Showing posts with label LibraryArrest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LibraryArrest. Show all posts

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Lantana Public Library Maskless Mother/Child Expulsion FOIA 001

Here is my Lantana Public Library Maskless Mother/Child Expulsion FOIA 001 (and it appears Twitter may have already shadowbanned the account that tweeted the two minute video, though it can be seen in modified form elsewhere):

Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries® Brand Library Education Services
Chatham, NJ 07928
SafeLibraries@pm.me
24 December 2020

Kathleen Dominguez, CMC
Town Clerk
Lantana Town Hall
500 Greynolds Circle
Lantana, FL 33462
kdominguez@lantana.org

     Re: Lantana Public Library Maskless Mother/Child Expulsion FOIA 001

Dear Kathleen Dominguez, CMC, Town Clerk:

Pursuant to Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and Chapter 119, F.S., I am requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records.  On 20 December 2020, a mother of a child (and the child) were ejected by police from the children’s section of the Lantana Public Library for her not wearing a virus-related mask, as originally seen by me here: https://twitter.com/BlessUSA45/status/1340663608464859143

I know the library once had a drawbridge, but kicking a mom and her child out of a public library—the children's section no less—for not wearing a mask in a state where masks are not required seems worthy of investigation, if only to help prevent future harm, including possibly unnecessary use of police and 911 resources, let alone potentially scaring adults and children with fully armed police officers threatening moms that they might “get trespassed.”

I request police records of the incident, beginning with the 911 call referenced by the police office, and any related sequella.  Such records and the way they are made available by police are usually straightforward so there is no further need to describe what I seek.

I request library records of the incident and any related sequella.  Such records and the way they are made available by library records custodians are usually hard to obtain when a library seeks to hide public information.  I doubt that is the case here, but one never knows until it happens, so forgive me while I go into detail on what I seek.

Records may include documentation recorded on paper or electronically, including internal incident reports/records and video/security/voice recordings and may include library policies pertaining to virus-related masks specifically and library behavior rules generally that may involve expulsion from the library.  Sequella may include legal bills/invoices, emails/letters/voicemails written/spoken to or from professional organizations about the incident, including the Florida Library Association and the American Library Association, and publications in media or on social media accounts.  Emails include the BCC list and, if distribution lists are used, who are the individual recipients.  BCCs and distribution lists are for email etiquette/convenience, not for evasion of open records laws, so documentation of BCCs and distribution lists is included.  Further, librarians have been trained by the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom to use personal email addresses to conduct public business without, they’ve been told, having to make such emails available for public disclosure.  So with respect to public librarians and all library employees, records include those related to the incident sent and received under personal email addresses or library/personal/group social media accounts.

Please do not redact any non-exempt information on the documents and please be sure to include all BCC lines in any emails produced.  All documents should be produced as PDFs, except for photographs (that should be JPEG), audio files (that should be MP3), and video (that should be MP4 or MOV).  If the document files are too large to transmit in one single email, I authorize you to transmit them to me either using a free file sharing service such as DropBox or to send multiple emails (as many as required to send all documents asked of you).

I request a waiver of all fees for this request since the disclosure of the information I seek is not primarily in my commercial interest and is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, making the disclosure a matter of public interest, as it already is, such as here: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/video-library-karen/.  I run SafeLibraries® Brand Library Education Services, I'm a “library watchdog,” I publish my findings and make them available at no cost, and my findings are discussed in books and library schools worldwide.  More information about me here: https://tinyurl.com/AboutDan

Should you deny my request, or any part of the request, please state in writing the basis for the denial, including the exact statutory citation authorizing the denial as required by §119.07(1)(d), F.S.

If you have any questions, please contact me at SafeLibraries@pm.me.

Thank you,


Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries® Brand Library Educational Services


NOTE ADDED 16 JANUARY 2021:

Lantana has provided me with a full and complete FOIA response, withholding only one document for further consideration. 

My opinion is that while the mother may have been right about masks generally or specific to her, that’s moot since she violated library patron rules that had nothing to do with masks.  She could have addressed her concerns in a manner that did not violate library rules.  Instead, she it appears she acted in a way that caused a public disturbance that you wouldn’t want to happen to you if you were in a library.  That prompted the library director to call the police to request removal of the mom, and a police woman carried out the removal order.  The sensational video showed a slice of time when the police woman carried out her duties.  But by then the damage had been done and that was not captured on video.

