A New Way ALA Misleads Parents: The National Trainer Who Wrote as the Local Director

Peter Bromberg:
EveryLibrary Board of Directors
Director of the SCLSNJ

This is another method by which the American Library Association (ALA) and its political partner EveryLibrary mislead parents and elected officials. It is not a false job title. It is a national advocacy officer, trained to switch language by audience, writing as if he were only the county library director. Further, he uses his own technique to manipulate the public in an effort to excuse local librarians for promoting Chicago ALA's own political goals that harm children.

On Sept. 1, 2026, New Jersey Hills published an opinion column by Peter Bromberg, identified only as director of the Somerset County Library System of New Jersey (SCLSNJ). The piece is titled “‘Liberty for All:’ Public Libraries and the Promise of America.” It quotes Ronald Reagan and James Madison. It calls libraries “strong supporters of parents and families.” It says libraries “curate age-appropriate zones and displays.” It tells readers that if a title offends, they are “free to reach for something else.”¹

That is the local byline. It is not the whole record.

Bromberg became SCLSNJ director on Aug. 1, 2025. For the four years immediately before that he was Associate Director of EveryLibrary, the national 501(c)(4) that organizes against book challenges and trains library boards in political messaging. On May 30, 2025, announcing the Somerset job, he wrote that he looked forward to “continued service on the EveryLibrary Board of Directors.” EveryLibrary’s board page still lists him. His own résumé lists the associate-director post as May 2021–June 2025 and the board seat as 2014–present. When SCLSNJ hired him, MyCentralJersey reported the EveryLibrary job. The system’s official staff bio does not. Neither did the column.²

EveryLibrary is not a book club. It is the national political-action shop for libraries. Its companion 501(c)(3), the EveryLibrary Institute, publishes training for the same fight. Bromberg was the named presenter for the Institute’s webinar “Advocacy in a Polarized World,” that teaches Arnold Kling’s Three Languages of Politics and how to “intentionally use language” across the spectrum. In 2021 he gave the Utah Library Association the talk “Advocating Effectively Across the Political Spectrum.” In September 2023 Niche Academy listed him, then still with EveryLibrary, on a webinar that walked the same framework and a “27-9-3” message formula: 27 words, 9 seconds, three points, mapped to the audience.³

The worksheet for that method is not a rumor. A 2023 EveryLibrary Institute handout, Library Board Policy and Messaging Playbook, includes a page headed “The Three Languages of Politics,” filed under “Intellectual Freedom and Book Challenges.” The page tells staff that progressives, libertarians, and conservatives each have a default moral language, then gives the assignment:

• Progressives: frame the library in “equity, social justice, a leveling of the playing field… and equal treatment for all.”
• Libertarians: frame it in “liberty, self-determination, and support for those that are motivated to help themselves.”
• Conservatives: frame it in “preservation of tradition, local community history, help with assimilating new arrivals, and traditional American values.”⁴

A related EveryLibrary presentation the same spring supplied fill-in sentences for the conservative ear: the Constitution, the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, the Founding Fathers, and “We don’t want to chip away at the Constitution.” Another line: “We should never usurp the role of parents.”⁵

Read the Somerset column against that page. Bromberg did not write in the progressive dialect. He wrote in the other two.

• “Freedom. Liberty. Justice. For all.”
• “Self-determination, intellectual freedom, and liberty for all.”
• “Forge our own destinies without government overreach.”
• USA250. Reagan. Carnegie. Roosevelt. Madison.
• America versus “authoritarian regimes where state officials strictly dictate what citizens read, think, and believe.”
• “Strong supporters of parents and families.”
• “The parent’s role to set and enforce boundaries.”
• “Family values.”
• If a book offends, “we are free to reach for something else.”

That is the conservative and libertarian tip list, aimed at a Somerset Hills paper, in the same week the same paper group was covering a Pride-program petition and a local official urging towns to question library programs.⁶

The column never quotes the rule the script is built to protect.

Article V of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights says a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” ALA’s official interpretation, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” is plainer: the right to use a library means “free access to all services, materials, and facilities and unrestricted use of everything the library offers.” Restrictions based solely on age, apparent maturity, educational level, or legal status “violate Article V.” ALA “opposes any efforts to restrict access based on age.”⁷

A children’s room is furniture. Under that interpretation it is not a lock. “Age-appropriate zones and displays” is what the playbook would call conservative language. “Unrestricted use of everything the library offers” is the written professional rule. Only one of those sentences appeared in the newspaper.

Parents and elected officials are the intended audience for the first sentence. They are not told about the second. They are also not told that the author spent four years as the national group’s associate director, remains on its board, and taught librarians how to switch dialects by audience so the access policy still wins.

Using different words for different listeners is ordinary rhetoric. Hospitals do it. Campaigns do it. The problem is the combination: a national advocacy officer, writing as a local director, in a live materials fight, in the dialect his shop published for conservatives, while leaving the shop and the age rule off the page.

The authorities the column skipped are the ones that actually speak to minors. In United States v. American Library Association (2003), Justice Kennedy wrote that “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.” President Eisenhower, at Dartmouth in 1953, told students not to join the book burners, then added the clause library essays usually drop and ALA's own 2025 movie "The Librarians" actually dropped: use the library “as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship.”⁸

Madison on knowledge is not an answer to age. The playbook does not ask directors to answer age. It asks them to talk liberty and family until the question of age goes away.

Somerset County’s Library Commission sets policy for SCLSNJ. It can ask its director, in public, three questions that do not require a theory of anyone’s soul:

1. Does SCLSNJ adopt ALA’s Library Bill of Rights and the Minors interpretation as collection policy?
2. If a parent asks that a child’s card not check out adult or s[*]xually explicit titles, will the system honor that limit?
3. Why did a column on “liberty for all,” published during a local program fight, omit the author’s EveryLibrary board seat and the Institute’s published conservative-language tips?

Those are records questions. The playbook page, the résumé, the LinkedIn post, and the byline are already public. The only thing missing from the newspaper was the second half of the sentence.

Parents who only read the byline were not given the shop, the script, or the age rule. That omission is the method. 

So this is a new way ALA misleads parents and politicians: 1) the national trainer who wrote as the local director to 2) attempt to manipulate local people into affirming Chicago ALA’s anything-goes for children policies, 3) using the very means by which he trains people to manipulate others.

The Three Languages of Politics

---

Notes:

1. Peter Bromberg, “‘Liberty for All:’ Public Libraries and the Promise of America,” New Jersey Hills / Bernardsville News, Sept. 1, 2026, https://www.newjerseyhills.com/bernardsville_news/opinion/columns/liberty-for-all-public-libraries-and-the-promise-of-america/article_0cc5e4e4-ff48-44d3-a095-fbf5befe4dc5.html.

2. Somerset County Library System of New Jersey, “Peter J. Bromberg,” staff biography, https://sclsnj.org/about-us/staff/peter-bromberg; Peter Bromberg, résumé, https://peterbromberg.com/resume/; Peter Bromberg, LinkedIn post, May 30, 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peterjbromberg_after-nearly-4-years-at-everylibrary-i-activity-7334307222258143233-Vt7C; EveryLibrary, “Board of Directors,” https://www.everylibrary.org/board-directors; Cheryl Makin, “Somerset County Library System has a new director,” MyCentralJersey.com, June 30, 2025, https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2025/06/30/somerset-county-library-system-has-a-new-director/84259228007/.

