Librarians Finally Admit the Reviews They Hide Behind Are Useless

School librarians have spent years telling parents, school boards, and courts that every book in the collection was carefully selected using professional reviews. That claim has been the standard defense. “We follow the selection policy. The books have multiple positive reviews from School Library Journal, Kirkus, Booklist…”

It was also the shield used against parents who dared to object to s[*]xually explicit material in school libraries. Challenge a book? You’re told the professionals already reviewed it. Object too loudly? You risk being labeled a book banner, a bigot, or worse—and in multiple cases sued.

Now the librarians themselves are admitting, in their own research and on their own podcast, that those reviews cannot be trusted.  Audio, transcript, and journal article available below.

In a 2026 study published by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL, a division of the American Library Association), Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being, researchers Misty S. Schattle and Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr. interviewed eleven school librarians in one large Texas district. The librarians reported that collection development now takes far longer because:

“they often feel that the reviews cannot be trusted, requiring the need to read books in their entirety before placement on the shelf.”¹

One elementary librarian put it bluntly:  

“It’s almost like we can’t go on our reviews. I’ve been reading a lot more books.”¹

Dr. Schattle expanded on these findings on the School Librarians United podcast:

“lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn’t really rely on reviews anymore because… they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable… so they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf… they’re just finding that it’s taking so much time… because now you have to read all the books.”²

This is not new. I documented the same problem more than a decade ago.

In 2010, Kalida, Ohio Superintendent Don Horstman removed Lush by Natasha Friend after a fifth grader brought it home. The book contained graphic s[*]xual details. Horstman read it himself and said the glowing professional reviews had omitted those details entirely.³ Similar patterns appear in my 2011 post on incomplete reviews⁴ and my 2009 post on a Kentucky superintendent overriding ALA lists.⁵

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has been even more direct. In August 2026 remarks, he stated that the librarians are the ones responsible for the presence of “dirty, filthy, and vulgar books” in school libraries, that they know what is on the shelves while many superintendents and teachers do not, and that the American Library Association trains librarians and considers such material “just fine.”¹⁰

Librarians themselves have used the same defense when suing parents. Amanda Jones, who filed a high-profile lawsuit against parents who criticized materials in her library, has stated: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”¹¹ Her justification for the books she selects rests on the very reviewing sources that Schattle’s research and the librarians she interviewed now say cannot be trusted to flag “something that is questionable.”

Meanwhile, the American Library Association itself continues to elevate those same professional reviews. Through its Unite Against Book Bans campaign, ALA created “Book Résumés”—documents packed with awards and glowing professional reviews, designed to be handed to boards and review committees.⁶ The résumé for Gender Queer is a perfect example: starred reviews from Booklist and School Library Journal, YALSA and Rainbow Project lists, the Alex Award, and more. What it carefully omits is any actual content from the book.⁷

At the same time, ALA’s official policy forbids the rating systems that do document content.

The 11th edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2026) is explicit. On page 8 it notes that school boards and lawmakers use ratings produced by “religious and political groups” to limit access to library books and control what is added to school libraries. Chapter 7 contains an entire section on rating systems and states:

“Using, enforcing, or approving of ratings systems violates the Library Bill of Rights.”

It further warns that rating or labeling materials based on assumed age-appropriateness “may be perceived as restricting access.”⁸

On page 145 the Manual specifically addresses the sites parents actually use:

“websites like BookLooks.org and RatedBooks.org often use legal-sounding language to falsely imply that certain books that do not comply with their moral or religious beliefs are illegal and ‘harmful to minors.’ … Their claims are false and have no basis in law. Libraries should not use ratings from these sites to justify removing books from their collections, limiting access to library resources, or making decisions about what books to purchase for library collections. … publicly funded libraries should not use private content rating systems to restrict access to materials. This policy should apply to all users, including children and young adults.”⁸

Kelly Jensen at Book Riot has likewise dismissed BookLooks, RatedBooks, and similar sites as “unprofessional, biased book reviews” and “politically-driven.”⁹ Tools such as RatedBooks and the National Book Rating Index (NBRI) that actually catalog explicit content are rejected, while the professional reviews that leave librarians unsure whether a book contains “something that is questionable” remain the approved standard—until parents notice the problem, at which point the response is often a lawsuit.