So basically, while the mother may have been right, depending on the circumstances, she carried on in such a way that warranted her removal from the library, and she was professionally removed.  

As such, my review of the documents released under FOIA corroborates the view of the library that I republish here:


Library Statement

LIBRARY INCIDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Town of Lantana has recently received several complaints from the public regarding an incident that occurred inside the Lantana Public Library in December 2020 involving a public disturbance created as a result of a female citizen’s refusal to wear a facial covering, or face mask, while inside the library. This event was, in part, videotaped, and that videotape has recently been the subject of several social media postings.

The incident began when a library staff and a visitor requested that another citizen put on a facial covering, and that citizen refusing to do so. At this point, library staff offered to provide ADA accommodations for curbside service. This escalated into a verbal dispute between individuals inside the library, which is against Library Code of Conduct that led to a telephone call to the Lantana Police Department for assistance.

Upon arrival, a Lantana police officer determined that the subject of the call was involved in the public disturbance and was in noncompliance with Palm Beach County Emergency Order number 2020 – 12 regarding the County’s COVID-19  directive on wearing facial coverings, which as of June 24, 2020, requires or mandates that all persons accessing any Palm Beach County or municipal-owned and operated buildings and facilities, including libraries, wear a facial covering when entering, exiting or otherwise moving around such buildings and establishments.

The Palm Beach County Emergency Order 2020 – 12 was enacted by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Palm Beach County Code as well as by the declaration of emergency issued by Gov. DeSantis in Executive Order 20 – 52, in response to the County declaration of a local state of emergency due to the Coronavirus pandemic. This directive to wear facial coverings in County and municipal buildings and facilities, including public libraries, has been in effect in Palm Beach County since May 16, 2020.

This Emergency Order was enacted by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, not by the Town of Lantana; however, the Emergency Order continues to be in full effect and that both the Town and all of its citizens are fully subject to its terms, provisions, and requirements of that Emergency Order. A violation of the Order could subject the Town of Lantana to fines, penalties or other enforcement measures pursuant to Section 6 of the Emergency Order, which requires the Town to be in compliance.

After interviewing the subjects involved in this dispute, the Lantana police officer who responded to the call first requested, and then insisted, that the individual who refused to put on a facial covering leave the library because she was creating a disturbance in a public place. This individual complied with the officer’s instruction and left the library.

Lantana Town management has reviewed this incident which included viewing and listening to a cell phone video recording of parts, or portions, of this event involving discussions between the Town police officer and the complainant, which was subsequently posted by third parties on social media. This video only involves select portions of the event. This review by Town management has also included consultation with legal counsel.

Following this review, it was determined the police officer acted entirely appropriately in the situation, in light of the facts at hand and considerations involving the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and public health emergency, and the binding compliance mandates imposed upon the Town by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners as a result of its Emergency Order number 12, as well as the various CDC protocols on COVID-19 mitigation efforts.

The Palm Beach County Emergency Order Number 12 is a lawful exercise by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners pursuant to its Constitutionally-recognized police power to regulate the public health, welfare, and safety as long as the regulation is reasonable and related to a genuine public health interest in the case of the ongoing, and spiking, COVID-19 pandemic and public health emergency. This right was, in fact, recognized on July 27, 2020 by Palm Beach County Circuit Judge John Kastrenakes in the case of Machovec v. Palm Beach County when he upheld the legality and constitutionality of Palm Beach County Emergency Order number 12, and dismissed that lawsuit which was attempting to have that emergency order declared as unconstitutional as it related to those plaintiffs Privacy rights under the Florida Constitution. As noted by Judge Kastrenakes, the police power right of local governmental entities to regulate the general public’s health, welfare and safety through reasonable regulation in public health emergencies has long been recognized by the United States Supreme Court since the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905.

The Town of Lantana stands behind its Police Department and its Officer in this instance and takes strong issue with any accusations or allegations of wrongdoing. Its Police Officer was simply defusing what had clearly become a public disturbance inside its library and striving to ensure compliance with Palm Beach County Emergency Order number 12. Again, the Town could be subject to monetary fines, penalties or other enforcement measures by the County for any noncompliance in its buildings whereas, in contrast, any individual not complying with the mandate has no such potential fines, penalties or other enforcement measures which they are subject to.

