FCC: Library Filters Work, Having Them is a Community Decision, and Libraries Should Revisit CIPA Filters Due to Technological Advances

Lisa Hone, Esq., FCC

Library Internet filters work well, it's a community decision to have them, and libraries should reconsider using them given "the technology has advanced so tremendously."  Read this comment from Lisa Hone, Deputy Division Chief of the Federal Communication Commissions's [FCC] Telecommunications Access Policy Division.  It was made during a webinar by FCC's Jonathan Chambers, Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and others from FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau:

I would also just remind folks that that that communities have lots of lots of leeway so that to be in compliance with CIPA is a community decision about what you need to do to be in compliance with CIPA, and, so, I know there're some people who are just opposed philosophically to to to any sort of burden but, um, I think that A) communities can decide what their community standard is under CIPA, and B) the technology has advanced so tremendously that it's pretty easy to have a different standard for adults and children, which I don't think was really the case, uh, when CIPA was first enacted.  So to the extent that it's a bar and, uh, and a library hasn't revisited the issue in recent years, it might be worth revisiting.

• "E-rate Never Sleeps," by Marijke Visser, District Dispatch, The Official ALA Washington Office Blog, 8 August 2014, Lisa Hone speaking at about 18:06 into the FCC webinar.

CIPA, by the way, is the Children's Internet Protection Act that requires filters on public library computers in exchange for certain federal E-rate funding.  Lisa Hone said what she said after one library director wrote: "Many libraries don't apply [for FCC E-rate funding] due to CIPA."  In other words, they voluntarily turn down federal funding because they think they speak for the community and are "just opposed philosophically to to to any sort of burden."  Lisa Hone spoke up to attempt to correct that outdated view.

Library Filters Work: "Technology Has Advanced So Tremendously"

So library Internet filters work and work well.  Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, not even ALA's so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom" [OIF].  I have previously revealed how the head of OIF was forced to admit filters work while she was being interviewed on an NPR affiliate after library director Dean Marney won state and federal cases proving not only that libraries may legally filter, but they need not unfilter porn:

• "ALA Admits Library Filters Work; Barbara Jones Bursts Her Own Breast Cancer Bubble," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 3 February 2012.
• "How to Filter Public Library Computers: Bradburn v NCRL Shows Libraries Need Not Approve Unblock Requests," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 25 April 2013.
• "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2010.

Communities Get to Decide, Not "People Who Are Just Opposed Philosophically"

Further, it's a community decision to have filters, not solely "some people who are just opposed philosophically."  These are community libraries.  Community rules should apply.  They should make informed decisions, informed by people like FCC's Lisa Hone, not misinformed by Barbara Jones or Deborah Caldwell-Stone from ALA OIF.   They intentionally mislead communities into being the leading facilitators of porn in the nation, and my source for saying this is Ernest Istook, CIPA's author:

• "CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 February 2012.
• "ALA Listed As Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 29 March 2013.

Lisa Hone Calls for Libraries to "Revisit" Past Decisions Not to Filter

So, as Lisa Hone points out, if your library "hasn't revisited [library filters] in recent years, it might be worth revisiting."  CIPA has been around for over a decade, after all.  A lot has changed, even if ALA OIF makes like it hasn't.

Example of Local Library Using ALA Propaganda to Push Child Porn

In closing, here's an example of a local library applying ALA OIF propaganda to push child pornography: Orland Park Public Library [OPPL].  We saw above that ALA OIF claimed filters blocked breast cancer searches, then was forced in early 2012 to reverse itself only a week later.  Barbara Jones said: "Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days...."  OPPL is a library that allows child porn viewing, covers it up for the viewers, and criminally silences the whistleblowers who are part of the community that Lisa Hone rightly says should get to decide whether to use filters.  But one who is "just opposed philosophically" is the library's public relations advocate Bridget Bittman.  She mislead the community in many ways, including this from late 2013, a year and a half after the Barbara Jones admission that breast cancer is just an excuse and with Barbara Jones's direct, personal involvement in guiding OPPL:

Bittman said filters would not only limit a patron's rights, they could ban access to sites college students or people doing research might need to access.  Being denied access to the word "breast" might prevent a person from looking up breast cancer, for example, she said.

• "Battle of Orland Park Library's Internet Porn Policy Heats Up," by Donna Vickroy and Mike Nolan, Chicago Sun-Times, 5 November 2013.

Conclusion: Filters Work, the Community Decides, Libraries Should Revisit Not Filtering

That is the kind of false information ALA OIF trains people to say, to mislead communities.  That is why what FCC's representative Lisa Hone said is so important for people to know:

1. Library filters work, 
2. Having them is a community decision, and 
3. Libraries should revisit past decisions not to use CIPA filters due to tremendous technological advances.

Brava, Lisa Hone!


NOTE ADDED 16 AUGUST 2014:

Major goof, folks.  I thought the speaker was Marijke Visser of ALA.  It was actually Lisa Hone of FCC, even better.  Even more authoritative.  So now, not only has CIPA's author said ALA misleads communities about CIPA, not only has ACLU said filters work, but now the FCC itself is saying filters work, communities should get them if they want, and recalcitrant libraries should rethink their past opposition to filters.

Therefore, I have changed the article above to change the speaker's name, title, place of work, picture, and caption, otherwise the information remains accurate.