So the position is now fully circular:

• The professional reviews ALA has long promoted as the gold standard for selection and defense of books are admitted by ALA’s own researchers (in an AASL journal) to be inadequate. Librarians say they can no longer rely on them and must read the books themselves.
• The rating systems that actually describe s[*]xual content, language, and other details are denounced by ALA as illegitimate tools of “religious and political groups.” Using them violates the Library Bill of Rights.
• ALA’s Book Résumés lean on the same professional reviews while omitting the content those reviews fail to flag.
• When parents point out the resulting problems, some librarians sue them for defamation while continuing to cite the very reviews now acknowledged as unreliable.

Either the approved reviews work, or they don’t. If they don’t—as Schattle’s study and the librarians themselves now say—then the tools that do provide useful information about content are the ones ALA explicitly forbids, precisely because those tools can be used to keep inappropriate material away from children.

I spoke with Brooke Stephens, founder of RatedBooks.org and the National Book Rating Index (NationalBookRatingIndex.com). RatedBooks creates reports based on a content rating scale that uses the book’s own excerpts to justify each rating. The National Book Rating Index aggregates nearly 38,000 reviews from multiple sources and can be searched for free or used by librarians to process entire library inventories and generate rating reports on matched titles. The more the ALA defends giving mature content to minors while declaring professional reviews inadequate and parent-created rating tools illegitimate, the more obvious the need for these resources becomes. Stephens is both amused and grateful for the free publicity the ALA has given her work. She sees their rejection of transparent content rating systems as further diminishing any remaining need for the organization itself.

Parents who challenged books and were attacked for it were right. The professional reviews were never the rigorous safeguard claimed. They were a convenient shield. ALA still promotes that shield through Book Résumés and selection policies while simultaneously declaring the more accurate content ratings off-limits and supporting legal action against those who notice the gap.

The result is predictable: children retain access to material that even the librarians selecting it now say they cannot trust the reviews to identify—and, as Lt. Gov. Patrick noted, the librarians are the ones who know what is on those shelves.

NOTE ADDED 23 August 2026:

This article will have a followup article about teachers who truly are trusted experts and who truly care for teaching children, instead of indoctrinating them, like the requirements American Library Association added to all the various state Freedom to Read Acts and Right to Read Acts.  These teachers who truly care were directly vilified by American Library Association and its librarians, such as by Amanda Jones who is suing me for defamation calling one of them "a menace and a bully."  The only menace is to ALA as people wake up and realize the emperor has no clothes, something that Misty S. Schattle described in detail when we learned librarians have to read all the books for themselves.  Then when teachers do read all the books for themselves and decide some books are inappropriate for schools, they are vilified and sued, such as by PEN America, a partner with ALA in "Unite Against Book Bans."  So stay tuned for the upcoming post.

Endnotes:

1. Misty S. Schattle & Johnny R. O’Connor, Jr., “Books and Barriers: The Influence of Book Censorship on the Role of School Librarians, Their Self-Efficacy, and Well-Being,” School Library Research 29 (2026), https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/schattleandoconnor.pdf.

2. Dr. Misty Schattle, “Censorship’s Impact on School Librarians and their Libraries,” School Librarians United with Amy Hermon, Episode 372, August 21, 2026, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/censorships-impact-on-school-librarians-and-their/id1434321470?i=1000784807311.

3. “School Excoriates Book Reviews that Fail to Disclose ‘Graphic S[*]xual Details’ in Books for Children; Lush by Natasha Friend is ‘Wildly Inappropriate’ for Certain Children,” SafeLibraries, December 16, 2010, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/12/school-excoriates-book-reviews-that.html.

4. “False Censorship Claims Exposed by WSJ Author Attacked for Exposing Truth About Young Adult Books; Meghan Cox Gurdon Decries Incomplete and Uninformative Book Reviews,” SafeLibraries, June 8, 2011, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/false-censorship-claims-exposed-by-wsj.html.