The Town of Lantana requests that, as long as Palm Beach County Emergency Order number 12 remains in effect, all of the citizens of Lantana need to abide by the mandate and emergency order of the Palm Beach County Board of County commissioners in this ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and public health emergency. The Town of Lantana remains committed to protecting the public health, welfare and safety of its citizens in the coming days.

URL of this page: 
@LantanaLibrary @TownOfLantana













Friday, July 24, 2015

Old Navy v. Orland Park Public Library: Convicted Child Killer Arrested at Indianapolis Public Library



Making sure you saw this: convicted child killer arrested at Indianapolis Public Library

Story Time Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:30 PM

To: Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees
Re: Convicted child killer arrested in Indianapolis Public Library today

-- Board Action Needed --

I am making sure that the OPPL Board of Trustees (OPPL-BoT) is aware of this news story from today (7/23/15), where a convicted child killer was arrested at the Indianapolis Public Library. You can read the full story here:  http://abc7chicago.com/news/convicted-child-killer-arrested-at-indianapolis-library-/876009/

This is a predator who had recently been released from prison after serving 7 years for child molestation and child porn charges. One of the first things he did upon release was to head to the public library, where it appears he accessed child porn again or did something else in the library to violate his parole. 

The OPPL-BoT has never seemed to take the safety of children very seriously in your library, which is one of the big areas of criticism that Megan Fox and I have had for the OPPL-BoT since we started coming to your board meetings in October 2013. You really do not seem to care about children at all and instead seem to always want to side with the guys who masturbate in your library or who access illegal things like child porn. 

You seem proud of winning that ALA award for continuing to allow access to illegal materials on your computers…and you seem unashamed that as a Board you continue refusing to apologize for or address all of the incident reports where children were put at risk because of sexual activity or behavior in your library. 

Mary Weimar, as Library Director, has particularly seemed disinterested in the safety of children at the OPPL. Members of the Orland Park Police Department and reporter Dennis Sullivan from the Chicago Tribune both told us that for years Mary Weimar was informed by the police that registered sex offenders were violating their paroles by coming into the OPPL and being around children…but Weimar chose over and over again not to call the police when these men were in the library. 

This is on top of Weimar choosing not to call the police when child porn was reported to have been accessed on 3/8/11 and your own internal incident report shows that Weimar spoke with the man who did that, the man then admitted that child porn had been on his screen, and Weimar simply told him not to do it ever again (or, if he did, he would banned from the library…but the police would still not be called). This Board has admitted that Weimar did not call the police but should have, as any sane person would have done. 

The Board has now promised to never again allow child porn to go unreported to the police (and you seem to have an attitude of "the past is the past" and "oh, well"). 

When you factor in all the other incident reports showing sex crimes having been committed in your library and you look at Mary Weimar's response time and again as Director, you will see a troubling pattern of Weimar choosing wherever possible not to call the police and doing things that allow these men to get away. Why? 

Why does Mary Weimar keep doing that? 

Shouldn't you be mindful of things like what just happened today in Indianapolis and look at the OPPL and ask, "Are we really doing everything to remedy the past mistakes that were made here by Mary Weimar?". 

I would like the OPPL-BoT to finally address this.


Photo by Kevin DuJan (cropped by me).

I would also like to draw your attention to something that the Old Navy store in downtown Chicago does that might be a great idea for you. On the entrance doors to Old Navy on State Street in the LOOP, there is a notice posted to the glass doors stating that Old Navy is a Family Friendly establishment and that any criminal activity will be reported immediately to the police. This seems to serve as an effective deterrent to at least some segment of criminal element (or why would Old Navy have bothered doing this?). Old Navy communicates to anyone entering the store that children will be protected inside Old Navy…so anyone who would hurt a child should go elsewhere because Old Navy is a place where staff will vigilantly call the police on anyone attempting to hurt a child or engage in illegal activity. 

Old Navy's sign says:  "OLD NAVY PROMOTES A SAFE, FAMILY SHOPPING ENVIRONMENT. Criminal activity will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." 

The OPPL has no such notice on its doors. But, you should have one. 

I think the OPPL should have signs that say: "THE ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY PROMOTES A SAFE, FAMILY ENVIRONMENT. Criminal activity will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." 

