Showing posts with label MediaExcellence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MediaExcellence. Show all posts

Monday, June 22, 2015

ALA Caught Hiding Data on 'Banned' Books — Again

The American Library Association [ALA] has again been caught hiding data on "banned" books:
So I got in touch with the ALA to get the full data set, and to verify that its numbers were sound. That proved problematic.
....

I was hoping to find out more about challenges to “Tango” — what types of challenges have been made, how the challenges were relayed to the ALA, etc.  But I soon found there was no way to get any raw data about challenges, as the Office for Intellectual Freedom refused to give me access to its database or any more details about the methodology behind its collection of challenges beyond what’s on the website.  In my initial interactions with the ALA, a spokesperson offered to schedule an interview with someone “to get a perspective beyond the numbers,” but despite repeated requests, no one was made available.  I was, though, given this statement: “OIF maintains the database for internal staff use, as a means of encouraging libraries to report challenges, and to create awareness of the importance of protecting and celebrating the freedom to read.  Because the censorship database does not have the statistical validity demanded by many social scientists and researchers and may be vulnerable to misinterpretation and misuse, we must deny any request asking OIF to share raw data.”

The American Library Association is saying that its challenge database isn’t statistically valid and that despite the hundreds of news articles about its list, the database is not meant for public consumption.  I sent a list of follow-up questions about the database and the publicity around it, but an ALA spokeswoman said no one would be able to comment until at least July, citing busy preparations for the organization’s upcoming annual conference.

The list’s statistical validity is in question because we have little idea how it is put together.  We don’t know how challenges are collected — based on past descriptions from the OIF, it seems like an amalgam of news reports and calls from concerned librarians.  We also know that at least one author self-reports challenges: Parnell tells me that he lets the ALA know whenever he hears news of “Tango” coming under fire.  (Whether those reports make it into the tally or not is unknown.)  In addition, the ALA’s system seems to be agnostic to the type or severity of the challenge or its effectiveness. A parent questioning whether a Batman picture book is age-appropriate for the kid shelves appears to be given the same weight — a “challenge” — as a school board removing “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” from the syllabus of schools throughout an entire county.

“We lose a bit of our rhetorical power when we put them under the same umbrella,” said Jessamyn West, founder of Librarian.net, a popular progressive site about librarian-related issues.  A former ALA councilor just a decade ago, West is no longer a member and has used her site to note her issues with conflating these very different types of challenges, noting that questioning whether something is age-appropriate is very different from wanting it gone altogether.  “How we count things and how we reflect those to the people is super important,” she told me.

It may not be rigorous or even particularly accurate, but the ALA’s yearly list has drawn attention to many books.  Perhaps as a result of that spotlight, “And Tango Makes Three” has been a huge hit, at least as far as books go.  It has been debated on “The View.”  A decade after it was published, customers still buy dozens of copies a day on Amazon.  It has been translated into 11 languages and even turned into a play.  Simon & Schuster released a 10th anniversary deluxe edition of the book in early June, complete with an audiobook narrated by Neil Patrick Harris.

In the accompanying press release, David Gale, a vice president at Simon & Schuster, says: “Although ‘And Tango Makes Three’ has been on ALA’s list of ‘Most Frequently Challenged Books’ many times, readers worldwide have embraced its heartwarming message about the true nature of family and love.”  Gale’s quote begins with “although,” but the more appropriate word may be “because.”  Sometimes controversy can get a book — or a list — some extra attention.
I say again because I exposed a recording I made of an ALA-listed author admitting that ALA fakes its annual list.  And I spoke directly with the man at ALA who compiled the list one year and he too admitted ALA faked the numbers ("dozens" was really four).  I stopped "And Tango Makes Three" from being falsely listed after five years straight and thereby hurting the LGBT community with faked claims of discrimination:
Notice how ALA would not answer that reporter's questions, dragged things out interminably, then refused to answer his questions.  It is one way ALA continues to get away with making up the numbers, by never responding to requests for information by reporters that ALA thinks might hurt ALA's agenda—except that one time that one ALA employee answered my questions, revealed ALA faked the numbers, then was somehow no longer working with ALA, the Office for Intellectual Freedom specifically.

