” or if one wishes to be charitable, “Not necessarily.” In fact, the answer was no, but TXFTRP never checked. Instead, it presented its assumptions as faits accomplis.

The answer to the second question would have been readily provided by the district, had TXFTRP bothered to ask. That job fell to a reporter for the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, who dropped this nugget in a story published after the NBISD review was complete:
The district stated that books labeled “weeded: SB13” were not necessarily removed for noncompliance, but because SB 13 prompted librarians to conduct a deeper review of their collections. One major factor in removal was age appropriateness, which could include considerations such as reading level, interest level or catalog “adult” designations.The district also notes that publisher’s reviews evolve over time, so librarians make judgments based on the most up to date information and move books as appropriate. (emphasis added)
It’s now clear that TXFTRP (willfully?) misinterpreted the internal labels the district assigned to books during its review. They thought—or rather, assumed, because it fit the narrative—that “Weeded: SB13” meant the book had been or would be removed. This turned out to be false. Nevertheless, it formed the basis for the article’s most sensational claims.

But the article was not just inaccurate; it was pure fear-mongering. TXFTRP’s objective was to generate outrage over a law designed to protect children in order to secure its repeal. And they were willing to spread falsehoods to achieve it.

That ain’t right, y’all.

—

URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/texas-freedom-to-lie-project.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:


Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Texas, USA

Monday, November 24, 2025

Informing Iowa Legislators About American Library Association

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Tactics for Influencing Legislators

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

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



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


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

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

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


Deceptions and Hypocrisy

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

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

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


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

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


Implications for Iowa

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

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

If more details are needed, let me know.



Endnotes

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

2. Rita Koganzon, “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s,” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Des Moines, IA, USA

Sunday, May 4, 2025

Librarians Who Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly Expose Children to Harmful Content Should Be In Fear; Toni Morrison May Be Inappropriate In Schools

Rare to hear it stated out loud, "teachers and librarians that intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly expose children to harmful content should be in fear in the state of Texas."  This was stated by Texas Representative Mitch Little in support of Texas Senate Bill 412 (2025) relating to defenses to prosecution for certain offenses including penal code 43.24 involving material or conduct that is obscene or otherwise harmful to children.  

SB 412 is currently awaiting the Texas Governor Greg Abbott's signature.  

See also:
The bill removes broad exemptions in Texas law that currently shield school officials, librarians, and others from prosecution for distributing material deemed harmful to minors, so long as it is for an "educational purpose." 
....
Christin Bentley, who chairs the party’s subcommittee on protecting Texas children, celebrated the win.

“There is NEVER a reason to give a child p[*]rn and there is NEVER a reason to have a child perform s[*]xually for an adult. For 52 years, Texas law has said otherwise, allowing ridiculous legal justifications for both of those things. Today, that changed,” said Bentley.
Texas is taking away the legal exemption that allows school librarians to s[*]xualize school children in schools using public taxpayer money to carry out American Library Association goals it's been working on to indoctrinate school children for about 60 years.

Other states need to follow suit.  It is notable that American Library Association tries to insert such exemptions into state laws with laws like the Freedom to Read Act or the Right to Read Act—because they know that makes it easier for school librarians to indoctrinate and s[*]xualize school children using taxpayer funding.

Any school librarian or library organization or local parents group created by ALA who opposes this comprises you-know-whats.  

Oh look, they oppose Texas SB 13 as well.  They say it will "destroy public school libraries in Texas."  No, it will destroy ALA's ability to get school librarians to indoctrinate Texas children in their schools.  So submit public comment in favor of SB 13 here: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c400.  SB 13 is by Senator Paxton.  The bill lays out specific language that schools cannot have s[*]xually explicit, vulgar or other harmful materials in their libraries.

Here is a transcript of exactly what was said by Rep. Mitch Little about SB 412 in his video shown below.  Enjoy.  He even indirectly exposes the Toni Morrison lie, you know, where American Library Association says if you oppose her prize-winning books in schools, the ones with bestiality, etc., it's because you're racist and hate black skin.


T  R  A  N  S  C  R  I  P  T

Mr. Speaker:

Mr. Little in support of the bill.