Your entrance doors currently have more signs saying "No Smoking" than I can count. You have that posted over and over and over and over again. You must have gotten a bulk discount on the number of NO SMOKING signs you purchased for your entrance doors. I think you unofficially hold the Guinness World Record for the number of NO SMOKING signs plastered on a single entranceway. 

Similarly, you have countless "No Guns" signs on your doors. You don't have as many as you have NO SMOKING signs, but NO GUNS is a message you clearly want to send to anyone entering your building. In all the incident reports I have reviewed about crimes happening at the OPPL through the years, not once have I seen anything involving guns. Yet, you make a big production of telling people that there will be all sorts of negative consequences if they bring firearms into your building. 

So…considering the fact that you are a library where child porn was reported to have been accessed, where incidents of open public masturbation and other sex crimes have occurred, and where known sex offenders like David Varlotta have been known to roam (in violation of their parole, according to what Dennis Sullivan told me)…why don't you have anything on your doors as a notice that the OPPL is a safe place for children where police are called whenever anyone attempts to harm a child? 

Why aren't you, at bare minimum, at least doing what Old Navy does? 

Old Navy has no smoking signs. Old Navy has no gun signs. Old Navy has a prominent notice to any would-be creeps that Old Navy protects children. 

Why doesn't the OPPL do that? Can you look into it, at least? 

I've attached a picture I took of the Old Navy sign today so you can see what they have done. I truly believe that if you posted something like this on your doors alongside the NO SMOKING and NO GUNS signs that you would send a strong message to creeps that the OPPL staff has become serious about protecting children from harm. 

That has not been the message that Mary Weimar has sent for all these years of not calling the police when she should have and for looking the other way on things so that creeps could get away. But, you have the chance to turn the page and make a positive change. 

Will you follow in Old Navy's footsteps and do that? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like an answer from the Board on this. 

Kevin DuJan
Story Time Digital Media

**************************************************
Story Time Digital Media is a digital news service in electronic format presenting video content and in-depth articles to the public (free of charge) as well as newsletters distributed to the public on a regular rolling basis. Our motto is "we cover the news that the Old Media refuses to cover" and our focus is on topics pertaining to the welfare and safety of children and being a watchdog exposing government abuse, graft, and corruption in the state of Illinois and nationally. Subscribe to our video channel to view news reels, cartoons, and other motion picture news clips that we produce to educate the public on the affairs of local government and elected officials' treatment of the public. For more information on who we are and the stories we cover, click below: 

https://www.facebook.com/MeganFoxWriter


URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/07/indylibrary.html

On Twitter:  @IndyLibrary @MCSO_IN +Old Navy @OldNavy #OldNavyStyle @OrlandPkLibrary @StoryTimeDigita

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Acceptable Use Policies Do Not Work to Stop Library Crime

Acceptable use policies do not work to stop library crime.  Here's another example, this time at Westmont Public Library, Westmont, IL:


Here's that library's "Public Use of the Internet Policy" that precludes pornography, emphasis added:
  • "The Westmont Public Library requires that library patrons using the library computers, wireless networks and/or Internet do so within the guidelines of acceptable use.  The following activities are unacceptable: ... 
Viewing pornography, which is considered by most to be inappropriate for a public setting where minors may be present."

Here's the reality of the total failure of that policy, from the story linked above:
A Westmont man was charged with obscenity and disorderly conduct after he viewed online pornography in the youth services area of his local library, authorities said Thursday. 
Steven Beckow, 42, is accused of browsing the websites on Sept. 4 and 8 while using public computers in plain view at the Westmont Public Library, 428 N. Cass Ave. 
Police Sgt. Steve Thompson said the library terminated Beckow's Internet privileges after the first incident.  Four days later, he said, Beckow returned and was again seen viewing pornography online.
So not only did he blow right past that "acceptable use" policy and lose his "Internet privileges," but he returned within days, automagically regained his "Internet privileges" that were supposedly taken away, then viewed pornography again even though that violated the required "acceptable use" policy.

Can you see how the public is being completely misled by worthless "acceptable use" policies and claims of removing "Internet privileges"?  Internet filters actually work well, but libraries are guided by the American Library Association to instead use worthless "acceptable use" policies: "The position of the ALA ... calls for free and unfettered access to the Internet for any library user, regardless of age."  Is that the position of your community?  Do you want a magnet library for sex crimes?

