NLTE to Governor DeSantis: Make Public School Libraries Safer

Dear Governor DeSantis and Commissioner Diaz - and Ladies and Gentlemen all:

As I am one of a very few de facto community leaders charged with making the content of our Florida public school libraries safer for America's children, I implore you to prepare an edict or strongly worded directive to more effectively help protect our children.  I'll provide an example below.

• The FLDOE training for Media Specialists, that thankfully now includes the words "err on the side of caution," is NOT having the desired effect.
• In each district, subject to the whims of the school board and many other entities, we are seeing some truly terrible titles be reviewed then retained.
• Our children continue to be exposed to porn and other horrors.
• The keyword, "caution," is the issue.
• Some of the Media Specialists and purchasers (and authors and publishers) are actively aligned with the ALA [American Library Association] agenda (avowed Marxism).
• Sadly, this is sometimes also true of superintendents and teachers and school board members.
• Many of these persons are still denying ANY book is inappropriate for ANY child.  Their "free speech absolutism" is the opposite of caution.
• In my rather conservative county (Clay) there have already been 97 titles permanently removed.  The resistance to these removals has been, and is today, extraordinary.
• These same persons are screaming about "censorship" and "book banning" yet all 97 of these books can still be found at public libraries and bookstores and even online.
• I do not feel we have truly banned a single book.  We just moved them further away from innocent children.
• I am never going to apologize for my passion to "err on the side of caution" and protect innocence.  I expect so far we agree.

The sample below stems from my experience fighting (and often losing) the same battle for the last 10 plus years.  I hope this serves you and is found worthy of your consideration.

SAMPLE EDICT/DIRECTIVE: 

(My apologies for the length)

To the attention of every Florida public school Superintendent and Principal and Attorney and School Board Member, as well as interested parties of the ALA; NEA; NEFEC; FSBA...:

Whereas Florida State Statutes and Laws provide guidance regarding all books in any location on public school grounds, this directive is issued to clarify the cumulative intent of these Florida State Statutes and Laws. 

Further clarification may be included in your local district policies.  Note that the subtle differences in definitions between a book in any teacher's personal public school classroom library, and a book in the common public school library, and any book that is a relevant part of the curriculum, are not to be treated as justifications for failing to "err on the side of caution" as noted in the Media Specialists training.

1. PORN: Books may not contain pornography.  One single passage or page with pornographic content is sufficient to disqualify a book from purchase.  The book's "artistic value" or "serious literary value" is not relevant.  Regarding books previously purchased, a pornographic passage or page is sufficient for its immediate deselection and/or removal.  Such books should not require any further analysis or committee review prior to deselection.  Such books should not be resold or gifted or destroyed.  They should be returned to the publishers with the explanation that the publisher failed to provide sufficiently accurate product summaries, and that since these items violate our Laws, the publisher may be held accountable and *disqualified from any future sales. 

I personally suggest requesting a ZERO dollar credit - for dramatic effect.

Note that an image or description of breast-feeding is not porn.

See Fl. S847.001 [explicit sex/obscenity] and S847.012 [harmful to minors] and HB 1467 [transparency in book selections - with *accountability]

2. GENDER THEORY AND COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED: While the world is a dynamic place and family structures vary, Humans are almost always specifically male or female. Fl S.1003.46 (2a and all) direct public schools to teach "abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school-age students while teaching the benefits of monogamous heterosexual marriage." Books in any location on school grounds ought to reinforce, or at the very least, not conflict with this statute. Books that mention or promote a sense of gender fluidity; (pre-marital or post-marital) promiscuity or other reckless sexual activity; homosexuality or non-heterosexual sexuality; alternate sexualities; multiple sexual partners or group sex, casual abortions; are in conflict with this statute and should be immediately deselected. Again, these are contrary to statute and should be expedited and returned as above. Generally, there should not be a romance section in a school library. Romance is rarely platonic. Ensure your purchasers select books that deal with more educational subjects and, as above, return the deselected items to the publisher. Note that a book may contain a person that is confused about their sexuality or is not a heterosexual. In general, any book in any public school should not be focused on any person's sexuality.

See HB 1557 [The Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly/incorrectly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" Bill]; See also HB 7 and SB 300 [both relating to pregnancy and parenting support]

3. UNSOLICITED THEORIES/Critical Race Theory/DEI/WOKENESS: The U.S. Constitution and Florida Law requires that no child (or Adult) be made to suffer for their race or religion. Florida Law does require we teach the true history of uncomfortable topics such as the Holocaust and slavery. The "anti-racist" theory of CRT is in conflict with law. CRT is a theory designed to CAUSE division rather than promote a harmonious environment for education. Many books are known to have been intentionally infused with passages that support CRT. These books will only rarely include the words "critical race theory" or "culturally responsive training." In order to more efficiently deselect these CRT items, they should be read or searched for the keywords that often reveal CRT content. Same applies to the modern tussle over wokeness. Same remedy required. Return the deselected items to the publisher.

A fairly comprehensive list of suggested search terms is provided here: https://www.noleftturn.us/crt-code-words/ - I'd add "belonging" to the list as this term is likely to be abused by some people.

Note that historical or current references to racist behavior are acceptable unless they promote that racism or intend to increase disharmony overall.

See Fl. HB 1467 [transparency in book selections - with *accountability]

4. HISTORICAL LIES/PROPAGANDA/ANTI-POLICE/ANTI-GOVERNMENT SENTIMENT: We pledge allegiance to the American flag. We stand for the National Anthem. We honor our Veterans. We respect our police. We live in a Constitutional Republic.

Books that call America a "Democracy" or promote the benefits of Socialism or Communism, should be purchased sparingly and only as needed for a curriculum designed to show that the use of propaganda is dangerous.