3. EveryLibrary Institute, “FREE WEBINAR: Advocacy in a polarized world,” presenter Peter Bromberg, Associate Director, EveryLibrary, https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/advocacyinpolarizedworld; Peter Bromberg, “Advocating Effectively Across the Political Spectrum,” Utah Library Association Annual Conference, May 21, 2021; Peter Bromberg, “Future-Proofing the Library,” Niche Academy webinar, Sept. 6, 2023, https://www.nicheacademy.com/hubfs/Future-Proof%20Your%20Library%20(Niche%202023)%20(1).pdf. Bromberg’s résumé also lists the NJLA Public Policy Forum keynote “Libraries are Political (And So Can You!),” Livingston, N.J., Nov. 14, 2025.

4. EveryLibrary Institute, Library Board Policy and Messaging Playbook (file dated April 1, 2023), p. 4, “The Three Languages of Politics,” circulating as https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hvATAuYlYrTv7rHfEDNr7bz2qb8BEWjB/view. Parallel text appears in “Real World Policy and Messaging,” June 2023, Wisconsin Public Library Consortium packet, https://www.wplc.org/files/5a115d098/Real-world-policy-and-messaging-June-2023.pdf. Arnold Kling, The Three Languages of Politics (Cato Institute).

5. John Chrastka, EveryLibrary, “Answering Censorship Challenges: EveryLibrary’s Fight for the First Initiative,” Towson University, April 27, 2023, https://towson.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=71758347 (conservative sample: Constitution, Founding Fathers, “We don’t want to chip away at the Constitution”; “We should never usurp the role of parents”).

6. New Jersey Hills package teaser published with the Bromberg column: “Pride v. Prejudice? Petition to Keep County Library Branch Starts as Sweeney Urges Other Towns to Question Programs.” Peapack-Gladstone is a SCLSNJ member community.

7. American Library Association, Library Bill of Rights, Art. V, https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (“age” included 1967; reaffirmed 1996); ALA, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors.

8. United States v. American Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194, 215 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Dwight D. Eisenhower, commencement address, Dartmouth College, June 14, 1953.

---

Opinion for Publication Submitted to Editor September 1, 2026:

New Jersey Hills:

Peter Bromberg’s Sept. 1 column, “‘Liberty for All:’ Public Libraries and the Promise of America,” identifies him only as director of the Somerset County Library System. That title is true. It is not the whole identification.

From May 2021 until June 2025, Mr. Bromberg was Associate Director of EveryLibrary, the national 501(c)(4) that organizes against book challenges and trains library boards in political messaging. On May 30, 2025, announcing the Somerset job, he wrote that he looked forward to “continued service on the EveryLibrary Board of Directors.” EveryLibrary’s board page still lists him. His résumé lists that board seat from 2014 to the present. MyCentralJersey reported the EveryLibrary post when he was hired. The system’s staff biography does not mention it. Neither did the column.

EveryLibrary Institute published the method. A 2023 handout, Library Board Policy and Messaging Playbook, includes a page headed “The Three Languages of Politics,” filed under "Intellectual Freedom and Book Challenges.” It tells staff that progressives, libertarians, and conservatives each have a default language, then assigns the frame:

Progressives: “equity, social justice, a leveling of the playing field… and equal treatment for all.”  

Libertarians: “liberty, self-determination, and support for those that are motivated to help themselves.”  

Conservatives: “preservation of tradition, local community history, help with assimilating new arrivals, and traditional American values.”

A related EveryLibrary presentation the same year supplied conservative sample copy: the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Freedom of Religion, and “We don’t want to chip away at the Constitution.” Another line: “We should never usurp the role of parents.”

Mr. Bromberg’s column is written in the conservative and libertarian dialects. Reagan. Madison. The Constitution versus “authoritarian regimes.” “Freedom. Liberty. Justice. For all.” “Self-determination.” “Strong supporters of parents and families.” “Family values.” If a title offends, “we are free to reach for something else.” It is not written in the progressive dialect. It was published as the same paper group covered a petition and a local official urging towns to question library programs.

The column never quotes the rule that script is written to protect. Article V of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights says a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” ALA’s official interpretation, “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” states that this right means “free access to all services, materials, and facilities and unrestricted use of everything the library offers,” and that limits based solely on age, apparent maturity, or legal status “violate Article V.” A children’s room is furniture. Under that interpretation it is not a lock.

“Age-appropriate zones and displays” is what the playbook would call language for a conservative paper. “Unrestricted use of everything the library offers” is the professional text. Only the first sentence ran.

Using different words for different listeners is ordinary rhetoric. The problem is the combination: a national advocacy officer, writing as a local director, during a local materials fight, in the dialect his shop published for conservatives, while leaving the shop and the age rule off the page.

The authorities that actually address minors were also left off. In United States v. American Library Association (2003), Justice Kennedy wrote that “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.” President Eisenhower, at Dartmouth in 1953, warned against book burners then added the clause usually dropped: use the library “as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency.”

The Somerset County Library Commission sets policy. It can ask, in public, whether SCLSNJ adopts the ALA Minors interpretation; whether a parent may limit a child’s card; and why an EveryLibrary board seat was omitted from a column on “liberty for all.” Those are records questions. The playbook page, the résumé, and the byline are already public.

Dan Kleinman  

Chatham, N.J.

NOTE ADDED 2 SEPTEMBER 2026:

Tonight I spoke at the commission meeting wherein Peter Bromberg is a member. He was there. So I confronted ALA head on. You see, people, it's not that hard. I've done it before. Don't be intimidated by them.

Here is what I said, along with other graphics showing the extent of the problem. It's my own recording as the commission makes no recordings.

Tonight I spoke at the library commission meeting where American Library Association and EveryLibrary’s board member is also a commission member.

Hear 👂 me speaking, asking where his loyalties lie and whether there’s an ethics issue.

Related pics tell a story of harm by ALA. https://t.co/pRqX0uHSgg pic.twitter.com/GH9abciIRv

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) September 3, 2026

NOTE ADDED 9 OCTOBER 2026:

Has this post and/or my appearance before the library board resulted in the retirement of Peter Bromberg? I don't know yet due to a paywall on what I can see here.

MASSIVE BANNED BOOKS WEEK WIN FOR PARENTS! PETER BROMBERG FROM ALA's EVERYLIBRARY IS RETIRING AS LIBRARY DIRECTOR IN NJ! Possibly I was involved, but paywall blocks me from checking. But URL gives a hint: https:// www.mycentraljersey . com/ story/news/local/ somerset-county/ 2026/10/09/ peter-bromberg-retiring-somerset-library-director/92170401007/

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) October 10, 2026

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/09/a-new-way-ala-misleads-parents.html

Follow Protect Salado Kids on X: @ProtectSaladoKs

Follow Kelly on X: @patriotesse

Follow Dan on X: @OccupyLibraries @SafeLibraries @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

ALA Caught Hiding Data on 'Banned' Books — Again

The American Library Association [ALA] has again been caught hiding data on "banned" books:

• "We Tried — And Failed — To Identify the Most Banned Book in America," by David Goldenberg, FiveThirtyEight, 22 June 2015, hyperlinks and footnote removed, highlighting mine:

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:

• "Banned Books Week is Gay Promotion? Author Admits ALA Faked 2010 Top 10 Challenged Book List," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 September 2011.