So while "acceptable use policies" are complete and total failures in stopping criminal activity in public libraries, they are entirely effective in blame/liability shifting and fooling local communities into thinking libraries are responsive to communities instead of to the American Library Association.  Acceptable use policies do not work to stop library crime.

Here is more from me on this topic: Acceptable Use Policies.


URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/11/aup.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @OIF @WestmontLibrary

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Magnet Libraries

Criminals know to seek out and use public libraries having weak or nonexistent library porn filters.  Below is an example.  And the evidence comes right from the mouth of the criminal.  So if your library allows porn despite policy and the law, your library is a magnet for criminals.

Notice the library's Internet use policy states it provides Internet filters, blocks porn in accordance with law, and adheres to the Children's Internet Protection Act, but it is completely useless, as all "acceptable use policies" are.  It is apparently just for show because it looks really good but it obviously does not work.  The Maricopa County Superior Court judge and relevant legal counsel ought to consider if the library is itself partly responsible for providing an attractive nuisance:
  • "Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources," by Scottsdale Public Library, Scottsdale, AZ (hyperlinks in original):
    4.  The Library provides filtered access to the Internet in order to adhere to the requirements set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS 13-3501 “Obscenity, Definitions”, 13-3506.01 “Furnishing Harmful Items to Minors, Internet Activity”, 13-3507 “Public Display of Explicit Sexual Material”) and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Because filtering software is inherently imperfect, we cannot guarantee that all Internet content will be appropriately filtered at all times.

    5.  Adult customers may request unfiltered Internet access at any time without having to provide an explanation to library staff. Disabling of the Internet filter by Library staff in no way exempts the customer from ARS 13-3507 “Public Display of Explicit Sexual Material.”
Ever heard of magnet schools?  Well Scottsdale Public Library is a magnet library.  Does your community have a magnet library like this one?




SCOTTSDALE, AZ (CBS5) -

A man awaiting trial on child sex crimes was arrested at his Gilbert home Tuesday on allegations of downloading hundreds of images of child porn at a Scottsdale library, police said.

Murat Alev, 60, was wearing a court-ordered ankle monitoring device that enabled Maricopa County adult probation officers to track him down at Mustang Library at 10101 N. 90th St.

Alev was a school bus driver for the Gilbert school system at the time of his arrest, according to a probable cause statement.

Alev handed over a thumb drive that he admitted contained hundreds of images he downloaded of young naked girls while on the library computer, a court document stated.

Court paperwork stated Alev had been at the library for six hours.

Alev told a Scottsdale police detective that he was at Mustang Library because its computers "don't filter as well as other libraries," according to the probable cause statement.

The man is currently on felony release pretrial services for furnishing obscene materials to minors. As part of his release conditions, he is not allowed to access computers or the internet.

Scottsdale police detectives arrested Alev after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge granted a warrant.

Authorities said examining the thumb drive and said future charges are possible.

Copyright 2014 CBS 5 (KPHO Broadcasting Corporation). All rights reserved.




On Twitter:  @CBS5AZ @CourtPIO @ScottsdaleAZGov @ScottsdalePD @ScottsdaleReads 

Thursday, July 18, 2013

US DOJ Indicts Public Library Child Porn Viewer: US v. Wiggins

Another public library, another child porn viewer.  This time at the Parkersburg & Wood County Public Library, Parkersburg, WV:



The library filters the Internet but turns off the filters upon request: "If a site is blocked by the internet filter, then the patron may come to the Reference Librarian to override at the Librarian's discretion."  Remember, the law allows librarians to refuse to unblock porn per Bradburn v. NCRL.  So it is possible the library itself may have been partly responsible for the crime, depending on the circumstances.  However, the facts as reported are too thin to understand much at all.

Let's see how well turning off filters upon request works:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 16, 2013

WOOD CO. MAN INDICTED BY A FEDERAL GRAND JURY FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE

Matthew Wiggins allegedly viewed images of child pornography during public library visit


CHARLESTON, W.Va. – United States Attorney Booth Goodwin announced today that a Wood County man was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in Charleston for a child pornography offense. Matthew John Wiggins, 40, of Parkersburg, W.Va., was charged with access with intent to view child pornography.  The single-count indictment alleges that on January 17, 2013, Wiggins viewed images of child pornography from a computer that was located inside of the Parkersburg & Wood County Public Library.