Then reporter David Goldenberg zeroed in on exactly what I already reported, namely, one librarian gently points out so no one hears how she knows ALA is misleading people, and he cites the very source I already cited.

More significantly, ALA fakes the numbers of "banned" LGBT materials to whip people up into a frenzy.  As David Goldenberg put it, "Sometimes controversy can get a book — or a list — some extra attention."

Bingo.  Who cares if the LGBT community gets harmed in the process, right?  The ends justifies the means.

And I reported this four years ago.  Only now is a single reporter finally raising the issue again and finding the same deception.

How many more years will it take for main stream media to finally stop reporting on falsified numbers based on smoke and mirrors?


NOTE ADDED 23 JUNE 2015:

Stung by the truth and its being so publicly available, ALA OIF has gone on the offensive, responding repeatedly on Twitter and with a blog post that absolutely misleads people and completely ignores that it has been caught faking data and removing "And Tango Makes Three" from the list as a result.

How dare a "freelance journalist question[] ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom's reputation and professionalism"!  Protest too much?  Read:

NOTE ADDED 24 JUNE 2015:

Even the author can see he is attacked by ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" that cannot stand anyone exposing how it manipulates people, data, media, etc.:
I, by the way, challenged ALA OIF to a public debate.  It will not tolerate public debate because it cannot control the message.  And in a rare instance where it was forced into public debate, it lost spectacularly, like when it was forced into admitting library filters work well and no longer block health-related information (link).

Here's my debate challenge:


URL of this page: tinyurl.com/ALACaughtAgain

On Twitter: @ALALibrary +Valerie Hawkins +Banned Books Week
 @dgoldenberg +FiveThirtyEight Channel @FiveThirtyEight @OIF #alaac15 #BannedBooks #BannedBooksWeek #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #msm

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Monday, January 5, 2015

I Feel Sorry For These Librarians: Toledo Library Loaded with Crime and Bedbugs

Toledo-Lucas County Public Library—it is loaded to the gills with crime and bedbugs:
I feel sorry for the librarians and library employees.  Read the 2012 (link), 2013 (link), and 2014 (link) incident reports from the above story.  It is absolutely atrocious what librarians have to go through, including, for example, frightening sexual harassment from porn-viewing patrons:
A librarian in September, 2014, reported a regular patron had made comments about her hair and tried to touch her.  The following month, he made more comments to her.  This time it was about being the head of her fan club. 
"He keep yelling 69, 69, 69 at me because his birthday is 1969, but he was referencing the sexual act," the female librarian said in her report.  "After using the computer he wouldn't leave and kept asking for my number and saying he will miss me."
Truly unbelievable.

Of course the American Library Association says librarians are never sexually harassed and likely never will be (link).  Why does library media not report on such things, both the harassment and the cover up?  Why is it only me?  (If you are a librarian or library employee being sexually harassed, please contact me.  I am basically the only person who will help you, and I'll do so confidentially.)

And notice the library lets the vast majority of those sex criminals including masturbators get off, as my criminal law professor joked, with essentially a slap on the wrist.  See the excerpt below, for example.  What's with that?

Notice how the library defends itself.  After about 1,000 crimes per year for years, a reporter asks for public records of the crimes, and immediately the library director responds.  Not before, mind you, only when caught.  The excuse is the library has acceptable use policies in place.  "We have a code of conduct and policies that we follow as best as we can," said the director.

I have been showing year after year that acceptable use policies NEVER stop library crime.  Library filters properly managed do help stop library crime, however, and the Federal Communications Commission says library filters work really well (link).

Naturally, American Library Association leadership says filters do not work by promoting outdated and misleading misinformation from a censorious hack cited in a slick publication (link).  At the same time they claim filters on computers for children are wonderful and your kids are in a "safe library" even if the adult computers allow child porn (link).  They must think people are stupid—the filters work on the childrens' computers really well but they don't work on the adults' computers.

By the way, the US Supreme Court ruled there is no First Amendment right to constitutionally protected material in public libraries where that material comprises Internet porn (link).  And do people really want the "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of speech" to see victims of sex trafficking having the worst day of their lives as they get drugged and raped and videotaped for guys to masturbate like they do in the Toledo library (link)?