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:

• "On Data and Confidentiality," by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, OIF Blog, 23 June 2015.

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.:

The @ALALibrary releases a combative response to my @FiveThirtyEight article about its database of challenged books http://t.co/rPVk0rK6BY

— David Goldenberg (@dgoldenberg) June 23, 2015

Of course it would be helpful to include the link to the press release: http://t.co/gxwSx9NHaF

— David Goldenberg (@dgoldenberg) June 23, 2015

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:

Both false + misleading. I challenge you to PUBLIC DEBATE. #alaac15 #libchat RT @OIF: It’s not about the numbers. http://t.co/hQiDhTV490

— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) June 23, 2015

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

Follow @SafeLibraries

Bridget Bittman Transcript on 89 WLS: OPPL Library Having Child Porn Is a Safe Library

Bridget Bittman is the public relations employee of the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], Orland Park, IL.  She was interviewed regarding child pornography in that library by Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft on 89 WLS AM.  Below is a transcript of that interview on 6 November 2013, to the best of my ability to discern the fireworks.

Other than noting she calls OPPL a "safe library" affirming my own goal of helping communities achieve safe libraries,  I'll leave out commentary so you can think for yourselves:

TRANSCRIPT OF OPPL'S BRIDGET BITTMAN

89 WLS AM; BRUCE WOLF + DAN PROFT SHOW

6 NOVEMBER 2013
LISTEN ONLINE HERE

Actor Robert Preston: With any librarian such as Marrrrrrrrrrrian. [Singing Marian the Librarian from The Music Man.]

WLS's Bruce Wolf: Marrrrrian. Uh, if you were with us last hour we talked with Megan Fox, uh, who has led this campaign against the Orland Park library for allowing access to pornography at the Orland Park library, and so we wanted to give equal time right now, we’re interested in this controversy, to the Orland Park library, and we are joined right now by Bridget Bittman, who is, uh, spokesperson for the, uh, Orland Park library. Thanks for coming on the show. We appreciate it.

OPPL's Bridget Bittman: Oh, thanks. Good morning Bruce.

Bruce Wolf: So…

Bridget Bittman: Glad to have our, uh, side of the story be heard.

Bruce Wolf: So, okay just to refresh everyone's recollection right here, the complaint is, is that there’s been access, uh, given to, uh, pornography at the Orland Park library, and that, I mean you have like men coming in there and going on, uh, the video screens and, and looking, uh, at pornography while there are children around. Uh, and, and this was brought up at a library board meeting, Megan Fox has made, uh, a video about this, complaining about it, and what is your response to this complaint?

Bridget Bittman: Sure Bruce. You know, the safety of our children at the Orland Park Public Library is really important to us, and we have some very, very key safety measures in place at the library.

Bruce Wolf: And what are those safety measures?

WLS's Dan Proft: Do you have filters on the computers?

Bridget Bittman: Sir, yes we do. As a matter of fact we have filters on our children's computers, at, um, they are on the first floor, and no adults are allowed to use the computers on the first floor.

Dan Proft: What? Wait, wait, okay. So why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to?

Bridget Bittman: Well, uh, let, let me explain also that on our teen computers, so that consists of kids who use it from ages, um, probably around 12, 13 to the age of 17, those computers are filtered as well, because we feel that those safety measures for kids are very important, in addition to their parents supervising whatever they look at online. And we also recommend that parents take a look at what their kids are checking out …

Dan Proft: Okay. Can, can you …

Bridget Bittman: … and so they’re okay with what they’re viewing.

Dan Proft: … Can, can you answer my question?

Bridget Bittman: Sure.

Dan Proft: Why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to, because the concern is, uh, of course, of adults being predators online.

Bridget Bittman: Okay. Well, the reason is because we believe that adults, ages 18 and over, are, should be responsible and should have the ability to view anything that's not illegal or obscene. And that's why we allow access to adults to make the right choices to view what's responsible and not illegal and obscene.

Bruce Wolf: Okay, here's the thing. You know, would you want your children in the same library? And I understand it's on a different floor, and you’re trying to have, you know, these, whatever, so they can't see what the adults are looking at, but would you want your children in the same building with some guy who’s coming in and looking at porn?

Bridget Bittman: Well, Bruce uf, that's a really good question. I have a 13 year old daughter, she just turned 13 on Monday, and as a parent I know that a library offers safety guards for me, but I'm always going to have an eye on my kids. That doesn't mean that, that adults, whether it's women or men, are coming to the library to access this type of information. I mean that's like saying, you know, and, and what is the definition of, of what Miss Fox calls pornography? Is it a Victoria Secret? Is …

Bruce Wolf: Yeah, I know, I know it's ...

Bridget Bittman: … it a Sports Illustrated magazine? [crosstalk] Let me say it. Let me say it.

Dan Proft: Potter Stewart, you'll know when you see it, right.

Bruce Wolf: But, I mean we can agree on certain things on pornography, that you’re permitting it, that you wouldn't want your daughter to be around anyone, you know, involved with it. I mean why can't you just, you know, cut off access to these kinds of things?

Bridget Bittman: Okay. Well, that's a really good question.

Bruce Wolf: You, you’re not required …

Bridget Bittman: So.

Bruce Wolf: … to show porn …

Bridget Bittman: Yes.

Bruce Wolf: … are you?

Bridget Bittman: Well, that's an excellent question. But we do support the First Amendment right for people to view what they want, adults, ages 18 and up. But let's say Miss Fox came to the library to research a story of another library that supposedly was showing pornography or she wanted to know what kind of pornography was offensive or what have you. Guess what? If she came to our library and we filtered that, she wouldn't be able to research what she really needed to research.

Bruce Wolf: She's willing to pay that price.

Dan Proft: What about the, the reports that she FOIA’d, uh, uh, about, uh, uh, incidence of public masturbation at the library. Were those true or not?

Bridget Bittman: Okay. So we have had 12 years, she FOIA'd requests. In the past 12 years we have 7 incidents. Okay, so 12 years span, 7 incidents where we have had inappropriate behavior at the library, okay? The police have looked at these. Of those 7 incidents, only one, only one, was not handled in the way that we should have, and the library appreciates that and has changed the way that we respond to that. Now. Over 12 years, these were some of the … these were some of the things. We had mentally challenged teenager in the bathroom that said the joke, "Oh, they should have a sign, library penises should hang out here." Then, this is what he did, …

Bruce Wolf: Well, uh, uh, okay …

Bridget Bittman: … he went to the, wait, he went to the urinal and he pulled his pants down …

Bruce/Dan: All right, all right, we don't need to hear this story [crosstalk]. We don’t need to hear the details of that story. We’re not talking about isolated incidents. We‘re talking about access to porn. The bottom line is she FOIA’d a report …

Bridget Bittman: Wait, no, no, no, no. This is what she FOIA’d. And this is what she called a sex crime. A young disabled man …

Dan Proft: That's not what she, that’s not what she’s [crosstalk] …

Bridget Bittman: … that’s pulling his pants down …

Dan Proft: Let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s tamp down the demagoguery. That is not what she is saying is a sex crime. That is specifically not what she is saying is a sex crime …

Bridget Bittman: That is exactly what she’s saying is a sex crime.