Note that judicious use of "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" can be helpful in this regard.

Whenever possible, unless crucial to a lesson about the danger of historical lies, apply the same treatment. Expedite and return the deselected items to the publisher.

See US Constitution - Article 4 Section 4 [The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government]

5. VIOLENCE and GUNS: There have been mass shootings at some of our schools. Many schools are occasionally locked down for a variety of sound efforts to maintain safety. Our children now regularly participate in "active shooter drills."

It's terrifying to most parents and our children that such drills are even required.

Accordingly, there is no good reason to provide books to children that glorify murder or trivialize weapons or death. Please apply the same treatment. Expedite and return the deselected items to the publisher.

Note that books detailing the horrors of an historical war or armed conflict, are not required to be deselected.

Note that books that describe the safe handling and operation, as well as the mechanical design of weapons, are not required to be deselected.

See Fl. 1006.28 [Duties of district school board, district school superintendent; and school principal regarding K-12 instructional materials]

6. MANGA and Graphic Novels: Picture books are appropriate for children learning to read. Manga and young adult graphic novels (comic books) often contain the prohibited content discussed above. Unless a graphic novel is found crucial to higher learning and free of the inappropriate content above, it should be removed from school grounds.

Literate students should access these types of books in a public library outside of our schools, if desired.

They are a distraction and hindrance to learning. Please apply the same treatment. Expedite deselections and return the items to the publisher.

See Fl. 1006.28 [Duties of district school board, district school superintendent; and school principal regarding K-12 instructional materials]

7. SHADES OF GREY: We recognize that some books may offer contrary perspectives on topics as varied as serial monogamy; Global Warming; politics in general.

When choosing books for America's children, please continue to "err on the side of caution!"

I hope you all find this informative and helpful.

Commissioner Diaz: Please reach out to me by phone or email at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,

Bruce

--

Bruce Friedman - concerned parent

Chapter President

No Left Turn in Education - Florida

bruce.friedman@noleftturn.us

TO:

GovernorRon.Desantis@eog.myflorida.com

mannydiaz@fldoe.org

Brandy.Brown@eog.myflorida.com

parentalrights@fldoe.org

###     30     ###     30     ###

Above is a letter submitted to Governor Ron DeSantis as shown, active links, formatting for the web, and graphics from Bruce Friedman added by me.

Below is the same Bruce Friedman being silenced by his school board for daring to read aloud the books his school board approves for school children to read.  The adults aren't allowed to hear it, not even those sitting on a governing school board, but the school children get it from school librarians?  

Notice the huge engagement numbers because everyone knows this is wrong while the librarians keep falsely claiming it's a First Amendment right guaranteed by ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights," as if it were the real thing, as if it trumps community standards, state law, and US Supreme Court cases.

UNREAL. A dad says he’s gonna read from graphic books available to children in school and gets shut down by @oneclayschools board before he even starts because it might be against the law to read from these books in front of children.

These books are in school libraries. pic.twitter.com/PCJSMCttq5

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 12, 2022

By the way, school boards violate open government laws by silencing parents reading school books:

Kleinman, Dan. “Parents May Legally Read Explicit Books at School Board Meetings: Mama Bears of Forsyth County v. McCall.” SafeLibraries® (blog), February 7, 2023. https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/02/parents-may-legally-read-explicit-books.html.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/05/nlte-to-governor-desantis.html

On Twitter: 

@SafeLibraries  @SexHarassed  @SafeLibsAssoc

Comment on Charter Schools Program

The following was submitted by me to the United States Department of Education courtesy of Public Charter Schools.

I oppose the Department of Education’s proposed new rules for the Charter Schools Program (CSP).

Charter schools provide competition, as it were, to non-charter public schools that are one size fits all, with all being the lowest common denominator.

In a one size fits all world, one gets poor and unfortunately standardized results like school librarians who make graphic child pornography available to school children.  They scream “#FReadom,” shout down any opposition with full media support, and their American Library Association grants such books like “Gender Queer” multiple awards so school librarians in non-charter public schools can claim the graphic child pornography is award winning so parents would harm their own children if they did not let their children explore graphic child pornography from a “safe space.”  It is literal sexual grooming of school children by people trained by American Library Association to ignore child pornography because, they and we are told, only lawyers can determine what that is.  

Judith Krug, an ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) board member who joined American Library Association and single-handedly changed it from within so children would be exposed to harm including child pornography, said this twenty years ago that remains in effect today: “‘A librarian is not a legal process,’ Krug said. ‘There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography.’”  Source: “Librarians vs. Police In a Suit Sparked by Porn,” by Jeffrey M. Barker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12 August 2002, accessed at https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libraries-vs-police-in-a-suit-sparked-by-porn-1093410.php.

School librarians are the groomers, trained to groom.  If a man in a van gave children the same material, including the graphic showing the boy giving oral sex to a man or directions to kink.com, he would be treated as a groomer and handled accordingly by the police and the legal system, or perhaps directly by the community.

But school librarians are assumed to be harmless and trade off that public perception and good will, even brag about it as they did during this past National Library Week as a way to “#UniteAgainstBookBans” due to parental and legislative opposition to graphic child pornography in public schools.  And people believe they are harmless.  So nothing ever happens and the graphic child pornography spreads to more schools and more children via more school librarians.  And if parents do speak out, they are frequently silenced by school boards violating open meeting laws, let alone bullies and bribes organized by American Library Association, ACLU and the like.  Parents need a way out.

One way out is charter schools.  Charter schools give parents an option for schooling so they need not send their children to be sexually groomed.

I realize this sounds like I’m exaggerating.  I am not.  