5. “Kentucky School Superintendent Exposes False Cries of Censorship; Removes Educationally Unsuitable Books from Curriculum Despite Being on ALA’s List for Reluctant Readers,” SafeLibraries, November 30, 2009, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/kentucky-school-superintendent-exposes.html.

6. Unite Against Book Bans (American Library Association initiative), Book Résumés, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/.

7. Book Résumé for Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, Unite Against Book Bans / ALA, https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/kobabe_GenderQueer_20240214.pdf.

8. American Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 11th ed. (ALA Editions, 2026), pp. 8, 145 (and Chapter 7 on rating systems). See also ALA’s related “Labeling and Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.”

9. Kelly Jensen, “BookLooks, RatedBooks, and Other Unprofessional Book ‘Review’ Sites to Know: Book Censorship News, January 10, 2025,” Book Riot, January 10, 2025, https://bookriot.com/booklooks-ratedbooks-and-other-unprofessional-book-review-sites/.

10. “Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Opposes Explicit Books In Schools, Pleas for Parents to Act to Get These Books Removed, Calls Out School Librarians,” SafeLibraries, August 20, 2026, https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-opposes.html (quoting Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s remarks holding school librarians responsible for the presence of explicit materials and noting ALA’s role in training them).

11. Maggie Heyn Richardson, “Livingston Parish’s Amanda Jones landed in a national fight about book banning. Now, ‘That Librarian’ Has Written a Memoir,” 225 Magazine, August 8, 2024, https://www.225batonrouge.com/our-city/livingston-parishs-amanda-jones-landed-national-fight-book-banning-now-librarian-written-memoir (quoting Amanda Jones: “As a professional librarian, I use professional reviews about where we place books in the library.”).

Hear the Admission:

Listen to the librarians themselves discussing how professional reviews can no longer be trusted, followed by a transcript of what they said:

Librarians Finally Admit the Reviews They Hide Behind Are Useless

Major exposé to be published soon.

Here's an excerpt of librarians lamenting how book reviews are no longer useful, forcing school librarians to read all books for themselves.

Transcript in attached post. pic.twitter.com/fY7y0LzkmP

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) August 22, 2026

Transcript:

Amy Hermon:

[Y]ou know, these attacks on their collections were happening. 

Dr. Misty Schattle:

So what I found, and you have to keep in mind, this was a, this was, very much a small group of people. They were eleven librarians that I spoke with from one district, so you're talking about a very tiny population. But, they all found that their collection development processes were taking far longer than they ever had before. So, they, you know, we, we, all, as librarians, we, we read reviews, that's what we do, because unfortunately, as much as we would love to, we cannot read every book, there's just way too many out there. But I was finding that, that lots of librarians that I talk to were saying that they couldn't really rely on reviews anymore because, you know, they didn't know, were they going, you know, they read a review, but are they gonna get something that is questionable, um, you know, like, and then so they would, they might read a review and they might get something but then they might still find that they needed to read it before it could go on the shelf, or maybe they were going to public libraries and trying to find books so they could read them before they bought them. But then, you know, they're, they're still like, they're just finding that it's taking so much time, so much time that they don't have, right? And collection development, it's, it's a lengthy process anyway. Right? I mean well, maybe not, if you don't have much money to spend it don't take much time. But, if you, if you have a decent budget, you know, I, I, I don't know a single school librarian anywhere that's been like, "well, I had all this money to spend, so I was just buying whatever." I mean, nobody does that.