Mr. Little:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to try to bring the temperature down a little bit and talk about just the legal aspects of this bill, which I think are very important for you to consider. Um. With great uh respect and consideration for my esteemed colleague, Representative Zwiener, this is not a complex bill. It is a very simple bill. It's two pages long. One of the sections dealing with the revocation of affirmative defenses deals with sexual performance by a child. As a lawyer, it is very difficult for me to understand how a legislature in the past implemented or wrote into law affirmative defenses to sexual performance by a child that included bona fide educational, psychiatric, or other governmental purposes besides judicial and law enforcement. It simply makes no sense. It never should have been there.

I understand that a lot of our discussion so far has revolved around harmful content and what constitutes harmful content under Texas law. Respectfully, that is not the purpose of the bill. And one thing I want you to consider is, should there ever be an educational, a scientific, or psychiatric or psychological reason to display harmful content for a child. And I would contend that the answer to that is, no, there should never be a reason for that. It is called harmful content for a reason. Because it is harmful. 

Representative Zwiener expressed concerns that this is going to put teachers or librarians in fear. And ladies and gentlemen, I would submit to you humbly, teachers and librarians that intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly expose children to harmful content should be in fear in the state of Texas.

I know there is extreme concern also from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that Nobel Prize winning literature should be offered to children. And I think, of course, in most situations, it should. However, there are situations where unbelievably accomplished authors, such as Toni Morrison, will have written pieces of literature, and that's what they are, pieces of literature, that are not appropriate for a school-aged child. And I think we, as reasonable people, should agree that certain works of literature are too mature for children to be subjected to in schools. As accomplished as those authors are and as important as those works of literature are, they shouldn't be exposed to children in schools.

Representative Zwiener, in our chamber here, expressed concern that we need to, quote, I had to write these words down because I was shocked that they came out of her mouth, "show children what sexual assault looks like." That is not the purpose of the school. It is not the purpose of a school in the state of Texas; it should not be the purpose of a school anywhere in the United States of America.

We have written many bills this legislative session about sexual assault. I have co-authored and joint authored many of them by many of you in here. There are important changes that have been made to the law by Representative Johnson, Representative Howard, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And there is an appropriate time and place to make changes to the law about sexual assault. Educating people through pictures of sexual assault in a school is a bridge too far, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker 3:

Well done.


O  R  I  G  I  N  A  L   S  P  E  E  C  H



—
URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

If you like reporting like this, chip in a little please:
Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 1100 Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78701, USA

Friday, June 28, 2024

Freedom to Read Act Needs Legislators to Defy Ethics and Criminal Laws to Pass; Arrest the Legislators

Disorderly Persons Offense by NJ Legislators? Will A3446 Be Passed Despite Ethical Violations Amounting to a Failure of the Public Trust?

Author: Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, Chatham, NJ.
Date:  6/28/2024
To: NJ Legislators

Issue:

Has one or more members of the New Jersey Assembly and Senate promoted legislation and released confidential information to the drafters and proponents of A3446 S2421 2024, thereby committing a “disorderly person” offense under N.J.S.A. 52:13E-8?  Have they violated the Legislative Code of Ethics 2:1a and 2:11?  Have they violated the Conflicts of Interest Law 52:13D-12 and 52:13D-25?  Have they committed substantially the same violation as presented in the Ethics Tutorial, Question 24, meaning they know or should have known they committed a disorderly persons offense?  Does being a legislator exempt one from arrest and possible fine and jail time for having committed a disorderly persons offense?  Does the Assembly as a whole passing A3446 for the Governor’s signature mean the entire law is based on ethical and criminal violations of law?

Aggravating Factors:

Is it an aggravating factor that A3446 S2421 is written by a Chicago, Illinois, private entity, the very organization promoted and tipped off, to nullify Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) and leave school children exposed to pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material?  Is it an aggravating factor that A3446 S2421 is written to nullify N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 and leave school children exposed to obscenity under New Jersey law?  Is it an aggravating factor that the very same private entity being promoted by the Assembly and tipped off by the Senate, in this case one of its subgroups called New Jersey School Library Association, is directly made by A3446 S2421 the very drafter of the proposed model school library book selection and book challenge policies, in other words, the lead benefactor of A3446 S2421?  Is it an aggravating factor that a member of those not privy to the inside information was labeled a “meddling minority” on the (A3446) S2421 issue by Senator Andrew Zwicker?  Is it an aggravating factor that the ultimate victims are children?  Is it an aggravating factor that the children have no representation except for a relatively few parents who speak up only to get ignored by legislators who post open support for a Chicago organization that wrote the legislation before hearing even one word of public testimony?