The problem is about to get worse as American Library Association has just elected Emily Drabinski as its president, an avowed Marxist who stated explicitly, “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary.  I am so excited for what we will do together.  Solidarity!  And my mom is SO PROUD I love you mom.”  Source: https://twitter.com/edrabinski/status/1514305183429365767

I oppose the Department of Education’s proposed new rules for the CSP because parents must have alternatives for the education of their children.  The CSP is the only source of dedicated federal funding to support the growth of charter schools to meet community need.  It is more important than ever to work together to ensure the CSP can meet its intended purpose of expanding the number of high-quality public schools available to students across the nation.

Thank you for your consideration.

It’s not ok to play politics with our kids! Contact @usedgov today to #BackOff and protect charter school growth 👇 https://t.co/M72edLlIdM

— publiccharters.org (@charteralliance) April 18, 2022

[NOTE: graphics were not included in letter to US Department of Education.]
—

URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/04/comment-on-charter-schools-program.html

Twitter:

@ACLU @ALALibrary @charteralliance @edrabinski @usedgov 

Follow @SexHarassed

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

CAPTURED!! @MCSO_IN Deputies arrest Richard Dobeski at the Central Library in Indianapolis. More details to follow. pic.twitter.com/NobvtQlLUH

— Marion Co Sheriff IN (@MCSO_IN) July 23, 2015

---

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

---

Story Time	Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:30 PM
To: Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees Re: Convicted child killer arrested in Indianapolis Public Library today -- Board Action Needed -- I am making sure that the OPPL Board of Trustees (OPPL-BoT) is aware of this news story from today (7/23/15), where a convicted child killer was arrested at the Indianapolis Public Library. You can read the full story here:  http://abc7chicago.com/news/convicted-child-killer-arrested-at-indianapolis-library-/876009/ This is a predator who had recently been released from prison after serving 7 years for child molestation and child porn charges. One of the first things he did upon release was to head to the public library, where it appears he accessed child porn again or did something else in the library to violate his parole.  The OPPL-BoT has never seemed to take the safety of children very seriously in your library, which is one of the big areas of criticism that Megan Fox and I have had for the OPPL-BoT since we started coming to your board meetings in October 2013. You really do not seem to care about children at all and instead seem to always want to side with the guys who masturbate in your library or who access illegal things like child porn.  You seem proud of winning that ALA award for continuing to allow access to illegal materials on your computers…and you seem unashamed that as a Board you continue refusing to apologize for or address all of the incident reports where children were put at risk because of sexual activity or behavior in your library.  Mary Weimar, as Library Director, has particularly seemed disinterested in the safety of children at the OPPL. Members of the Orland Park Police Department and reporter Dennis Sullivan from the Chicago Tribune both told us that for years Mary Weimar was informed by the police that registered sex offenders were violating their paroles by coming into the OPPL and being around children…but Weimar chose over and over again not to call the police when these men were in the library.  This is on top of Weimar choosing not to call the police when child porn was reported to have been accessed on 3/8/11 and your own internal incident report shows that Weimar spoke with the man who did that, the man then admitted that child porn had been on his screen, and Weimar simply told him not to do it ever again (or, if he did, he would banned from the library…but the police would still not be called). This Board has admitted that Weimar did not call the police but should have, as any sane person would have done.  The Board has now promised to never again allow child porn to go unreported to the police (and you seem to have an attitude of "the past is the past" and "oh, well").  When you factor in all the other incident reports showing sex crimes having been committed in your library and you look at Mary Weimar's response time and again as Director, you will see a troubling pattern of Weimar choosing wherever possible not to call the police and doing things that allow these men to get away. Why?  Why does Mary Weimar keep doing that?  Shouldn't you be mindful of things like what just happened today in Indianapolis and look at the OPPL and ask, "Are we really doing everything to remedy the past mistakes that were made here by Mary Weimar?".  I would like the OPPL-BoT to finally address this. Photo by Kevin DuJan (cropped by me). I would also like to draw your attention to something that the Old Navy store in downtown Chicago does that might be a great idea for you. On the entrance doors to Old Navy on State Street in the LOOP, there is a notice posted to the glass doors stating that Old Navy is a Family Friendly establishment and that any criminal activity will be reported immediately to the police. This seems to serve as an effective deterrent to at least some segment of criminal element (or why would Old Navy have bothered doing this?). Old Navy communicates to anyone entering the store that children will be protected inside Old Navy…so anyone who would hurt a child should go elsewhere because Old Navy is a place where staff will vigilantly call the police on anyone attempting to hurt a child or engage in illegal activity.  Old Navy's sign says:  "OLD NAVY PROMOTES A SAFE, FAMILY SHOPPING ENVIRONMENT. Criminal activity will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."  The OPPL has no such notice on its doors. But, you should have one.  I think the OPPL should have signs that say: "THE ORLAND PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY PROMOTES A SAFE, FAMILY ENVIRONMENT. Criminal activity will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."  Your entrance doors currently have more signs saying "No Smoking" than I can count. You have that posted over and over and over and over again. You must have gotten a bulk discount on the number of NO SMOKING signs you purchased for your entrance doors. I think you unofficially hold the Guinness World Record for the number of NO SMOKING signs plastered on a single entranceway.  Similarly, you have countless "No Guns" signs on your doors. You don't have as many as you have NO SMOKING signs, but NO GUNS is a message you clearly want to send to anyone entering your building. In all the incident reports I have reviewed about crimes happening at the OPPL through the years, not once have I seen anything involving guns. Yet, you make a big production of telling people that there will be all sorts of negative consequences if they bring firearms into your building.  So…considering the fact that you are a library where child porn was reported to have been accessed, where incidents of open public masturbation and other sex crimes have occurred, and where known sex offenders like David Varlotta have been known to roam (in violation of their parole, according to what Dennis Sullivan told me)…why don't you have anything on your doors as a notice that the OPPL is a safe place for children where police are called whenever anyone attempts to harm a child?  Why aren't you, at bare minimum, at least doing what Old Navy does?  Old Navy has no smoking signs. Old Navy has no gun signs. Old Navy has a prominent notice to any would-be creeps that Old Navy protects children.  Why doesn't the OPPL do that? Can you look into it, at least?  I've attached a picture I took of the Old Navy sign today so you can see what they have done. I truly believe that if you posted something like this on your doors alongside the NO SMOKING and NO GUNS signs that you would send a strong message to creeps that the OPPL staff has become serious about protecting children from harm.  That has not been the message that Mary Weimar has sent for all these years of not calling the police when she should have and for looking the other way on things so that creeps could get away. But, you have the chance to turn the page and make a positive change.  Will you follow in Old Navy's footsteps and do that? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like an answer from the Board on this.  Kevin DuJan Story Time Digital Media ************************************************** Story Time Digital Media is a digital news service in electronic format presenting video content and in-depth articles to the public (free of charge) as well as newsletters distributed to the public on a regular rolling basis. Our motto is "we cover the news that the Old Media refuses to cover" and our focus is on topics pertaining to the welfare and safety of children and being a watchdog exposing government abuse, graft, and corruption in the state of Illinois and nationally. Subscribe to our video channel to view news reels, cartoons, and other motion picture news clips that we produce to educate the public on the affairs of local government and elected officials' treatment of the public. For more information on who we are and the stories we cover, click below:  https://www.facebook.com/MeganFoxWriter https://www.youtube.com/user/intolerantfox