Here an excerpt from that excellent story by Ignazio Messina in The Blade (link):
Porn and computers

Policing computer usage in libraries also has become a regular duty for librarians, [head of security for the library system] Mr. Sabo said.
Looking at pornography on a library computer can result in a one-week ban, while engaging in sexual activity could mean a one-year ban.  In March, a man at the downtown library was eligible to be slapped with both violations for masturbating at a computer station.

"A couple of minutes into my observations, I noticed [the man] watching a video of a partially clothed female being raped by a male with a gun," a report said, and the man began masturbating through his pants.  He ultimately apologized, acknowledged he should not have done that in a public place, and left quietly.

When a patron is found viewing pornography, he or she usually leaves the building quietly.

But on June 28, a man viewing pornography at the downtown library refused to leave when confronted by library security.

"When I told him he has to leave he stood up and walked within inches of me, threatening, 'If he ever sees me on the street he will put me down' and that 'He doesn’t care what badge I have or if we call the police.' "  He was eventually escorted out by two security guards.

After a patron is banned, returning to the library can get him or her slapped with a criminal trespassing charge.  The libraries deal with a lot of repeat offenders.
Source:


NOTE ADDED 6 JANUARY 2014:

This post is right on target.  You can tell when a Systems + Instruction Librarian at Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, named Nicholas Schiller (link) takes time out from work to attack me as "evil" for "malicious harassment"!  I simply tweeted this blog post having to do with sexual harassment of librarians to Twitter hashtag #TeamHarpy that is about sexual harassment of librarians (link).  Here is my tweet:


Do you see anything wrong with that?  I don't.  That tweet, however, prompted the following response (to another tweet, shown in context at bottom) from the university librarian and ALA member:


When I responded that I had no idea what he was talking about and asked why he would be so mean (link), he made further attacks on me for "harassing women" (link), then felt compelled to explain to everyone but me that he really wasn't being mean.  Oh no.  He was just doing a public service.  He was just "publicly pointing out bad behavior" to other librarians generally at #libchat and to the upcoming ALA Midwinter meeting at #alamw15:


What was my "bad behavior"?  Pay attention because this goes to the crux about how some librarians will do absolutely anything to help ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" continue to facilitate child pornography, homophobia, and sexual harassment of women in libraries.  My "bad behavior" was tweeting about my being involved in a SLAPP suit (link), exactly as #TeamHarpy was involved in a SLAPP suit, as a direct result of my reporting on someone else reporting on homophobia by representatives of the Orland Park Public Library (link):


And how do we know the #TeamHarpy matter is a SLAPP suit?  Mr. Schiller tells us, "I Am #TeamHarpy; I ally myself with Lisa Rabey and nina de jesus.  Lisa and nina are friends of mine and colleagues who are facing a SLAPP suit to silence their frank and open discussion of another colleague's behavior (link)," hyperlinks omitted.  Similar to TeamHarpy exposing sexual harassment of librarians, I exposed homophobic statements made to protect child pornography facilitation in a library.  For that I was SLAPPed.

So the #FreeSpeech experts who support those who call child pornography "intellectual freedom" (link) say it's "bad behavior," "harassing women," "evil," and "malicious harassment" for me to use a Twitter hashtag.

Who cares about the victims I am trying to help, right?

Some librarians will say and do absolutely anything to perpetuate the facilitation of child pornography in America's libraries and the massive harm caused by so many public libraries being used to consume child pornography and pornography, both against the law in public libraries, both harming sex trafficked victims and the rights and lives stolen away from them (link).

So long as I'm one of the few reporting on these issues, since mainstream library media will not touch it seriously, I'll continue to use "bad behavior" to report on and publicize the matter.

If the "free speech" librarians cannot stand my occasional use of a Twitter hashtag, that's their problem, not mine.  Unbelievable that my using a hashtag is "malicious harassment" but facilitating child porn in public libraries isn't and my saying so must be squelched with broadcast ridicule.  By librarians, of all people.



URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/01/sorry.html

On Twitter: @FCC @IgnazioMessina @OIF @ToledoLibrary @ToledoNews


Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, 325 North Michigan Street, Toledo, OH 43604, USA

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

On Getting Lumped In With Others; And SafeLibraries Makes Three

Marta L. Magnuson
UWM Adjunct Professor
I get lumped in with others.  It happens to me a lot.  It just happened again, to which I say, And SafeLibraries Makes Three:


But this time the author, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, School of Information Studies Adjunct Professor Marta L. Magnuson, pictured at right, had the integrity to review my response and the underlying Swanson 2007 reference, then edit her work accordingly.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the original 12 May 2011 version that incorrectly lumped me in with others for "us[ing] parental rights as reasoning for censoring And Tango Makes Three."  In reality, I never support censorship, and especially not a children's book like And Tango Makes Three.  What will be removed or changed is highlighted.  As you will see, And SafeLibraries Makes Three:
Parents and library board members were not the only people who voiced their opinion about the rights of parents. Along with Medved’s comments for USA Today, Dan Kleinman, who runs the website SafeLibraries.org, and Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families, also used parental rights as reasoning for censoring And Tango Makes Three.  In fact, Thomasson went so far as to attack libraries, telling parents that they "can no longer trust libraries to protect their children's innocence or uphold appropriate standards.  Voters should demand that books with harmful content be removed from school and city libraries" (Swanson 2007, A20). 

Here is the paragraph as corrected on 10 October 2011:
Parents and library board members were not the only people who voiced their opinion about the rights of parents. Along with Medved’s comments for USA Today, Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families, also used parental rights as reasoning for challenging And Tango Makes Three.  In fact, Thomasson went so far as to attack libraries, telling parents that they "can no longer trust libraries to protect their children's innocence or uphold appropriate standards.  Voters should demand that books with harmful content be removed from school and city libraries" (Swanson 2007, A20).

So Marta L. Magnuson had the integrity to consider my concerns respectfully, then immediately make changes.  In contrast, the American Library Association [ALA] heard my complaint about the Office for Intellectual Freedom's "censorship map" plagiarism almost a year ago that it only correctly attributed recently, but I digress and will expand on that in a future post (– so subscribe).  At least with intellectual theft left uncorrected for so long like that in violation of the ALA's Code of Ethics, it makes me appreciate honest people like Professor Magnuson all the more.

And look what else was she changed.  Censoring was changed to challenging.  I'm tellin' ya', Marta L. Magnuson really impresses me as being intellectually honest.  What a breath of fresh air given "the nonsense of Banned Books Week" with "the ALA and its minions ... going on about nonexistent censorship in America."  The ALA now has one less minion.

Brava, Marta L. Magnuson.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 3210 N Maryland Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Turning the Tide on Library Porn; Predicted Excuses for Not Filtering All Library Computers

US v. ALA: library filters okay
It appears, at least in Roxbury, NJ, the tide is about to turn on a public library misleading its community by claiming the First Amendment requires public libraries to allow Internet pornography.  You see, a mother whose child saw the porn an adult was viewing on the library computer complained to the library, but it refused to help since it was following American Library Association guidance.  So she went to the media.  That was when the tide started turning.  Thank you, Lori Bradley.


News 12 New Jersey's Matt Murphy Gets the Ball Rolling

Ann Grossi's misleading statement
News 12 New Jersey produced an excellent report that caught my attention and I got directly and immediately involved in the Roxbury matter since I am in the same NJ county.  I provide details here: "Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same," including a link to Matt Murphy's original story on this issue.

Basically, I pointed out to the media and the local government exactly how the community was being misled, such as with the library attorney's claim of First Amendment protection for anything at all in a public library, whereas the US Supreme Court says, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  Compare that to the graphic at right which is Ann Grossi, Esq.'s, misleading statement that basically says the exact opposite.  Personally, I find the US Supreme Court is more credible than Ann Grossi and more reflects common sense and community standards, and I'm in the same county as that community.


Tables Turning Against Public Library Porn

Now I learn my intervention may have turned the tide on library porn in Roxbury.  Be sure I'll be taking this message nationwide, that accurate information can enable communities to use legal means to protect citizens from harm, and that library misinformation will no longer be enough to lull people into obeisance.  And it is misinformation to advise a community the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court says.