Relevant Law:

Legislative Code of Ethics - https://njleg.state.nj.us/code-of-ethics
2:1. a. No member of the Legislature shall … act in any way that impairs the objectivity or independence of judgment of the member of the Legislature in the exercise of his or her duties or is violative of the public trust by an elected official or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated (C.52:13D-12 and 52:13D-23).
2:11. No member of the Legislature shall willfully disclose to any person, whether or not for pecuniary gain, any information not generally available to members of the public which he receives or acquires in the course of and by reason of his official duties. … (C.52:13D-25).

52:13D-12. Legislative findings
The Legislature finds and declares:
(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials … shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.
52:13D-25. Disclosure or use for personal gain of information not available to public
No … member of the Legislature shall willfully disclose to any person, whether or not for pecuniary gain, any information not generally available to members of the public which he receives or acquires in the course of and by reason of his official duties. ….
L.1971, c. 182, s. 14, eff. Jan. 11, 1972.

Other Provisions – 
52:13E-8. Dissemination of evidence adduced at private hearing
Except in the course of subsequent hearing which is open to the public, no testimony or other evidence adduced at a private hearing or preliminary conference or interview conducted before a single-member agency in the course of its investigation shall be disseminated or made available to the public by said agency, its counsel or employees without the approval of the head of the agency. Except in the course of a subsequent hearing open to the public, no testimony or other evidence adduced at a private hearing or preliminary conference or interview before a committee or other multimember investigating agency shall be disseminated or made available to the public by any member of the agency, its counsel or employees, except with the approval of a majority of the members of such agency. Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be adjudged a disorderly person.
L.1968, c. 376, s. 8, eff. Dec. 27, 1968.

VI. Disclosure of Confidential Information
Relevant provisions of the Conflicts Law and the Code of Ethics: N.J.S.A. 52:13D-25; sections 2:11 and 3:13 of the Code of Ethics.
Summary: These provisions prohibit legislators and legislative employees from disclosing nonpublic information acquired in the course of official duties.

Question 24
Senator B serves on a special committee directed by resolution to conduct an investigation. As part of that investigation, preliminary sworn statements were taken at private hearings and the transcripts of those statements were given to the members of the special committee including Senator B. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13E-8, the transcripts are confidential unless a majority of the special committee votes to make them public. No such vote was taken. The transcripts concern activities affecting the Senator's district and he wants to share the information with local officials immediately. 

Can he give copies of the transcripts to the local officials and request that they not go public with the information?

You answered No which is correct.
The Senator may not release this information. Not only would the release of this confidential information violate N.J.S.A. 52:13D-25 and section 2:11 of the Code of Ethics, it would be a disorderly persons offense pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13E-8.

Relevant Facts:

On June 6, 2024, starting at 10 AM, the Assembly Education Committee heard public testimony for the first time on the so-called "Freedom to Read Act" A3446 that was written by the American Library Association (ALA) based in Chicago, Illinois, and promoted nationwide and federally with its organization called, "Unite Against Book Bans."  ALA promotes Unite Against Book Bans on X via use of the hashtag #UniteAgainstBookBans.  I testified at that hearing about the grip of the Unite Against Book Bans organization over New Jersey’s librarians.  To me it seems my testimony was ignored.

Seventeen minutes before the hearing began, then again during the meeting, the X account @NJAssemblyDems posted its support for ALA, first by posting the ALA’s hashtag, then by posting with a tag to ALA’s Unite Against Book Bans group on X called @UABookBans.  It later deleted that second tweet.  So, before even ever hearing from the public on the issue, the Assembly demonstrated it openly sided with the legislative efforts of the Chicago-based organization that drafted the legislation.  Even the Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly demonstrated his support for the Chicago organization’s legislation before any testimony was heard.  This has to violate at least some of the codes/laws cited above.  Passing A3446 now essentially rubber stamps ethical and possibly criminal violations made by those legislators who voted for A3446.