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

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

Follow @SafeLibraries

Dear Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Your Libraries Will Soon Allow Porn Since Library Trustees Will Be Trained by the American Library Association to Violate the Law

Dear Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Virginia's public libraries will soon allow unlimited pornography despite the law since new Virginia library trustees will be intentionally trained by the American Library Association [ALA] to violate the law and allow porn.

Virginia library trustee training has been turned over to the ALA's "United for Libraries's Trustee Academy":

• "Virginia Becomes Latest State to Provide United for Libraries' Trustee Academy for their Trustees," by Jillian Kalonick, American Library Association, 21 October 2013.

"The Trustee Academy will enhance the Library of Virginia's existing online tutorials for trustees and will assist the trustees of Virginia's public libraries in carrying out their duties and responsibilities," said Librarian of Virginia Sandra G. Treadway.

It is not an "enhancement" to teach the opposite of the law with the intention of misleading library trustees into allowing porn in local libraries throughout Virginia.  ALA's "Virginia Trustee Academy" teaches the very people responsible for setting policy in Virginia libraries the opposite of the law.

The US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003), a public library is not an open public forum, surprisingly enough.  Because of that, the government has a right to apply reasonable controls, including software filters to block pornography.  Besides, the Court said, libraries have traditionally blocked porn from book collections, so using software filters to achieve the same effect on the Internet makes no difference.  The case applies to all libraries, not just those obtaining federal funding.  All libraries may legally block porn, whether or not they accept federal funding.

The "Virginia Trustee Academy" teaches the exact opposite, that porn may not be blocked because libraries are open public fora.  They are not.  By the way, in a subsequent case, porn need not be unblocked, even upon request:

• "How to Filter Public Library Computers: Bradburn v NCRL Shows Libraries Need Not Approve Unblock Requests," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 25 April 2013.

So the training turns the very crux of the US v. ALA case on its head.  The newly indoctrinated library trustees then go back to their local libraries and apply the ALA's legally false diktat, thereby forcing communities to endure the typical harms unlimited porn brings.  You see, everyone assumes the library trustees must know what they are doing because they have been trained.  Perhaps, but not if they have intentionally received false training on the singularly key issue that pertains to community safety from the harms of porn in public libraries.  For details on this false training, see:

• "How State Library Associations Endanger Children; NJ Libraries and You: Not Perfect Together," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries 13 August 2013.

Governor McDonnell, I am offering my assistance to help you to counteract this insidious means of misleading and controlling local communities in Virginia.  And you'll have to do this because the Librarian of Virginia has already shown where her allegiance lies.  Naturally she will deny what I have said, but the issue of the safety of Virginia residents is too important so set aside so easily.

The person who created the training for the ALA is from New Jersey.  She has said libraries cannot block porn because that violates the First Amendment, even though the US Supreme Court said the exact opposite.  I'm from New Jersey too.  She has excused her porn pushing policies in local media by claiming that I have only written about a single incident in a New Jersey library and that I did not otherwise complain to the New Jersey Library Association that she leads.  So she has no excuse for defying the law and she chooses instead to attack the messenger.  This is the person who created the training that the ALA uses to indoctrinate your Virginia library trustee trainees, at least last I looked.  Is this what you want for Virginia?

• "Porn in Public Libraries," by Walter Kane, Kane In Your Corner, News 12 New Jersey, 5-6 November 2011.

Lastly, let me add that I am viewed as a "trusted source" on ALA misdirection by none other than the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA].  CIPA requires filters in exchange for federal funding.  Please read this as it explains exactly how and why ALA misleads communities and what can be done about it:

• "Children's Internet Protection Act Author Ernest Istook Interviewed," by Dawn Hawkins, Morality in Media, 17 April 2012. 

So I am writing this message to warn that turning over library trustee training to the ALA will result in significant harm to communities throughout Virginia as a result of library trustees who have been intentionally misled into thinking blocking porn violates the First Amendment.