Dan Proft: She is, she is … what are the other 6 incidents then? Is, are any of the incidents that, in the seven, …

Bridget Bittman: There was one incident, there was ...

Dan Proft: … that you described consistent with what she described?

Bridget Bittman: There was one incident of child pornography that was reported to us …

Dan Proft: … oh …

Bridget Bittman: … an hour after the person had reported it to us …

Dan Proft: Oh, huh, child porn.

Bridget Bittman: … child porn …

Bruce Wolf: Oh okay, child porn, there you go …

Dan Proft: Bridget, Bridget …

Bridget Bittman: Okay, so that’s, let me give you an idea, that’s one incident in 12 years, there’s no reasonable illegal item that happened.

Bruce/Dan: No, I understand, I understand. One incident, when it was caught.

Bruce Wolf: Here Bridget, I mean, you know, we appreciate you coming on, and thank you so much for doing that. But I mean, why can't we use our common sense here? Why can't you use your discretion and say, "We're not going to show, uh, you know Hustler or whatever, and we're not going to have this because, you know, our kids are around here. Why don't you just do that?

Bridget Bittman: So you want us to start making choices for what adults get to view.

Bruce Wolf: Yeah I do.

Bridget Bittman: Okay.

Bruce Wolf: I want to use your discretion as an adult, like you do it for your daughter. Use your daughter as the standard. That’s what …

Bridget Bittman: Wait, no.

Bruce Wolf: … I want you to do, Bridget.

Bridget Bittman: Okay, you want, you want the government and you want librarians to start [crosstalk] …

Bruce Wolf: Yeah I want my local library to do that at Orland Park. I don't want the national government to do it, I want Orland Park to do it, and I want to move in to your neighborhood, right now. I like you.

Bridget Bittman: You're welcome. We have a great library, and we have a safe library, and we don't have [crosstalk] …

Bruce Wolf: GET RID OF THE PORN AND I'LL MOVE IN THERE! Thanks Bridget, we appreciate it.

Dan Proft: So we want one that reflects community standards, that's all.

Bruce Wolf: Thank you Bridget Bittman, library spokesperson.

Announcer: This episode contained brief nudity. Viewer discretion is advised. 89 WLS.

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

On Twitter: @BruceAndDan @IntolerantFox @OrlandPkLibrary @WLSAM890

Follow @SafeLibraries

Gay Hate @ Your Library

gay hate @ your library®

There's gay hate @ your library, in this case the Orland Park Public Library in Orland Park, IL:

• "Orland Park Library Officials Call People 'Fruit', 'Faggot' & 'Gay,'" by John Kraft, Illinois Leaks (Edgar County Watchdogs), 26 July 2014:

  After her attempted intimidation, outside the courthouse, against the person she had signed an ordinance violation against, I intervened and she continued towards her vehicle, but only after calling Kevin a "fruit".  Meanwhile Jennings returned and called me an a**hole at least 4 times while calling Kevin a faggot and stating she did not like gay people.  She admits to police that she said these things and this police report will be in an upcoming article.

Watch this elected library trustee Diane Jennings and library public relations employee Bridget Bittman attack a gay man who happened to have exposed the library for allowing and covering up child pornography:

• "Bridget Bittman Commits Disorderly Conduct/Breach of Peace on 7/8/14 According to Officer Schmidt," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 8 July 2014:

And mainstream library media like Library Journal and the American Library Association's [ALA] own American Libraries are completely silent on this videotaped LGBT hate.  Why?  Child pornography in a library is a direct result of ALA policy to allow unfettered porn despite the law.  Indeed, ALA is the nation's leading facilitator of porn in public libraries nationwide.

ALA has in the past exposed the LGBT community to discrimination and even increased suicide by faking half a decade of gay hate so as to rile up the LGBT community to spread ALA's false message of book "banning." That stopped after I exposed ALA for doing this.  It is one of my favorite accomplishments, stopping ALA from harming the LGBT community.

But ALA has not learned.  The women shown in the video calling the gay man a "fruit" provided training for ALA to many librarians where she made homophobic remarks during her training about why a mom would let her children near a gay man.  Has ALA cut ties with this hater?  No.  She's been invited back for more ALA-sponsored training.

And of course she's still working at the library, a library that's such a joke that even Seth Meyers at Saturday Night Live with guest star Lady Gaga made fun of it:

• "SNL Mocks Orland Park Public Library's Porn Policy on 11/16/13," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 16 November 2013:

Is there a reason people should get away with gay hate simply because they are supposedly innocent librarians or library supporters?  Is there a reason mainstream media should ignore the gay hate, even in the face of videotaped evidence?  Is "faggots" @ your library® an acceptable trademark?

Outside the library world, people like multiple Academy Award nominee Jonah Hill apologize for saying "faggot."  "'What I said in that moment was a disgusting and hurtful term,' Hill told [Howard] Stern. 'I shouldn't have said that.'"  Why are public library officials immune?  Why are library media not reporting this story (that's being going on for almost a year now)?

"faggots" @ your library®

Personal note:  It infuriates me no end that gay hate is allowed, condoned, and covered up, all to perpetuate the spread of child pornography in public libraries.  The gay haters at ALA remain authoritative in communities nationwide and continue to recommend making child porn available in public libraries despite the law.

Does being a library supporter bestow magical protection that allows gay hate?  97% of librarians have seen code of conduct violations at ALA conferences, including 23% of librarians reporting being sexually harassed, and "It's true, the majority of the people who were harassed did not report," so I suppose from those stats and from the what I've reported above that homophobia is acceptable within that community.  Is it acceptable in yours?

"@ your library®" is a federally registered trademark of the American Library Association.  Its nominative use on SafeLibraries is for criticism and analysis.  "gay hate @ your library®" and "'faggots' @ your library®" are not federally registered trademarks of ALA, but they should be because of what Orland Park Public Library officials say and the way ALA harms gays and other members of the LGBT community.

NOTE ADDED 28 JULY 2014:

• "Orland Park Library Trustee, Attorney Diane Jennings, Admits to Gay Slurs,'" by John Kraft, Illinois Leaks (Edgar County Watchdogs), 28 July 2014.

And still no coverage from Library Journal and American Libraries.  That tells me they condone the gay hate.

NOTE ADDED 29 JULY 2014:

I cited statistics from a librarian named Ingrid Abrams who calls herself "The Magpie Librarian."  This women actually deletes and changes my comments that appear on her blog, then attacks me for the quotes as she's rewritten them; some people don't like the truth and distort it in different ways.  I say this so you can see she does not like free speech.  Now you can see she does not like me:

Well, that's no good. I HATE SAFE LIBRARIES GUY. pic.twitter.com/SWh98rZzBk
— ✰ ✵*Ingrid✺ ✮ (@MagpieLibrarian) July 25, 2014

Such are the lengths a few librarians will go through to oppose those trying to stop the ALA from misleading communities about child porn in public libraries.  Sadly, OPPL/ALA is not alone in facilitating child porn in public libraries by attacking whistleblowers.