The "Freedom to Read Act" will defend our most basic freedoms and protect the rights of students, parents, and communities. 
@AswDrulis @njla @NJEA @GSEquality @NJASL #uniteagainstbookbans #nj
9:43 AM Jun 6, 2024

An hour or so later, I can’t be sure since the post has since been deleted but I have a screen grab of it showing it was sent an hour after the first post, @njassemblydems sent out a response to its own post discussed above saying only, "@PENamerica @sikh_coalition @UABookBans".



Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, posted on X from @SpeakerCoughlin by saying, "The Freedom to Read is fundamental to our democracy" and reposted the 9:43 AM Jun 6, 2024, prejudicial post.  He did this at 11:08 AM Jun 6, 2024, only an hour and eight minutes after the Assembly hearing started and hours before it concluded.

On or before June 12, at least one member of the NJ Senate Education Committee [SEC] provided New Jersey Association of School Librarians [NJASL], which is a Chapter of the American Library Association’s [ALA] American Association of School Librarians [AASL], with a June 20 date of the SEC hearing for S2421 “Freedom to Read Act.”  S2421 was never heard that day but still, the librarians were tipped off.  After that, on or before June 13, that information was placed on an ALA web site (via ALA crypto group EveryLibrary) with the call to “email or call” the legislators of the SEC. On June 14 at 6:18AM, an ALA astroturfed group in New Jersey started by North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School school librarian Martha Hickson using ALA resources posted on X from @NHVfREADom the link to that ALA/EveryLibrary web site and tagged @NJASL @AndrewZwicker @aswdrulis, so at least those people knew for certain of the ALA/EveryLibrary web site announcing the date of the S2421 hearing.  As of June 19, 12:26 PM, the SEC still doesn’t list S2421 as being heard on June 20 despite NJASL and ALA having known and having announced it since June 12.  Further, by June 14, two legislators knew or should have known of the release of the information via a third ALA source.  So seven days had gone by and the New Jersey public still didn’t know of the S2421 hearing on June 20, but ALA did, ALA’s EveryLibrary did, ALA’s AASL Chapter NJASL did, and ALA’s astroturfer Martha Hickson @NHVfREADom did.  The ALA and its supporters have been able to rally for a week before the June 20 hearing while New Jersey citizens had yet to have been informed of the June 20th hearing date, although again it didn’t happen that day.  Indeed some could not attend as a direct result of this lack of public notice.  It’s ALA that wrote the legislation and is pushing it in New Jersey, in states nationwide, and federally.  Somehow ALA knew of the SEC’s June 20th hearing on S2421 at least a week before the SEC ever made the New Jersey citizenry aware.  NJ legislators are the only possible source of this inside information.

Date/Time: 13 Jun 2024 19:43:45 UTC
Source: American Library Association (via EveryLibrary)
Quote:
Update June 12 from NJASL:
…
The companion bill, S2421, sponsored by Senators Zwicker and Ruiz will be heard by the Senate Education Committee on Thursday, June 20. Please email or call the following legislators and ask them to vote YES on S2421.
Senator Vin Gopal, Chair (LD11) Monmouth County
732-695-3371 sengopal@njleg.org
Senator Shirley Turner, Vice Chair (LD15) Hunterdon, Mercer County
609-323-7239 senturner@njleg.org
Senator Kristen M. Corrado (LD40) Bergen, Essex, Passaic County
973-237-1360 sencorrado@njleg.org
Senator Owen Henry (LD12) Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean County
732-607-7580 senhenry@njleg.org
Senator Angela McKnight (LD31) Hudson County
201-360-2502 senmcknight@njleg.org

Date/Time: 13 Jun 2024 19:49:03 UTC
Source: NJ Senate Education Committee
Quote:  Nothing to quote and no June 20 meeting is listed.

Date/Time: 13 Jun 2024 20:22:26 UTC
Source: NJ Senate Education Committee
Quote:  Now the June 20 meeting is listed, but S2421 is not.  Eight others are.