I thank Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Director, Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) for noticing this error.  I listened several times and did not pick up the change in speakers.  Listen yourselves and you'll see what I mean.

You'll even hear FCC's Jonathan Chambers make other statements in support of CIPA and filters that I had not reported above, not letting the librarians try to pressure him into making concessions that would have eviscerated CIPA.  Lobbying, they call it, they have an entire office for it.  It's really an effort to take away your legal rights without your even knowing.

CIPA's author says filters work.  Now FCC says it too.  Even ACLU said filters work, and ACLU worked with ALA to lose big before the US Supreme Court when trying to overturn CIPA.  It's only OIF that says otherwise—"lonely joker on a shelf," as Sir Paul McCartney would put it.

Saul Alinsky Rule #1 is "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."  Or as Joe Walsh put it, "If you just act like you know what you're doin' everybody thinks that you do." People should stop thinking ALA OIF knows what its doin' regarding library filters and should realize it is intentionally misleading.  FCC, CIPA's author, and even US v. ALA co-plaintiff ACLU say library filters work.  When OIF says they don't work, it's old dogma designed to mislead, like its leader Barbara Jones already was forced into admitting on that NPR station.  Don't buy it.


NOTE ADDED 9 MAY 2015:

Updated to update web link.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/08/visser.html

On Twitter:  @FCC @Istook @OIF @OITP @OrlandPkLibrary

Follow @SafeLibraries

American Library Association Blames YouTube Video for Benghazi Attack; Passes Policy Silencing Prayer After Jewish Man Prays for Dead Colleagues at ALA Meeting; Does Not Support Free Speech

ALA claims Benghazi attack was
"fueled" by a YouTube video.

The American Library Association [ALA] claims a YouTube video was responsible for the Benghazi attack.  Yet the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  Instead its use supports Islamist efforts to use blasphemy laws to silence the free speech of those speaking out about Islam from a different point of view than the Islamists.  ALA now evidences agreement with that anti-free speech goal.

ALA, supposedly a supporter of free speech, has in the past censored a speaker in response to complaints from Islamists and maintains a block on speech from Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.  Now it has joined with those promoting blasphemy laws to silence free speech.  The video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, yet ALA calls it, "the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi"?

• "Appeals Court Decision Undermines Free Speech, Misinterpret Copyright Law," by Carrie Russell, Director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP), American Library Association, 14 April 2014 (hyperlinks in original, emphasis mine, grammatical errors in title and text are in original):

  Last week, the American Library Association (ALA) joined an amicus brief calling for reconsideration of a 9th circuit court decision in Garcia v. Google, case where actress Cindy Sue Garcia sued Google for not removing a YouTube video in which she appears.  Garcia appears for five seconds in “Innocence of Muslims,” the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi.  The video was uploaded on YouTube, exposing Garcia to threats and hate mail.  Garcia did not know that her five second performance would be used in a controversial video.

ALA Policy Silencing Impromptu Prayer at ALA Meetings

By the way, at ALA's latest annual conference, it passed a policy silencing prayer at ALA meetings in response to a Jewish ALA member saying a quick prayer over other ALA members who had just died:

As former ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon said, "When Mr. Friedman intoned the Jewish mourner's 'Kaddish' after the sudden deaths of 2 Councilors, I was highly indignant and walked out.  It never should have been allowed and before the second incident I begged Mr. Friedman not to repeat the prayer-at least on Council floor." Source: ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon.

Anyone is free to pray at any time, anywhere.  What people are not free to do is to force others to participate in their prayers, which is what happens when one prays aloud.  If Mr. Friedman wished to offer a prayer in his own particular religious format, he has a temple or synagogue in which to do so.  An ALA meeting is not a religious service, & if Mr. Friedman wished to express his sadness over the deaths of the councilors there, he's free to do so in a non-religious way.  Source: Sherry Rhodes.

So the self-arrogated free speech police who claim it violates free speech to keep children from inappropriate material and decry "banned books" think one has free speech to "express sadness over the deaths of the councilors" but only "in a non-religious way," unless you go your own "temple or synagogue."

A single ALA member (ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon) was incensed at a Jewish prayer being said in a single ALA meeting and ALA has now banned such prayer.  The free speech police banned free speech.  Remember, ALA claims a single parent should not be allowed to "censor what others students can read" in public schools; one parent should not control an entire school.  But it is okay for one person to react to Jewish prayer and cause ALA to block religious free speech ALA wide.  Just another double standard.

It is right that ALA is not a religious institution and should not have official prayers or prayer times, but a colleague saying an impromptu prayer upon news of the death of another colleague is not official ALA prayer and ALA had no right to silence people in such a fashion.

ALA Censorship Double Standard; ALA Does Not Support Free Speech

What we see here is ALA censorship promoted by impromptu Jewish prayer while ALA promotes censorship of those who oppose radical Islam.  All while telling communities it is censorship to block porn in public libraries and censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material.

ALA supports Islamic blasphemy laws that silence free speech, censors points of view that differ from Islamist views, and silences its own members after a Jewish man makes a quick Jewish prayer at an ALA meeting out of respect for a dead colleague.  ALA does not support free speech.

URL of the page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/04/ALABlasphemy.html

On Twitter:  @ALALibrary @JihadWatchRS @OITP

Follow @SafeLibraries