NOTE ADDED 17 AUGUST 2014:

This blog post has many comments I have removed.  They were not spam so I did not delete them.  Rather, they are comments either of a homophobic nature, including the name of a library child porn whistleblower, or are written purely for harassment.  Such comments violate the short note one sees when leaving comments, at a minimum, let alone common courtesy.

All the comments originate from Chicago, IL, home of the American Library Association, or surrounding communities, and all match the pattern of harassment I have seen before from Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., at the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom in Chicago.  Certainly the homophobia in the comments matches the homophobia within ALA OIF where Deborah Caldwell-Stone is the Deputy Director and former Acting Director, right down to naming the very same person simply for being gay.  I have written about how ALA OIF harms the LGBT community in the past and will be writing on new evidence of hate within ALA's OIF.  The evidence includes that provided by whistleblower librarians who can't stand the hate either.  I am in the process of writing that now.

Ms. Caldwell-Stone, please stop.  It's especially embarrassing to other members of your profession.  Of course, now that I said that, you'll go right on doing it to prove it isn't you.  Smh.


NOTE ADDED 1 DECEMBER 2014:

This post of mine is now the basis of my being sued in federal court for defamation:

• Bridget Bittman v. Megan Fox, Kevin DuJan, Dan Kleinman, Adam Andrzejewski, For the Good of Illinois, 1:14-cv-08191, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, filed 20 October 2014.

NOTE ADDED 2 DECEMBER 2015:

Over a year later I am still being sued for publishing this post exposing homophobia by ALA, even after a judge dismissed me out of the case for there being no there there.  See: "Bridget Bittman Handed Another Defeat in SLAPP Lawsuit."

Obviously it's a SLAPP suit designed to silence me.  The complaint was simply amended (for the second time) to keep silencing me, this time complaining that my filing FOIA requests is the basis for jurisdiction over me.  So much for freedom of information from the "Office for Intellectual Freedom."

Here is new information:

1. The American Library Association trained librarians to file defamation suits against child porn whistleblowers as it could run them up to $500,000.00 in legal fees.  This is evidenced by notes taken at one such training by one of the librarians being trained whose notes were obtained by FOIA request.  Yes, I've been in this defamation suit defending gay rights for over a year and legal fees are really piling up.  It's part of ALA's strategy that it teaches others to use.
2. The plaintiff has been ostensibly soliciting funding, when in reality it is just for show as this multi-year lawsuit of hers is likely being funding by the American Library Association, possibly with funding ALA receives from the Open Society Institute. Pictured at right is the plaintiff vacationing in Florida while simultaneous having a GoFundMe page.  See: "Orland Park Library's Bridget Bittman Begs On GoFundMe – Vacations in Florida."
3. I have reported on others disclosing homophobia by a library and by ALA.  I am being sued to silence me for reporting that.  New information is that I have been offered a settlement that IF I DELETED WHAT I WROTE ABOUT ALA's HOMOPHOBIA, THE CASE WOULD BE DROPPED AGAINST ME.  Naturally I'm going to continue to stand up for the rights of gay people not to have their defenders silenced with the filing of SLAPP suits; I'm not deleting this post.
4. Besides likely funding the lawsuit, the American Library Association is actively suppressing some of the evidence needed to show that it used, allowed, and rehired a homophobic trainer who questioned why a woman would let her small children around a gay man.  The evidence is needed to show not only that ALA is homophobic but also that ALA is training librarians to destroy evidence of crimes in public libraries where such crimes are caused by ALA's pro-child porn policies. Public librarians are following ALA orders to destroy evidence and doing so violates laws preventing the destruction of public documents.  Fortunately, some FOIA responses were received before librarians complied with ALA's destruction orders instead of the law.  Therefore, from a FOIA request response, here is the letter ALA sent to destroy evidence of its homophobia and its ordering librarians to break public records laws:

• "Deny, Delete, Defend; American Library Association Orders Public Librarians to Destroy Public Documents to Preclude Public Disclosure of its 'Exposure'" https://storify.com/SafeLibraries/american-library-association-orders-public-librari

"TAKING PARTS OF DISCUSSION OUT OF CONTEXT WOULD BE HARMFUL SO WE CANNOT ALLOW ANYTHING FROM 17 DEC TO BE PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO FOIA" -15

— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) August 7, 2015

I am perfectly willing to show the entire recording, there will be nothing taken "out of context."  Besides, when it comes to homophobia, it's acceptable in the right context?

"There is still time to get ahead of this if we act today. Deny, delete, defend. – dcs" DENY, DELETE, DEFEND #libchat @LibraryJournal -24

— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) August 7, 2015

"Deny, delete, defend."  This from the attorney and Deputy Director of ALA's—get this—"Office for Intellectual Freedom."

As to the homophobia, can you imagine any one using and rehiring homophobic trainers then ordering the destruction of evidence that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt?  The American Library Association has done this.

We must demand ALA disclose the evidence.  After it does, we must address the homophobia, let alone the directives to hide evidence of crime from the public or to destroy it.

And absolutely no media in over a year has written on this LGBT hate right in the heart of the American Library Association's "Office for Intellectual Freedom."  Worse, the few librarians who do discuss this do so only to smear me; they ignore the homophobia and attack the messenger.

It's like homophobia is acceptable if it helps ALA maintain its pro-child porn policies.  Is homophobia ever acceptable?

It is my opinion that homophobia runs deep within the library profession because both librarians and library media actively cover up for the homophobia that ALA displays and orders librarians to suppress, and most comply.

A few brave souls are willing to ignore ALA and, anonymously, disclose the truth directly to me or the child p0rn whistleblowers.  Thank goodness.  More reports are welcome.  Anonymity / confidentiality guaranteed.

The above is all my opinion, of course, intended for a worldwide audience, so there should be no further misunderstanding or excuse to file an additional SLAPP suit.


NOTE ADDED 26 MARCH 2016:

Here are updates on the lawsuit that this post of mine somehow engendered:

• "Orland Park Public Library: Bridget Bittman's SLAPP Lawsuit a Complete and Utter Failure," by John Kraft, Illinois Leaks, Edgar County Watchdogs, 25 March 2016.
• "Orland Park Public Library – Bittman v. Fox Lawsuit Withdrawn," by John Kraft, Illinois Leaks, Edgar County Watchdogs, 22 March 2016.

Then there's this. The Orland Park Public Library has become a pop culture joke.  Again.

Besides the Saturday Night Live skit shown above, this is fresh from the library's own local Chicago Tribune newspapers: "No one will be surfing for pornography on the Internet at the Orland Park Public Library on Good Friday."  Here's a picture showing the article dated March 24, 2016, 4:14 PM:

However, in more evidence how the media helps the American Library Association of Chicago, IL, hide the effect of its pro child porn policies from the public, the Chicago Tribune CHANGED THE WORDING TO ELIMINATE THE PORN SURFING THE LIBRARY ALLOWS LEADING TO THE CHILD PORN SURFING IT COVERS UP.  Here's the cleaned up wording:

 "You can surf the Internet at the Orland Park Public Library, which is open on Good Friday, but not at the Tinley Park Public Library, which is closed."