Sic semper tyrannis

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/10/DearGovernor.html

Follow @SafeLibraries

Violent Video Games in the Paterson Free Public Library and the NCAC/ALA Attempt to Mislead Another Community

Cindy Czesak, Director
Members, Board of Trustees
Paterson Free Public Library
250 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07501
February 6, 2013

Dear Ms. Czesak and Library Trustees,

I am writing regarding the Paterson Free Public Library "banning" violent video games and the false claims made by the National Coalition Against Censorship, et al., in their letter dated February 1, 2013, and published by the NCAC here:
http://www.ncac.org/Paterson-Library-Board-Votes-to-Allow-Banning-Patrons-From-Playing-Video-Games

The NCAC has absolutely no power over you except the power you give it.  So when you are evaluating what weight to give the letter from the NCAC, please consider evaluating the NCAC itself.  Please consider that the NCAC is an organization that promotes pornography [N 1], openly pushes pornography on public libraries [N 2], and supports censorship with double standards and made up facts [N 3].  It makes statements such as "porn is NOT connected with violence against women, child molestation, or divorce." [N 4]

Lest you think it is not possible the NCAC could be misleading communities, think about how the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act requiring filtering in public libraries has revealed that the American Library Association is intentionally misleading American communities to the point where a third have been misled into not using legal means to protect their children from harm [N 5].  And the American Library Association is a silent signatory of the letter as well, as I explain below.

So those are the organizations now pressuring you to do as they say.  Let's look specifically at the NCAC letter.

"Video games are protected speech under the First Amendment and, as such, cannot be regulated or restricted by public officials in response to concerns about their message or content."  Similarly, pornography is protected speech under the First Amendment, yet the US Supreme Court found public libraries could legally suppress it using Internet filters because a public library is a quasi public forum, not an open public forum [N 6].  The Court explained, in words that may be applicable to violent videos in public libraries, "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."

The NCAC goes on to cite an impressive legal case to support its position.  But the case does not apply to public libraries, and another US Supreme Court allowed libraries to curtail pornography.  It is a bully tactic to use a case that does not really apply.  Read the case, but notice how it applies to commercial businesses, not quasi public fora like public libraries.

"The library has not offered any sound justification for removing access to specific games.  Instead, according to published reports, librarians are taking this action to 'prevent our kids from learning these behaviors.'  This assumes that viewers will simply imitate behaviors represented in fictional settings without any independent mental intermediation, a proposition that is palpably false and that the library implicitly rejects by offering access to all sorts of internet sites and maintaining a varied collection of books, magazines, videos and other materials."  Remember, this is from the organization that said "porn is NOT connected with violence against women, child molestation, or divorce."  Now it is essentially saying violent video games are "NOT connected with violence."  Are you convinced?  And notice how the NCAC uses the library's having apparently been misled by the American Library Association into allowing porn on its computers [N 7] as a reason why the library should now also allow the NCAC/ALA to mislead it into allowing children to play violent video games.

"It is no more acceptable for a library to ban access to certain kinds of video games than it would be to selectively remove other lawful materials."  Okay, just remember the US Supreme Court allows libraries to filter out lawful porn.  So "selective removal of other lawful materials" is done in public libraries nationwide everyday, and with US Supreme Court approval, let alone library selection policy that filters out much more than the library collects.

"Library officials attempt to justify their decision by claiming that they are acting in parens patriae.  However, librarians are not baby-sitters, and they have no way to know that their views correspond with those of parents or guardians."  So, you have no way to know whether your views match those of your community, you are told, but you are supposed to align your views with the NCAC.  Clever.  Let's agree librarians are not babysitters.  But that is not the issue.  A babysitter would welcome a child playing a video game to make his job easier.  Further, regarding library officials not acting to look after children like all other public employees do, that is a made up rule from the American Civil Liberties Union that the American Library Association then forced on libraries [N 8].

"As public officials, library administrators are barred from removing materials merely because they dislike them or find them offensive."  Correct, but that is not what you are doing and I bet you do not appreciate the implication that you are.  Further, the US Supreme Court, as I explained above, ruled that public libraries are quasi public fora where public officials have every right to remove certain material, such as Internet pornography.  The NCAC goes on to cite another impressive legal case that yet again has little to do with the issue of violent video games in public libraries.

"Those who do not wish to play video games do not have to, just as those who do not wish to read a particular book or magazine do not have to."  That is the old "avert your eyes" excuse for not using legal Internet filters to block pornography [N 9].

"The role of libraries is not to police the use of a perfectly legal form of casual entertainment, whether the user is a teen or any other patron."  This from the organization that says libraries should start stocking porn and that, in this very letter, implicitly mocked you for having a library policy that allowed porn.

As you are the trustees for your community library and not for the NCAC/ALA's own agenda, you get to decide whether violent video games should be prohibited in your library.  It appears it would be perfectly legal to do so, especially in light of the recent school shootings in Newtown, CT.  The question is, should you bend your will to the NCAC's and not do what is right by your community and its children just to avoid the implicit legal threat?

I am Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries and I am based in Chatham, NJ [N 10].  I will be happy to speak with any of you or even to appear before the library board to explain the above and more in person, as I have in other communities.  Watch me on News 12 New Jersey calling out Pat Tumulty, the President of the New Jersey Library Association, for excusing why NJ libraries should supposedly allow Internet pornography to prevent "censorship" [N 11].  And my footnotes mainly link to my own writing, but the reliable sources contained therein is the main attraction; my using my own links is merely a convenience for everyone.