Wiggins faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years and up to 20 years in prison because of his previous conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for possession of child pornography.

The West Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and the Parkersburg Police Department conducted the investigation.  Assistant United States Attorney Lisa Johnston is in charge of the prosecution.

The indictment was brought as part of U.S. Attorney Goodwin's ongoing initiative to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse in the Southern District of West Virginia.

Note: The charge contained in the indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Click here to view a copy of the indictment.

SOURCE of the above:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
CHARLESTON GRAND JURY 2012 
JULY 16, 2013 SESSION 

FILED
JUL 16 2013
TERESA L. DEPPNER, CLERK
U.S. District Court
Southern District of West Virginia


CRIMINAL NO.   6:13-cr-00183  
                           18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) 
                        18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MATTHEW JOHN WIGGINS


I N D I C T M E N T 

The Grand Jury Charges: 

     1.   On or about January 17, 2013, at or near Parkersburg, Wood County, West Virginia, and within the Southern District of West Virginia, defendant MATTHEW JOHN WIGGINS did knowingly access with intent to view material, that is, computer graphic image files, containing images of child pornography, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), that involved prepubescent minors and which had been shipped and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer. 
     2.   At the time defendant MATTHEW JOHN WIGGINS possessed child pornography, he had a prior federal conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, that is, Possession of Child Pornography in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(5)(B). 

     In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2252A (b)(2).


FORFEITURE 

     In accordance with Section 2253(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and Rule 32.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and premised on the conviction of defendant MATTHEW JOHN WIGGINS of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 et seq., as set forth in this indictment, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any visual depictions and any books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes, and other matter which contains such visual depictions, which were produced, transported, mailed, shipped, or received in connection with the violations set forth in this indictment, any real and personal property constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from the violations set forth in this indictment, and any real and personal property used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of the violations set forth in this indictment, including, but not limited to: 

     •   One Western Digital 250GB HDD, serial number WMAVZED46509. 

                                    R. BOOTH GOODWIN II
                                    United States Attorney

                                           /s/

                               By:  _________________________
                                    LISA G. JOHNSTON
                                    Assistant United States Attorney

SOURCE of the above:

  • "US v. Wiggins," Crim. No. 6:13-cr-00183, US DOJ, SDWV, 16 July 2013.


Shout out to the West Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC), the Parkersburg Police Department, and the US DOJ United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorney, SD W.Va.

As usual, the American Library Association will provide no assistance, I predict, as its policies may have been part of the problem, both with respect to the library's filtering policy and with respect to the library's policy on destruction of Internet usage data.  For example, see:





Saturday, March 16, 2013

Banned From All Libraries on Earth for Masturbating in Racine Public Library That Allows Unfiltered Internet Access; Law School Exam Question on First Amendment and Criminal Law in Public Libraries

A man has been banned from "all the libraries on the face of the Earth" for public library masturbation:
Pretend this is a constitutional/criminal law school exam (perfect for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Library & Information Studies).  When answering law school exams, one uses IRAC, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion.  In this exam question, I'll raise some issues and some rules I think are present.  Can anyone find others?  The media did not state whether the masturbator viewed online porn in the library, but, for this hypothetical law exam question, let's assume he did as that is the consistent precursor to public library masturbation, something so common reporter Carl Monday filmed a man masturbating in a public library, right next to the children's room.  You have four hours to answer and may refer to the linked reliable sources of information, or others, as long as you provide URLs for me to check.


SafeLibraries School of Law
Constitutional/Criminal Law Final Exam



FACTS:

The Racine Public Library, Racine, WI, allows unfiltered Internet access under its "Internet Access Acceptable Use Policy," and its "Rules and Regulations Governing Use of the Internet Workstations" say, "Users should not send, receive, or display text or graphics which may be reasonably construed as obscene by community standards."  The acceptable use policy clarifies that when it comes to obscenity, "That determination is made through legislation and interpreted by the courts."  The Racine Public Library Board of Trustees has created a legal disclaimer stating, "Neither the Racine Public Library nor the City of Racine, its officers, directors, or employees shall be liable for any damages (direct or consequential), including lost profits, for any information obtained or provided on the Internet."