• "Good Friday Paid Holiday for Public Workers Creates Spirited Debate," by Ted Slowik, Chicago Tribune, 25 March 2016, hyperlink omitted, note this date/article supplants the one of the day before.  

Here's a picture showing the article date was modified the very next morning, March 25, 2016, 11:35 AM, likely when "pornography" was disappeared.  Not even whitewashed, just disappeared.  Boy, they jumped on that pretty fast!  Chicago protecting its own.

NOTE ADDED 16 MAY 2016:

The case against me has been dismissed a second time, this time with prejudice:

• "Orland Park Library's Bridget Bittman Defeated Again — Judge Dismisses SLAPP Lawsuit," by John Kraft, Illinois Leaks, Edgar County Watchdogs, 16 May 2016.

NOTE ADDED 24 JUNE 2016:

My self-censoring this "Gay Hate @ Your Library" page was a constant demand of the plaintiff.  I show here how ALA was then homophobic.  To this day, ALA has continued to cover up the homophobia.  ALA is homophobic and has been for years.  You can't be gay friendly if you're a little bit homophobic and you keep hiding your homophobia and attacking the people exposing the homophobia and trying to get them to delete the evidence of your homophobia:

• "Bittman v Fox: SafeLibraries Dismissed Second Time," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 20 June 2016.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/07/gay-hate-at-your-library.html 

On Twitter:  @AtYourLibrary @ECWDogs @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

Follow @SafeLibraries

Chicago Public Library Openly Allows Porn Despite the Law and Chicago Sun-Times Gives One-Sided Report to Maintain Status Quo

Many libraries allow porn viewing despite the law, so many that the American Library Association has been called out for misleading a third of American communities by the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, and, as a result, ALA has been named as one of the nation's leading porn facilitators.

But it is not often that you see libraries just come out and say porn is just fine and dandy with them:

Ruth Lednicer, director of marketing and communications for Chicago Public Library, said this is why Chicago libraries don't use filters. 

"In terms of pornography, it is legal."

Source:

• "Man Watching Porn at Library Prompts Mom's Petition," by Anna Heling, Chicago Sun-Times, 14 April 2013.

Contrast the Chicago Public Library's statement that porn in libraries is legal with the US Supreme Court in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003): "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights....  ....  Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason."

Now consider the Chicago Public Library is absolutely rife with porn viewing and the crimes that result therefrom, the patrons can't stand it, but the library forces it on them anyway.

See and sign related petition:

• "THE CITY OF CHICAGO: STOP Pornography Viewing on Public Library Computers," by Tamara Maple, Chicago, IL.

Before I discuss the precise propaganda from the American Library Association, the Illinois Library Association, the Chicago Public Library, and the Chicago Sun-Times, all designed to intentionally mislead people into maintaining the status quo of no filters and high crime in the libraries, let me first include some Chicago Public Library crime stories from the past.  This is important because the public is told and media prints unchallenged that such crimes rarely happen:

• "Library Confidential: Crimes Kept Secret," by Dave Savini, CBS 2, 2 November 2006 (video here):

(CBS) NAPERVILLE, Ill. Most people view libraries as a safe place to study and spend time.  

But the CBS 2 Investigators obtained security tapes and official internal library files from more than a dozen libraries that show serious crimes and inappropriate behavior are happening across the city and suburbs.

As Dave Savini reports, more and more of these crimes are kept confidential and police are not being called.
....
Just how safe is your public library?  Our 2 Investigators obtained thousands of confidential files from a dozen libraries in the suburbs and Chicago and found cases of indecent acts, violent attacks and sex crimes, raising serious safety questions about libraries and your safety.

In addition to Naperville, some of the libraries which turned over their internal files included ... Chicago.  The investigation was launched after a series of complaints to CBS 2 from various library patrons about crime, pornography and library security.

Some library users feared crimes occurring at libraries were not being reported to police unless a patron called 911.
....
Bland, a former teacher, says she was at Chicago's Harold Washington Library when she saw men and children watching Internet pornography.  She says library staff refused to do anything.

"If someone says something you need to call police," Bland said.

At Harold Washington Library alone we found 138 cases of assault, battery and disorderly conduct; 127 thefts; and 32 sex crimes over the past 2 1/2 years.

"Oh my goodness, I didn't know it was all this," Bland said.
....
"You have to report this stuff," said Judith Krug with the American Library Association.

American Library Association officials say librarians must report crimes to police.  An internal report within the library is not enough.

"While the problems are few in number, when they occur they need to be dealt with and dealt with quickly," Krug said.
....
Police say to make matters worse if a suspect leaves the library before officers get there, a little known law called the Library Confidentiality Act goes into affect and libraries are not allowed to tell police the name of the suspect without a court order.
....
Chicago ... public library officials say they have private security guards and they help decide when to call police.  They ... say they are safe, considering the thousands of people who use them weekly.
....

• "Your Library May Be A Safe Haven For Criminals; Library Confidential: Police Say Library Law Hinders Their Ability To Nab Offenders," by Dave Savini, CBS 2, 3 November 2006:

(CBS) NAPERVILLE, Ill. A little-known law may be turning your local library into a safe haven for criminals.

Thursday night, CBS 2's Save Savini exposed serious crimes and inappropriate behavior going on at libraries in the city and suburbs, and being kept confidential.

Friday CBS 2 takes a look at why police say libraries are hindering their efforts to stop crime.

"I don't understand why the library would protect somebody like that," said Lauren Gauger.

She is talking about Richard Blaszak.

Thursday, CBS 2 Investigators reported the story of Richard Blaszak, who was seen touching himself at the Naperville library on two separate occasions. Police were called by upset patrons.

"When we arrived, we were not able to quickly identify that person," said Chief David Dial of the Naperville Police Department.

Police were not able to arrest Blaszak immediately because he had left before they arrived. That placed Blaszak under the protection of a little-known law called the Library Confidentiality Act.

"We have helped these laws be created and passed because they balance the right of the users of the libraries with the rights of law enforcement officer," said Judith Krug of the American Library Association.

The current law prohibits library staff from revealing the identity of a patron to police once they have left the library.
"I think it protects criminals unduly. We do not want to tread on anybody's rights to privacy or anything else but we do not believe libraries should be sanctuaries for criminals," said Dial.

A court order is needed before a library will release a patron's personal information, causing what police say are costly delays in catching suspects.

Police now want the current confidentiality laws amended to require only probable cause rather than a court order from police.

"We would certainly look at it to see if it is something that we could use," Krug said.

Blaszak pled guilty and state's attorney's say he was in violation of his parole when 2 Investigators found him.

Police are working with State Repesentative Joe Dunn on legislation that would give police access to library records immediately in cases of imminent danger.

They say waiting for a court order in the case of child abduction would be impractical.