Purported Judith Platt signature from  August 18, 2011

Purported Judith Platt signature from February 1, 2013

By the way, see that signature for Judith Platt, director of a section of the Association of American Publishers?  She is also a director at the American Library Association's Freedom to Read Foundation [N 12].  The ALA claims it is "censorship" for libraries to keep children from R-rated movies [N 13], and, as I mentioned above, even the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act called out the ALA for misleading communities [N 5].  And I exposed the ALA for faking its annual top 10 most challenged books list [N 14] after I attended a New Jersey Library Association convention and recorded an awarded author admitting as such.  So how likely is it that organizations that promote porn in public libraries and R-rated films for children by misleading communities would provide accurate information to the Paterson Free Public Library on public libraries making violent video games available to children?  And the "signatures" on the letter you received are merely graphics (compare slide 14 [N 15]); they don't even have the courtesy to sign the letter you are supposed to be cowed by, if indeed they even read it.

Thank you very much.  Like the NCAC, I too look forward to hearing from you.  And I hope you make the decision that is best for Paterson, not that is best for the NCAC/ALA.

NOTES

[N 1]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/ncac-promotes-porn-says-keeping.html

[N 2]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/06/ncac-pushes-porn-on-libraries-fifty.html

[N 3]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/ncac-supports-censorship-with-double.html

[N 4]  http://ncacblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/plaid-ribbons-for-pornography-awareness/

[N 5]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/cipa-author-exposes-ala-deception.html

[N 6]  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html

[N 7]  http://www.patersonpl.org/3adultpolicy.html

[N 8]  http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/feb96/focus.html

[N 9]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/04/avert-your-eyes-jane-light-got-220983.html

[N 10]  http://tinyurl.com/AboutDan

[N 11]  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32156878/DanKleinman-KaneInYourCorner-News12NJ-5Nov2011.wmv

[N 12]  http://www.ala.org/groups/affiliates/relatedgroups/freedomtoreadfoundation/ftrforg/ftrfboard/ftrfboarddirectors#directors

[N 13]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/keeping-r-rate-films-from-children-is.html

[N 14]  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/banned-books-week-is-gay-promotion.html

[N 15]  http://tinyurl.com/SaferLibraries


NOTE ADDED 8 FEBRUARY 2013:

Possibly as a result of my involvement in this matter the previous day, the American Library Association's so-called "Office for Intellection Freedom" has proclaimed libraries do not have the intellectual freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to remove violent video games in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, CT:

• "Libraries and Violent Media," by American Library Association, OIF Blog, 7 February 2013.

Note the ALA/ACLU also proclaimed libraries may not filter the Internet.  They were wrong then with filters as they are now with violent video games; they lost big in the US Supreme Court on filtering.

This is interesting, and it is from a local source:

• "Paterson Libraries Ban Playing of Violent Video Games," by Joe Malinconico, PatersonPress.com, 27 January 2013.

And from that same source comes the following:

• "Activist Tells Library to Stick to Ban on Violent Video Games," by Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries, PatersonPress.com, 8 February 2013.

URLs for this post:  

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/02/ViolentVideoGames.html

http://tinyurl.com/NCACGames

Follow @SafeLibraries

Facts Disprove ALA Statements Regarding West Bend, WI; ABFFE, NCAC, and Others Similarly Incorrect

OPEN LETTER TO WEST BEND COMMON COUNCIL

4 May 2009

West Bend Common Council
City of West Bend
1115 S. Main Street
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Members of the West Bend Common Council,

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the American Library Association's [ALA] new Acting Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF], has made objectively-discernible false and misleading public statements. Other pressure groups, such as the National Coalition Against Censorship, are similarly mistaken. The various statements may mislead governmental officials and citizens into choosing to continue to abide ALA policy instead of legally protecting community children from inappropriate material in the West Bend Community Memorial Library. This letter is an attempt to shine the light of truth on such statements so the West Bend Common Council might be fully informed before making any decision related to the public library.

Bear in mind that for almost a decade Caldwell-Stone has been with the OIF, including as Deputy Director, and should by now be expected to be knowledgeable in the facts and the law. Significantly false and misleading statements should be inexcusable at this point in her career.

Caldwell-Stone appeared on WORT-FM's weekly radio show in Madison, WI, called "Queery," to discuss the library controversy in West Bend, WI. The show aired on 29 April 2009 at 7 PM local time and can be heard in its entirety at this link.

Transcript of the ALA's Acting Director of the OIF

Here is a transcript of the relevant sections of the Caldwell-Stone interview (permissible under US Copyright §107 Fair Use). She provided some information that was for the most part factually correct, so those sections are not controversial and are not included. The questions from the show's hosts are included for context. Timestamps are provided for those desiring to jump to the relevant sections:

19:27 Host: And joining us next is Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the Acting Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom to talk about the national context of these book challenges. Thanks for joining us.

19:39 Caldwell-Stone: Uh, thanks for having me on.

19:41 Host: Hi Debra, how common are these book challenges at public libraries?

19:46 Caldwell-Stone: Um-ah, there, they unfortunately happen a little too frequently for our taste, um, however, I will say that, ah, a majority of the challenges we saw this year occur in the school setting, but it doesn't prevent it from being raised in the public library setting as well, um, ah, and the attempts to go after young adult materials, specifically those aimed, um, at, um, ah, gay, lesbian and transgender, ah, youth or portraying characters, ah, in literature, ah, that are gay, lesbian or transgender is, ah, fairly common these days. Ah-um, we saw a similar challenge to the one going on in West Bend in St. Louis County, um, and, ah, and again in that instance the library preserved the young adult program and resisted the attempts to remove the books from the library, but, um, ah, unfortunately as I said we see this all too often.

22:04 Host: Um, ah, some of the, um, I guess, arguments for restricting the books, um, you're saying it's not banning, and it's not really censoring, it's not really preventing the people from from reading these books and, ah anyway these books say a-awful things like, um, you know, um, ah, a girl's breast grows over the summer, I know that was one of the things cited as pornographic on one of the web sites, so, you know, what's so bad about restricting access to these books?