Library Attorney Singing Different Tune Thanks to SafeLibraries 

Ann Grossi sings a different tune
You see, the library's attorney is now singing a different tune.  See the video for yourself in yesterday's News 12 New Jersey report on the issue, namely:

Matt Murphy reports:
The 2003 US Supreme Court decision in the case of United States versus the American Library Association states, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  In June, Roxbury Public Library board attorney Ann Grossi insisted restricting access would be in violation of the First Amendment.  But since my June story aired, she now says the library is in the process of reviewing its policy and practices surrounding the use of the Internet.

And what was the difference between June and now?  I appeared in a Roxbury Township Committee and told them that they were being misled on that very point and that they have the legal authority needed to require compliance with the law.  And one of the Committeemen is also on the library's board of trustees, and he clearly heard the other Committeemen favorably receiving what I was saying.


SafeLibraries Quotes From the Story

FYI, here is the totality of my quotes from yesterday's story:
  • "When the public's being told that libraries are open public forums where anything goes, including pornography, they are being misled."
  • "That's correct, you can't censor what people watch.  However, it's not censorship to keep pornography out of a public library."
  • "The Supreme Court says you can apply the book selection policy which keeps out pornography from the books over the Internet with the use of filters."
  • Dan Kleinman adds that many public libraries choose not to restrict adult content fearing a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.


Major Success for SafeLibraries

I view this turnabout as a major success for SafeLibraries, with the potential that the ideas I present may grow nationwide.  The emperor has no clothes.

Here again are those ideas written up as talking points:  "Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same."


List of Predicted Excuses for Not Filtering All Library Computers

There will be major obstacles in the way of a library such as Roxbury deciding to filter all computers.  But those major obstacles will simply consist of more propaganda and misdirection from the very people so successful at it previously.