A man views pornography on the unfiltered Internet computers provided by the public library in full view of all employees and patrons, including children, then he openly masturbates.  He is arrested and removed. 

The library has seen persistent problems.  Consider this from 24 September 2005 Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI): "Father Wants to Make Sure Porn Can't Be Seen at Library; Panel Creating Proposal on Teens' Computer Use":
The Racine Public Library is hosting a public forum to discuss its Internet Acceptable Use Policy, a discussion that comes on the heels of a citizen's complaint about teens using public computers to access adult Web sites.  ....  Java Orr of Racine became concerned when he was at the library several months ago with his 6-year-old daughter and he saw a male teenager downloading and viewing pornographic material on a computer in the adult services area.  Orr said when he brought his complaint to library officials, he was told nothing could be done to prevent the youth from viewing the material.  Orr took his fight to keep children from viewing pornographic material at the Racine Public Library to the public.  He spent hours in front of the library petitioning residents to sign his Child Friendly Library Act, which he intends to get the Legislature to pass a bill on.  So far he has more than 500 signatures on the petitions.  His goal is 1,000.  "The bill would prevent children, including young adults, from gaining access to obscene or pornographic material," Orr said.  ....  "I'm hoping to hear what the public wants," [Racine Public Library Director Jessica] MacPhail said.
Or this in the same media source dated 30 July 2005 and entitled, "Porn Access at Public Library Criticized; Dad Wants Material Kept from Youths":
After observing what he calls pornographic material being downloaded and viewed by a teenager at a public library, a Racine man is now on a mission to change the law.  Java Orr said in an interview last week that while visiting the Racine Public Library three weeks ago with his 6-year-old daughter, he observed a male teenager downloading and viewing pornographic material on a computer in the adult services area.  Orr said that when he brought his complaint to library officials, they said nothing could be done to prevent the youth from viewing the material.  "It's insane that kids can actually see and read about this kind of sexual material at a public library," Orr said.  "Furthermore, that my child or any other child can easily walk by and witness it."  Orr is taking his fight to keep children from viewing pornographic material at the Racine Public library to the public.  In the past week, Orr has spent hours in front of the library petitioning residents to sign his Child Friendly Library Act, which he hopes will get attention from the Legislature.  He has gathered more than 500 signatures and has set a goal of 1,000.  "The bill would prevent children, including young adults, from gaining access to obscene or pornographic material" at a public library, Orr said.  ....  [Racine Public Library Director Jessica] MacPhail said a separate youth services area in the library provides five computers equipped with filters to weed out such material.  She said that area is used primarily for children through eighth grade.  ....  MacPhail said the Racine Public Library does post its Internet access policies for the public.  The policies state ... it is unacceptable to use the library's Internet equipment to send, receive or display text or graphics that may reasonably be construed as obscene by community standards.


LAW:

Federal:  Internet filters are legal in public libraries since US v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  Legal porn may be legally removed from public libraries as there is no First Amendment right to view porn in public libraries.

State:  See Wisconsin Library Law, Chapter 43.  Wisconsin criminal code includes "948.10 Exposing genitals or pubic area" and "948.11 Exposing a child to harmful material or harmful descriptions or narrations," including "(4) Libraries and educational institutions."  Consider if other Wisconsin Criminal Code provisions apply.  Also consider cases such as Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library and other library hostile environment or sexual harassment lawsuits.  Locally, consider Jackson v. County of Racine.

Local:  Consider also Racine Municipal Code, including "Sec. 66-1001. - Public nuisance prohibited."  And might there be any ordinances regarding officials failing to act in the public trust?  Any legal instrument on the statutory creation of the Wisconsin public library and whether pornography is allowable as "free access to information and diversity of ideas"?  Consider searching Google for "annoyed librarian porn ala."


QUESTIONS:

Is there a crime or other legally actionable activity or lack thereof?  What?  Who is liable?  For what?  Have the patrons been harmed?  Children?  Library employees?  What about the perpetrator?  Was there an attractive nuisance?  Might the crime not have happened in the first place had effective filters been in place?

And the code that created the library.  Did it allow for pornography?  Has the library acted outside the law by acting as an open public forum and allowing porn instead of as a quasi public forum and filtering out porn per US v. ALA

What are the duties of the municipality when a library acts outside the law, and what are the liabilities for failure to require a library to act within the law?  Is the municipality liable for anything?  What?  Does the library's legal disclaimer protect the municipality? 