22:34 Caldwell-Stone: When the, ah, hhh, when you take books away from the youth area, when you slap a label on them that says this is a bad book and we probably shouldn't be reading it, when you put roadblocks in the way of kids accessing information and ideas like oh you need your parent's written permission to get the book, it's a form of censorship. It's denying access because somebody disapproves of the content of the materials, and, uh, you know, in fact, you know, libraries have attempted this by saying we're only taking the book out of the children's room and put it, putting it in the adult area, and, li a library that actually attempted this in, ah, Wichita Falls, Texas, was sued by the local ACLU and a citizen's group and lost that lawsuit and the court ordered the books back into the children's room on the grounds that these are works that are written for and aimed for, ah, a youth audience, and by putting them in the adult section, by labeling them in a way that judges the content, um, they, the, there's a violation of the First Amendment rights of youth, which is sometimes forgotten in these debates because young people do have First Amendment rights, particularly, ah, young people who are coming of age, they have a right to access information and ideas in the library as much as anyone, and these kinds of restrictions that are solely designed to limit access, to make the books hidden, to try to prevent people from getting access to the information, um, fall under the category of this kind of censorship. So, uh, needless to say we have, you know, we, we've, oppo, you know, we really oppose these kinds of tactics, ah, because it it's a simply a way of blocking access to these books.

Factual Information Related to Transcript

A 2008 library controversy occurred in St. Louis County, MO. A citizens group sought to have certain books potentially inappropriate for children moved within the library. It also sought a means for providing parents with notice as to potentially inappropriate content for children. The group never requested the removal of any books. Ultimately, the library moved certain books to the adult section as a result of the group's request, however, it also moved some sua sponte. In addition, the labeling system adopted by the library board was meant to provide a means for notifying parents as to the contents of certain books.

A 1998 library controversy occurred in Wichita Falls, TX. The government passed a resolution allowing the signatures of 300 people to require the public library to move material. Two books where moved from the children's section to the adult section under the new resolution because they were deemed as promoting homosexuality. The ACLU sued and the court found the resolution to be unconstitutional because, among other things, it targeted a perceived viewpoint, namely, homosexuality. See Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, 121 F.Supp.2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000). The court said:

By conferring upon any 300 patrons the power to remove from the children's section any books they find objectionable, the Altman Resolution unconstitutionally confers a "heckler's veto" on the complaining patrons, effectively permitting them to veto lawful, fully-protected expression simply because of their adverse reaction to it. The Supreme Court repeatedly has invalidated other "heckler's veto" regulations as antithetical to core First Amendment values.

....

"Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them." .... Here, the Defendants have not made--and, indeed, could not possibly make--the suggestion that the targeted Books [Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate] are "obscene as to children" in the legal sense. There simply is no interest, let alone a compelling one, in restricting access to non-obscene, fully-protected library books solely on the basis of the majority's disagreement with their perceived message.

Analysis of the Facts Vis-a-Vis the ALA Statements

Caldwell-Stone said, "we saw a similar challenge to the one going on in West Bend in St. Louis County, um, and, ah, and again in that instance the library preserved the young adult program and resisted the attempts to remove the books from the library...." False. The library did not "preserve the young adult program." Rather, the library moved some books from the children's to the adult section on its own accord and some as a result of the actions of a citizen's group making claims substantially similar to those of another citizen group is making in West Bend.

Also, Caldwell-Stone says the St. Louis County library "resisted the attempts to remove the books from the library." False. That citizen's group never made any requests to remove any books from the library. Similarly, the West Bend citizen's group is not requesting any books be removed from the library. Yes, I am aware that a new group (the Milwaukee branch of the Christian Civil Liberties Union) is now making such a request, but that is extraneous to the matter at hand that has been ongoing for a while.

Caldwell-Stone said, "When ... you slap a label on them that says this is a bad book and we probably shouldn't be reading it...." False. The labels are not to mark a book as a "bad book." Rather, they give parents notice that they may wish to examine the contents for the existence of material that that may consider inappropriate for their children. The ALA does not provide such notice, not even on its award-winning books (like Looking For Alaska) or its "top ten" lists (like the one with Deal With It!), so the ALA cannot argue the parents are solely responsible for proper book decisions while at the same time recommending books without adequate notice as to the contents. Communities are allowed to attempt to provide parents with adequate notice as to book contents, just as St. Louis County has recently done.

She also said, "When ... you put roadblocks in the way of kids accessing information and ideas like oh you need your parent's written permission to get the book, it's a form of censorship." False. Parents keeping children from inappropriate material is not "censorship." That's called parenting. That's called common sense. It's not censorship. The public library belongs to the parents and the citizens, not the ALA. If the ALA claims it is censorship for parents to keep inappropriate material from children, and that is what it has done here, then West Bend is entitled to seriously discount the trustworthiness of guidance from the ALA. As the 40-year former Director of the OIF said, "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"

Indeed, in the 2003 US Supreme Court case, US v. ALA, considered an expensive loss for the ALA, the Court said the exact opposite of what the ALA's Acting Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom's Deborah Caldwell-Stone is saying to West Bend. West Bend citizens need to decide whether the ALA is authoritative when it says parents protecting children from inappropriate material is censorship, or whether the US Supreme Court is authoritative when it said to the ALA, "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."