Here is my list of predicted excuses and suggested responses:
  • There are so many other concerns that face libraries, such as funding, that something that occurs so few times is really not our focus now.  That's the "Oh look, there's a squirrel over there" defense, anything to take focus away from the issue.
  • US v. ALA only applies to libraries that accept federal funding.  That's the "We know better than you" defense.  In reality, the Court discussed the library issues first, then applied them to the federal funding issue.  Just because a library does not accept federal funding does not mean the case is otherwise of little value.  For example, is this of no value if a library accepts no federal funding for Internet access:
    "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."
  • Who's to decide what is and what isn't pornography?  That's the "Let's make believe US v. ALA doesn't exist" defense.  You see, 1) the Court addressed that issue and 2) if no one can decide what is pornography, then the entire case of US v. ALA is entirely without value, but that cannot be since US Supreme Court decisions are never to be interpreted in a way that makes them useless.
  • Filters don't work well, and privacy screens and acceptable use policies are much better.  That's the "Let's hope the people don't read US v. ALA" defense.  The Court said it is filters that work, not shoulder tap policies, not privacy screens, not recessed computers, and not moving computers. Further, extensive evidence shows nothings works as well as filters.  Media reports are even catching on and showing, for example, just how useless are "privacy screens."  And acceptable use policies?  Their self-policing, voluntary nature makes them essentially worthless.
  • Filters block "breast cancer" web sites and that's censorship.  That's the "Go for the emotional message so we can keep pushing our agenda" approach.  While overblocking breast cancer sites used to be true, it is no longer the case.  Quality filters properly maintained no longer filter out health-related information.
  • So few children are raped or molested in libraries, why don't you direct your legitimate interest to a place where more children are being hurt in that fashion and work there.  That's the "Compliment the person then misdirect them anywhere else" defense.  Lovely idea, but no dice, especially where the harm being done might be a result of the library's own failure to comply with library law by allowing an anything-goes attitude.
  • Libraries are protected by a shield of autonomy from governmental control.  That's the "Let's avoid the real issue" defense.  The real issue is not that the government seeks to invade the shield of autonomy.  It doesn't.  Rather, where the library has acted outside that shield, the government may require it to comply with the law.  And US v. ALA is right there with support for that.
  • Requiring filtering might cause people embarrassment and that would violate the First Amendment.  That's the "Don't look behind the curtain" defense.  US v. ALA addressed that issue and it is simply of no consequence.  Any library expert supporting any issue already asked and answered in the negative by US v. ALA as if it were never previously addressed is misleading you.
  • The library is in the process of reviewing its policy and practices surrounding the use of the Internet.  That's the "Go away" defense, depending on the circumstances.  They want you to allow time to pass and forget about the issue.  Of course libraries legitimately review policies all the time.  But sometimes it is just a means to delay things and only cosmetic changes will occur, if any, or useless alternatives will be proposed, like improved acceptable use policies, moving computers, or using privacy screens.  I suspect the Roxbury situation will be the latter and the government will need to intervene if filters are not proposed for every computer.  No way will Ann Grossi advise that it is perfectly legal to filter all computers and that all computers should be filtered, I predict.
  • SafeLibraries cannot be trusted because Dan Kleinman opposes pornography and is otherwise unfit or untrustworthy.  That's the "Saul Alinsky was here" defense.  Setting aside that not being true, the argument over the issue should not become ad hominem.  And I am not imposing my will on anyone.  Rather, I am suggesting people become educated, I am guiding people to that education, and US v. ALA is the bright line to follow, not SafeLibraries.  Leave me out of the story.  Local libraries laws may also come into play.  They trump American Library Association policy embedded in local policy any day of the week.
  • Censorship is a slippery slope.  That the "Let's make up a legitimate-sounding non-issue/strawman defense."  Simply put, no censorship is involved where, as the US Supreme Court said, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  Further, to the extent some librarian might take too long to unblock a site, US v. ALA has already made provision for that.  It is called an "as applied" challenge.  In all the years since the case was decided in 2003, there has never yet been an "as applied" challenge, to the best of my knowledge.
  • Handling ACLU lawsuits will be too costly for the government.  That's the "Deer Hunter" defense where they hold a gun to your head.  You'll never, ever hear them worry about lawsuits brought by victims of library harms and how such suits have a greater potential for monetary damages, like the near half million dollar Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library case where library management allowed porn and the librarians suffered as a result.  If you follow the law, the ACLU will have no basis for bringing suit.  Like in Burlington County, NJ, the ACLU threatened suit over a book showing two boys watching two men having anal sex.  But the library merely applied the selection policy to the book, found it wanting, and removed it.  No ACLU suit occurred because the library followed the law and the ACLU did not bluff, in this case.  Consider also the possibility for treble damages against the ACLU for vexatious litigation where it bluffs.  Where the ACLU threatens suit based on legal theories it itself lost in US v. ALA, that is dirty pool.  But if such a suit gets filed with the court, that might be grounds for vexatious litigation.  Example.  Nampa, ID.  The library, after three years effort, put four books inappropriate for children in a location that required only adults to ask for them.  The ACLU sent a threatening letter and the ACLU attorney said the issue was embarrassment.  Embarrassment to ask for one of the books would violate the First Amendment, supposedly.  Within one week the city caved to the ACLU.  Three years effort down the drain.  For what?  For embarrassment.  For an issue the ACLU itself raised in US v. ALA and lost on years previously.  Sounds like dirty pool to me.  So do not be frozen by fear of the ACLU.  If you get such a letter, let me identify all the propaganda in it for you so you won't cave.
  • State law requires one terminal be left unfiltered.  This is a legitimate reason for not filtering all computers.  So long as you are not claiming certain federal funding, you should be okay.  Take a gander at this: "Michigan Libraries at Risk of Massive E-Rate Fraud; Michigan Library Privacy Act May Need Amending."


SafeLibraries Is Offering Assistance and Seeking Donations

Edison Public Library
Should anyone face these issues and suspect they are being misled, please contact me for guidance.  Basically, you have the legal right to choose to filter 100% of library computers, and government can require libraries to do so if they only realize their own power.  Leave one computer unfiltered and that will not solve the problem.

Should anyone wish to help fund my efforts, like paying for the gas to travel to the interview in Edison, NJ, yesterday morning or to investigate the Nyack Public Library, Nyack, NY, yesterday afternoon, please use the donate button on the bottom right of this blog post, and thank you so much.  It'll give me gas to go elsewhere.  And I hope to have my report on the Nyack library available soon.

Finally, here's that story I'm in again:

NOTE ADDED 7 November 2011:

I was on television:

Note: I am requesting permission to republish the broadcast as it shows an example of major library leaders intentionally misleading the public about Internet filters on public library computers then blaming whistleblowers for why they need not explain themselves.

While I am adding this note let me add the following:

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)