See also the following story on a registered sex offender viewing child porn in a Chicago public library and what happened when the news crew filmed from outside the library when first setting up their cameras to get some background shots for the news package (which I know from a personal conversation with the reporter at that time):

• "IFI's Smith Interviewed for Chicago's CBS Investigative Report on Criminal Activity in Neighborhood Public Libraries," by David Smith, Illinois Family Institute, 21 December 2016:

As the CBS Channel 2 cameraman prepared to film Hanson standing on the sidewalk out in front of the Mt. Greenwood library, he zoomed in through the front window to the bank of Internet computers only to catch another middle-aged man in the midst of a porn-viewing session!

Video:

So an investigative media report shows rampant crimes in the Chicago Public Library and area libraries, efforts to cover up these crimes, a call by the then de facto leader of the ALA saying the crimes should have been reported immediately, a law that hinders the police in apprehending criminals, and porn so bad that even when a news crew takes some background shots for a news package, he first focuses in from outside the library on ... a guy viewing porn on a computer near the window.  Keep all this in mind as we read the story the Chicago Sun-Times "reported," but actually merely repeated.

Remarkably, as a result of the CBS 2 investigative reporting exposing rampant crime in Chicago and area libraries, the Illinois Library Association's leader Bob Doyle wrote a report advising libraries exactly how to thwart police and media investigations as much as legally possible and how to propagandize the issue:

• "Libraries as Sanctuaries for Criminals?," by Robert P. Doyle, Illinois Library Association, circa late 2006 - early 2007.

Just to show how Bob Doyle's report was absolutely useless for protecting library patrons from harm but outstanding as to misleading people and the media, here we see media saying that porn may be a First Amendment right in libraries, which it is not, but at least she exposes the supersaturation of porn in the Harold Washington Library in Chicago.  See for yourself as a little girl gets exposed to a massive dose of hardcore porn, and the library director blames the parent:

• "Pornography At the Library," by Julie Unruh, WGN TV, 26 November 2008:

Indeed, as a result of that story, one family started an entire blog about the porn at the Harold Washington Library.  See:

• THE CPL IS XXX?!

The Chicago Public Library protects the open and rampant use of Internet pornography by library patrons. This blog is an attempt to bring awareness to this issue and enact change.

And here is Inside Edition on the Harold Washington Library:

• "INSIDE EDITION Investigates: Who's Lurking In Your Library?," by Inside Edition, Airdate: 22 February 2012.

Notice: "The Chicago Public Library Director of Marketing Ruth Lednicer gave this statement: ... each Adult Computer in the library has been installed with a privacy screen, which prevents patrons from seeing what the person next to them is viewing."  No, it does not prevent others from seeing porn, and Lednicer knows it.  How do I know she knows it?  Because about nine years earlier the US Supreme Court said Internet filters work best, not privacy screens, and not moving the deck chairs on the Titanic; they even make things worse:

Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography.  To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so.

So privacy screens do not do what Lednicer claims.  Rather, they make it easier for patrons to view pornography.  So Lednicer's propaganda is likely part of the reason pornography in Chicago libraries is so rampant.  Watch as she repeats this false statement in the Chicago Sun-Times story, as we will see below.

Now I am going to spell out the propaganda contained in the Chicago Sun-Times story that is simply flat out false and/or misleading, and notice the similarity to past propaganda that only enables the long term porn crimes to keep rolling in.  I will intercalate my comments within the story in bold.  Keep in mind the small sample of past massive problems in Chicago libraries reported and unreported that I presented above.  (By the way, the Chicago Sun-Times censored out my comment I tried to leave on its site because I provided a sentence or two of balance, such as advising it was perfectly legal to remove porn from public libraries):

"Man Watching Porn at Library Prompts Mom's Petition" 

by Anna Heling 

Chicago Sun-Times 

14 April 2013

After one River North mom saw a library patron using one of the free computers to watch porn, it took but a day before a fellow mom drafted a petition to block porn at public libraries.

Tamara Maple, 45, posted the petition on Change.org shortly after reading the fellow mom’s story on an online parenting forum they both frequent.

“Once I saw it, I just felt compelled to take action,” Maple said. “I certainly don’t support censorship, but at the same time I think there’s a time and a place for things like that. It’s important for people to feel safe and comfortable in a public place like a library.”  (Blocking porn from public libraries is perfectly legal and it is not censorship.  The purpose of constantly and falsely claiming porn must be allowed is to fool people into thinking it is censorship to block porn from libraries.  As shown here, even a parent who is complaining about porn in the library feels she has to point out she "certainly don't support censorship."  Folks, it is NEVER censorship to legally block legal porn from public libraries.  You NEVER need to worry about censorship.)

The Lincoln Park resident plans to take it to her alderman, Scott Waguespack (32nd), whether her petition garners a flurry of signatures or not.  (The ALA and the Illinois Library Association anticipate people will complain to politicians so they advise librarians to regularly mislead the government officials with false library censorship concerns so when parents finally do show up, the government official will have already been converted to the ALA/ILA's way of thinking that is unmoored from any law, common sense, or community standards.  An example is what I mentioned above, namely, "Libraries as Sanctuaries for Criminals?," by Robert P. Doyle, Illinois Library Association, circa late 2006 - early 2007.)

Maple, mother to 5-year-old Zach, is especially concerned that kids could easily be exposed to the explicit content.  (Could be?  Here the media falls down on the job as this library is absolutely rife with regular porn viewing and resultant harms including criminal activity.  I showed many examples above.  Some having videos, where you can watch library patrons so disgusted they refuse to even touch the keyboards.  By leaving out the constant problems resulting from the constant porn viewing over the years, the Chicago Sun-Times casts the story as only this one mother who is needlessly shielding her child from some imagined harm that rarely happens anyway.)

“How do they know that the child isn’t going to press the back space and end up viewing pornographic images?” she asked.  (Well as the news videos show, they don't even have to do that.  They simply need to walk around in the libraries to get all the eyeful they'll ever need.  And, as Dr. Mary Anne Layden explains in the video immediately below, porn viewing permanently harms children, and library policy is "a national scandal" that is directly at fault.  "Libraries have become the new red light district.")

The library's open-floor layout worries the River North mom who saw the incident, and who spoke on condition of anonymity.  She noted that the content was easily viewable from the check-out desk.  (Again, the Chicago Sun-Times casts this story as if only this one mother has a problem with the way the furniture is arranged.  No mention of how the US Supreme Court revealed furniture arrangements only exacerbate the porn viewing problems.)

She’s thankful her 6-month-old wasn't older when they saw it: “I was imagining standing there with my 10-year-old son and him saying, 'Mommy, what's that?’”

But blocking porn, libraries say, may do more harm than good.  (At least the media adds "libraries say," but the entire remainder of the article is only what libraries say.  There is absolutely no balance whatsoever.  None.  Zero.  I'll provide in comments below some balance the media completely missed.  And really, does anyone here thing blocking porn does more harm than good?  This library is actually saying blocking porn is harmful!?!  To the policies of the ALA and the ILA and the ACLU, maybe, but not the patrons.  Rather, as I have shown above, porn is harming people in libraries.)