Caldwell-Stone then says, "It's denying access because somebody disapproves of the content of the materials, and, uh, you know, in fact, you know, libraries have attempted this by saying we're only taking the book out of the children's room and put it, putting it in the adult area, and, li a library that actually attempted this in, ah, Wichita Falls, Texas, was sued by the local ACLU and a citizen's group and lost that lawsuit and the court ordered the books back into the children's room on the grounds that these are works that are written for and aimed for, ah, a youth audience, and by putting them in the adult section, by labeling them in a way that judges the content, um, they, the, there's a violation of the First Amendment rights of youth, which is sometimes forgotten in these debates because young people do have First Amendment rights, particularly, ah, young people who are coming of age, they have a right to access information and ideas in the library as much as anyone, and these kinds of restrictions that are solely designed to limit access, to make the books hidden, to try to prevent people from getting access to the information, um, fall under the category of this kind of censorship."

False, because Caldwell-Stone is clearly implying books may never be moved from a children's section to an adult section. Leaving aside that she contradicts her own previous statements, she leaves out the circumstances of the matter. First, the content was not the only matter at issue, but also the "perceived viewpoint." In that Wichita Falls case, the perceived viewpoint being opposed was homosexuality. That is not the case in West Bend; it was initially, but that issue was dropped long ago (relatively speaking). The court's ruling was in part based on the opposition to homosexuality. That is simply no longer the case in West Bend despite how the ALA President, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ("[T]his Statement of Support is ... from the entire faculty, teaching academic staff, and the graduate student organization at the School of Information Studies at UW-Milwaukee."), and the like attempt to convince people an animus against homosexuality is still part of the current matter.

Caldwell-Stone also fails to reveal the Wichita case found a "heckler's veto" law unconstitutional, and that has nothing to do with West Bend. The actions of a library acting in accordance with its legitimate policies has nothing to do with "heckler's vetoes" and any concomitant First Amendment violations. Wichita Falls passed a resolution allowing 300 people to force the library to move a book. That's what was found unconstitutional, not the mere moving of inappropriate books.

Caldwell-Stone also fails to inform the listeners that the Wichita Falls court based its decision in part on the non-obscene nature of the books. The books dealt with homosexuality in a non-obscene fashion. Such books cannot be removed, and that's exactly what the case found, citing in part to a similar case. That is not the issue in West Bend. Non-obscene books of a homosexual nature are not being challenged. Rather, the concern is over material that may be inappropriate for children, the very material the US Supreme Court said was "legitimate, and even compelling" to keep from children in a public library. Homosexuality has nothing to do with any remaining issue in West Bend.

Similar False Statements from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Association of American Publishers, and PEN American Center

Other major sources of pressure to prevent the application of legal means to protect children in West Bend are the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Association of American Publishers, and PEN American Center. In a letter dated 28 April 2009, similar misleading statements about Wichita Falls were made. Even worse, the groups continue to refer to matters dropped long ago, namely, the out-of-date homosexuality claims. They are not even addressing current issues such an Internet filtering. They want people to oppose several legal means of protecting children, and they attempt to convince people to do this by saying that some people's requests now oppose homosexuality, but that is simply not the truth anymore.

And you have to love the way the groups refer to the "critical acclaim" of the books. The ALA awarded a book for 12-year-olds and up (Looking For Alaska) a top award, though it contained oral sex and was otherwise pervasively vulgar. I got the author to admit he would not give his own book to his own 12-year-old if he had one. Is that the kind of critical acclaim to which they are referring? Are they also saying input from citizens should not be considered, but input for those providing critical acclaim should be? "These books are plainly not obscene and are fully protected under the First Amendment." Then why did the liberal New York City public school system remove one of the books from hundreds of public schools? Are they "plainly not obscene" to you? Would your constituents consider them "plainly not obscene"?

The Dog Not Barking

What is the dog not barking? What is no one discussing here? It is the very purpose of the library as defined by the legislative instrument that created the library. That instrument likely created the library for a certain purpose, and that purpose likely does not include an "anything goes" policy. I do not have the instrument, but I suggest consideration should be given to what it says and whether the ALA-like policies being applied in the library exceed the bounds of the legal instrument. If they do, the library is acting ultra vires, outside the law, and the government is perfectly free to act to enforce the law.

Library autonomy does not apply where the library is acting outside the law.

Conclusion

In summary, the ALA and other major pressure groups have provided guidance to the West Bend community that is objectively false and misleading. After listening to the ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone speaking on WORT's "Queery," a simple reading of the facts of the St. Louis County matter and the Wichita Falls case show that the ALA's trusted leader in the area of intellectual freedom is both factually incorrect and seriously misleading.

There is no need to take my word for it. The facts are available for all to see. The words are Caldwell-Stone's own words in her own voice. I have linked to the actual Wichita Falls court decision and numerous sources regarding the St. Louis County matter, among other sources such as US v ALA. Compare what you read there to the words of Deborah Caldwell-Stone. Decide for yourselves if the ALA is providing accurate information or if it is misleading you instead.

If you find the ALA is misleading you, if you find the other pressure groups are misleading you, that is not enough. You need to act legally to protect your children in the public library. If such action extends to the refusal to reappoint library board members who refuse to complete their own proffered materials reconsideration policy, among other things, so be it.

It is perfectly within your rights to protect children in a legal manner despite what the ALA and other pressure groups say otherwise. As Dan Gerstein said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."

I commend you for your actions to remove library board members who are "not serving the interest of the community." I strongly urge you to protect the right of all readers to read and think freely while at the same time legally protecting children from inappropriate material in the public library. By acting in such a fashion, you will demonstrate respect for your patrons and their choices; for the professionalism of the librarians who serve the reading public and not the American Library Association, and for the library's legislative instrument and its central role in ensuring the local public library remains local and does not fall under the control of outside influences who are using false and misleading information to bend you to their will.

If I may be of assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Kleinman
Director
SafeLibraries.org
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
www.SafeLibraries.org
SafeLibraries.blogspot.com
SafeLibraries@gmail.com

cc:
Mayor Kristine Deiss
Members of the West Bend Community Memorial Library
Media