Date/Time: 14 Jun 2024 06:18 AM ET
Source: @nhvfREADom on X
Quote:
The NJ Freedom to Read Act is having a positive influence even before it’s passed by giving other states ideas for protecting the right to read. Let’s make sure we pass our bill @njasl @AndrewZwicker @aswdrulis https://www.saveschoollibrarians.org/njaslbookbans

Date/Time: 19 Jun 2024 04:13:58 UTC
Source: NJ Senate Education Committee
Quote:  Still S2421 is missing.

Senator Andrew Zwicker calls Dan Kleinman a “meddling minority”:

"One critic who told legislators he would testify against the bill is Dan Kleinman, a Texas-based blogger who last year launched the World Library Association as an alternative to the American Library Association, which has led the charge nationally against banning books. Zwicker said neutralizing that meddling minority of out-of-towners is one of his goals.

"'We already live in a system where a parent has the ability to limit what their child does or doesn’t read. But we should never live in a system where someone else gets to choose what your child gets to read. A small number of people, if they had their way, would dictate what the rest of us and our children could choose to read. And that’s un-American,’ he said."


Lastly, ALA’s Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and its Freedom to Read Foundation, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., trained librarians that before legislation gets promoted there needs to be sustained messaging that reframes known s*xually inappropriate material as diversity and inclusion.  That is apparently exactly what has happened in New Jersey, right down to the wording of the legislation, and why legislators willingly violate ethical codes leading to violations of obscenity statutes.  And children are the target.  If the legislators don’t stand up for New Jersey’s children, who will?  The parents will, but the legislation intentionally and severely limits their ability to act in such a manner.  Specifically, the ALA leader/attorney said:

"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."


And ALA has worked for over half a century to promote inappropriate material in public schools and libraries.  See: Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing. New Jersey parents don’t stand a chance against such sustained community organizing and really must rely on legislators to protect their rights, yet it appears those rights are being tossed aside for flowery "freedom to read" language that was made up by ALA in the 1960s precisely to take power away from parents and school boards and enrich authors like New Jersey’s own Judy Blume.  The New Jersey legislature is delivering the coup de grâce since ALA doesn’t have the power to do that by itself.

Conclusion:

From the above it is my opinion that at least one New Jersey legislator has violated ethical codes in a manner that may be considered a criminal offense subject to a possible fine, jail, and a criminal record.  Further, there are a number of aggravating factors that make this a serious offense, including that the will of the public will have been subverted so that school children may be s*xualized and indoctrinated in schools by school librarians ignoring the US Supreme Court and New Jersey criminal statutes on obscenity, let alone the will of the public, all to satisfy the interests of a private organization based in Chicago, Illinois, promoting “Freedom to Read” and “Right to Read” legislation nationwide and here in New Jersey that simply defies the law, community standards, common sense, and that directly harms children.  I’ve been called a “meddling minority” by one of the legislators, but it appears any meddling being done is by the legislators themselves violating ethical codes and possibly committing disorderly persons offenses.  This “Freedom to Read Act” is being forced on people like in New Jersey by legislators acting in collusion with ALA to s*xualize and indoctrinate school children. The legislators demonstrate they’ve already made up their minds and any input from citizens is merely to make a showing about caring for the people of the state; to check off a box before passage of legislation into law.  

These acts are fatally flawed from the start, they are being promoted with flagrant violations of ethical codes and criminal laws, they harm children and violate existing law like Board of Education v. Pico allowing immediate removal of pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material, and now they are about to be sent to the Governor for his signature.

I’ll be publishing this so the public knows what’s going on in legislatures and why their children are being harmed in public schools and libraries and how legislators are turning that harm into law by violating ethical codes. 

I call for the appropriate legal remedy to be launched against these legislators given the above, even if that includes their immediate arrest.  And certainly the "Freedom to Read Act" A3446 S2421 should not be advanced any further.

No one is above the law.




NOTE ADDED 6 JULY 2024:

The page discussed about on an ALA site has been changed to remove the evidence presented above, the exact reason the archived copies were provided.  So ALA is hiding the collusion this report revealed.  Here is an archive of the page as it appears as of today with the incriminating evidence removed:


Here is my five post thread discussing this:


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 125 W State St, Trenton, NJ 08608, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)