“Even if you do have filters on computers, they provide that false sense of security,” said Bob Doyle, executive director of the Illinois Library Association.  (That is flat out false.  This is the guy who responded to the undercover media investigations by writing a report on how best to thwart police investigations of library crime.  In reality, filters work.  Even the ALA's top leader on library filters admitted this.  So, since filters work, they provide actual security, not a "false sense of security."  Bob Doyle is an expert in this area so he knows filters work, he knows the ALA said they work, he simply wants to continue to mislead the people of Illinois.) “There is some material that some people would consider to be inappropriate that still can be accessed, and at the same time, they can block access to constitutionally protected speech.”  (This is correct, but misleading.  Worse, the Chicago Sun-Times lets it stand.  In reality, this concern has already been asked and answered by the US Supreme Court almost ten years ago.  You simply ask the librarian to temporarily lift the filter.  Easy as pie.  Did Robert Doyle advise about that?  No.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times disclose that?  No.  So readers are left thinking filters might block things and you're stuck.  No mention that the US Supreme Court allowed for unblocks.  No mention that the libraries themselves block 7/8ths of the Internet by not making available the Deep Web.  So if anything's blocking access, it's the libraries, not the filters.)

Doyle said that the decision whether or not content should be blocked is left up to the local libraries. (This is not only deceptive but devious in its deceptiveness.  Robert Doyle knows he does not want local libraries having local control.  When state legislation to allow local libraries to filter the Internet was raised in Illinois, Robert Doyle lead the effort to kill it and its allowance for local library control by convincing many Illinois libraries to either cut off Internet access or purposefully crank up all filters to the highest level just to make it impossible for patrons to access the Internet.  He had no right to take away services from the various communities, but it shows his attitude as to who controls public libraries.  Then, with filters now at max or computers turned off thanks to Robert Doyle and the ILA, patrons were given a sheet of paper to contact their legislators to stop the law that would have given filtering control to local public libraries.  Robert Doyle did this.  It was pure propaganda, pure fakery, but he did this.  He stopped local control of libraries just as he led libraries to cut off services to their own citizens.  Yet here he is making a show of saying "the decision whether or not content should be blocked is left up to the local libraries." It most certainly is not.  Doyle knows it.  I'm in New Jersey and I know it.  So why didn't the Chicago Sun-Times know it and wrote about it?) Ruth Lednicer, director of marketing and communications for Chicago Public Library, said this is why Chicago libraries don’t use filters.

“In terms of pornography, it is legal.  (Absolutely false.  100% flat out false.  US v. ALA shows there is no First Amendment right to porn in public libraries.  But does the Chicago Sun-Times challenge her on this or provide balance?  No.  Does it reveal she's telling the same lies in the Inside Edition report from 2012?  No.  And I called the Chicago Sun-Times.  Has it returned my call?  No.  It even censored out my comment from its web site.)  If someone complains, we will ask someone to go to a more appropriate site,” she said. (And, because it's so rampant, few complain.  They simply stop going to that library.  The porn viewers have more rights than the non-porn viewers.) “We don’t use filters because filters filter out things you legitimately want to see, but then don’t filter out other things that you would want to block. (Absolutely false.  100% flat out false.  Even the ALA now admits filters work and blocking out breast cancer is an old excuse.  And has the Chicago Sun-Times provided accurate information to indicate this?  No.  Has it provided any balance whatsoever?  No.) That’s the stance we take at this time.”

Lednicer said libraries have separate computers for children and adults. The computers for adults have privacy screens that block content from other patrons unless they’re standing directly behind the computer.  She said the screen “looks like a shade of some type.”  (Such screens are completely useless. Anyone can see past them.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times mention this?  No.  Did it show Lednicer making the same false statements on the 2012 Inside Edition report?  No.  Did it reveal the US Supreme Court said such privacy screens not only fail to block porn but the actually exacerbate the problem as I mentioned above?  No.  No balance.  No truth.  Neither from the library spokeswoman, nor from the media.)

If there was supposed to be a shade on this computer, it wasn't there Wednesday, the River North mom said.  (Or maybe there was, but since they don't work, you'd think it was missing.)

The mom took her baby to the library, at 310 W. Division, about 3 p.m. on April 3.  She said a man was watching the explicit material on a computer 10 feet in front of the circulation desk and was grunting and making other "really inappropriate noises.”"

She told a librarian, whose reaction wasn't what she predicted.

“She didn’t seem taken back by it at all,” she said. “She said nonchalantly that (libraries) can't censor legal material. It’s certainly not something I ever would’ve imagined would be legal. It was just a really vulgar thing. . . . It wasn’t some mild pornography.”  (Yes, libraries can block porn, and it is not censorship, so this patron was lied to, and Bob Doyle of the ILA wrote a guide falsely implying porn was protected by the First Amendment in libraries that the library obviously followed to the tee.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times disclose any of this?  No.)

Lednicer said the woman's complaint about porn wasn't the library's first.

“It's not common, but it happens from time to time,” Lednicer said.  (Not common?  Did you see how common it was in the reports I provided above?  Did you see all the crime *not* reported to the police, so much that the de facto ALA leader (and former Illinois state ACLU director) had to remind librarians to call the police?  Chicago Sun-Times, are you going to let this lie go unchallenged?  Obviously yes.  So the librarian is lying, and the media is letting the lie go unchallenged.  Not a single person can make an informed decision on library Internet filtering with this type of propaganda.) “The proper response of the librarian should have been to say, ‘Someone has complained. We ask you to go to another site.’ ”  (No, not according to Bob Doyle's report.  Besides, the proper response would be to say porn viewing is not allowed in the library and you must stop viewing porn immediately or the library will take appropriate action.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times give any balance? Any analysis?  Or is it just repeating the library's propaganda that defies the law, common sense, and community standards.  

So long as the Chicago media continues to allow itself to be Bob Doyle's or Ruth Lednicer's microphone, the people will continue to suffer the harms of porn that it is perfectly legal to curtail, but they've been misled into thinking otherwise.  

I am hoping my writing here at least begins the process of lifting the curtain of propaganda from the eyes of the public and the politicians who apparently have been under a full frontal false campaign designed to convince people there's nothing that can be done to curtail the supposed First Amendment right to porn in public libraries.  

And this library being centered in the very town where the ALA practices its library porn facilitation likely makes it even harder to restore the libraries to local control based on informed consent, not misinformed conversion.  "In terms of pornography, it is legal."  No, not in public libraries.

And maybe it is time to take on that library confidentiality law that is really a sexual crime freedom law, no?)


NOTE ADDED 29 JULY 2013:

I have learned this post has become part of a library school student's course work:

• "Pressure Groups and Library Collection Development: Attempts to Influence Library Collections, and Best Practices for Library Response," by Christy L. Davis, Emporia State University, April 2013, 855 Collection Development for Dr. Donna Reed:

  ABSTRACT: An examination of various United States pressure groups' messages regarding how to influence or censor library collection content.  Looks at the beliefs and goals of several different groups that have web presences and who wish to challenge and change the material holdings, collection development and Internet policies of school and public libraries.  Describes what libraries can do to resist attempts of control and censorship by these groups and how libraries can maintain intellectual freedom standards and First Amendment rights for their library patrons.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/04/ChicagoPublicLibrary.html

Follow @SafeLibraries