What effect might there be as a result of the knowledge of persistent problems in the library occurring as a result of pornography?

If libraries and educational institutions are exempted from liability for "carry[ing] out the essential purpose of making available to all citizens a current, balanced collection of books, reference materials, periodicals, sound recordings and audiovisual materials that reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society," does that protection extend to pornography displayed publicly as a result of the lack of Internet filters?  Does pornography "reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society" to the extent that it should be allowed in libraries even when the US Supreme Court said it may be legally blocked from libraries?

Library policy states, "Websites may be brought to the Library's attention; however, staff will not review sites if viewing the content would violate the City's Anti-Harassment Policy." What might that mean?  What relevance might that have?  And the library's "Acceptable Use Policy", what effect has that had in fact and might it have in law? 

If the library policy is to exclude obscene material, but also to claim the decisions as to what is obscene "is made through legislation and interpreted by the courts," what effect might that have in fact and on any legal proceedings?  Has the library covered itself from liability?  With millions of pornographic web sites and the library's requirement that only a court can determine what is obscene, has the library set up an impossibility that effectively nullifies its claim to preclude obscenity by policy?  If the library, in setting up such an impossibility, is following the requirements of an out of state organization, has it effectively ceded control of the central policy of the library to that outside organization?  When answering, consider the American Library Association's guidance to public libraries entitled, "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy":
Knowing what materials are actually obscenity or child pornography is difficult, as is knowing, when minors are involved, and what materials are actually "harmful to minors." The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides.  Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.  Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or "harmful to minors."

Lastly, what might be the implications and effect of the library's legal disclaimer?


ANSWER:

[Insert answer here or in comments below.  You have four hours.]



Sunday, March 10, 2013

School Library Child Porn Arrest Story by Associated Press Features Police Expert Dr. Frank Kardasz, Thanks to SafeLibraries

The American Library Association [ALA] is tracking a story regarding an arrest in a collegiate library (Metropolitan Community College, Kansas City, MO).  Here are a couple of links to the stories:


In the stories one police source figures prominently:

Frank Kardasz, retired commander of the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, said his task force worked dozens of cases involving people viewing or trafficking child pornography while using public and college library computers. 
The problem is tough to police because of the imperfect nature of Internet filtering devices and pushback from free-speech advocates who believe adults should have the right to view adult pornography in libraries, he said, adding that any place offering wireless Internet connections "is an opportunity for child pornography offenders to traffic contraband images." 
"My experience is that some, not all, libraries underreport the offenses because they do not wish to bring attention nor police involvement to their facility," said Kardasz, founder and director of the Phoenix-based Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign. "Also, because many offenders are nefarious enough to avoid apprehension, there are probably more offenses occurring than we are aware of."

That Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign is an open Facebook group having 360 members of which I am one of the earliest members.  And I have written about Dr. Frank Kardasz previously:


I am so happy the police caught up with and stopped the criminal.  And I am also happy to expose yet again that acceptable use policies are failures, as this case evidences, and that libraries hold them up like they are so precious—here it's the school's first defense:
Kathy Walter-Mack, chief of staff for MCC Chancellor Mark James, declined to discuss Lawrence's case because he is a student at the college and is the focus of an ongoing investigation.  She said the college's policies prohibit the unlawful use of its computer networks.

That said, it should be known that the Associated Press author contacted Dr. Frank Kardasz as a direct result of his having learned of the good doctor right here on the SafeLibraries blog.  I love linking numerous reliable sources in my posts, and when main stream media is using them to find experts, I know I am being successful in exposing the harmful activities of the ALA.  So thanks, ALA, for tracking the story to which I directly contributed.  As a direct result of my work, you are learning:

But the First Amendment, Kardasz said, was crafted long before the invention of computers. 
"While I support free speech, I cannot imagine that the framers of the Constitution foresaw pornography in the library as acceptable when children are also present," he said.

And indeed, the US Supreme Court said, directly to ALA/ACLU, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  Are there, as Dr. Kardasz put it, "free-speech advocates who believe adults should have the right to view adult pornography in libraries"?  Yes, but they do not have that right.  If your library is saying they do, here's a road map for removing porn from libraries.