Amy Hermon:

Uhhh, (laughter) I, I was gonna say, back in the, uh, the ESSER days when we had ESSER funds, uh, after the pandemic, ah, there was something that I was aware was never gonna happen again in my career, but it involved a, a very small window of time and spending an amount of money that I could, could barely believe this was actually happening, it was like winning the lotto or something. But um, no, but I, I think that especially when you talk to people for whom they are not rookie librarians, these are not rookie librarians, you're dealing with people who are, in some cases, seasoned, they are veterans, they, they, this is not their first rodeo. They have built a collection repeatedly and you'd like to think that at some point you get better at this, and and you start to trust your, um, your judgment as a professional, and the longer you do this, in. The hope is that you become more confident in the decisions that you're making and you're not second-guessing yourself. But when somebody calls into question what you're doing, all of a sudden that hyper scrutiny that, that is imposed on, on the collection that we're building, this becomes an absolute, colossal, e-, e-, expensive time that we have to, to use, just to satisfy, uh, community members who have made it their life's mission to upend whatever sense of normalcy we have in our spaces.

Dr. Misty Schattle:

Yeah. It, it's just, you know, it's just crazy to me, like, I don't know. We have these degrees and, you know, we, we want to do our job, but sometimes it, it's hard, just finding the time to, to do all of the, the reading of, you know, all the books, because now you have to read all the books.

Amy Hermon:

So, I regularly hear from school librarians that there aren't enough hours in the day to do our jobs. We arrive before school early, we work through  lunch, we stay late. I'm already aware that there are, uh, a number of us who have extended calendars where we have built in days where we are working either, ah, before the school year starts or well into, uh, after the school year ends. Our professional training, our judgment, apparently isn't good enough when it comes to selecting the books that we oversee. And it's just, it's not just insulting, the burden that we now have to satisfy, uh, uh, somebody's expectations of, of how we are, are, you know, supposed to be doing our jobs.

Dr. Misty Schattle:

Yeah. I think it definitely makes that harder, because, like you said, we have training for this, we go to school to, to learn how to develop collections, and, you know, I, I'm sure you did as I did took classes on collection development, but not just that, I took children's literature, I took young adult literature. I mean, I enjoyed them. Honestly I was exposed to books I probably would've never picked up on my own. And I know, like, even now looking back, looking back at those classes, I can still, you know, recall some of those books that I read in those classes back in 2007. I can say, you know like, I know that I've put specific books that I read because of those classes in specific children's hands, because that was what they needed at that moment. I've always said that my most favorite part of my job as a school librarian was connecting kids with that just-right book for them. With that book that they didn't know they needed, but they needed.

Amy Hermon:

At Wayne State University, we had to pick two of the three categories, so we had, there was a young adult course, a middle grade course, and a, ah, children's, ah, literature. And these were actually the three classes that overlapped with our School of Education. And, so that was really interesting. And I'll never forget, it was the, you know, the, the assignment was legend, it was the hundred book project. And the hundred book project, the expectation was is that we would familiarize ourselves with a hundred books during the semester and write up synopses and, and all sorts of, ah, write ups and, and critical reviews, and, and, you know, we thought it absolutely daunting at the time, but now that I think about it, it was ay, some of the most memorable activities I did and I really, really enjoyed it.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/librarians-finally-admit-reviews.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

Silenced for Speaking Up: When Opposing Explicit Materials for Children Triggers Free Speech Restrictions in New Jersey

When the topic is children having access to s[*]xually explicit or otherwise inappropriate materials in school and public libraries, free speech in New Jersey is frequently restricted. Boards cut off parents reading from the books themselves, deny public comment, end livestreams, and even silence fellow elected board members. The pattern is consistent and documented.

Two recent examples illustrate the problem clearly.

In Freehold, the Public Library Board of Trustees held a special meeting on August 5, 2026. The agenda focused on personnel matters involving Library Director Kathy Mulholland after an independent investigation into workplace concerns. Those concerns included the director’s stance allowing patrons to view p[*]rnography on public computers, including in view of others and children. Despite a motion from Freehold Borough Mayor Kevin A. Kane (Democrat) to allow public comment, the board voted against it. Attendees were left to protest as they left the room. I stated, “So much for free public speech in a public library,” and received audible support from others present. A board member claimed the board values free speech; the reply was that a vote against public comment demonstrated otherwise.¹

The library’s own Code of Conduct reinforces the problem. Adopted March 26, 2024, it lists among prohibited behaviors: “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.” By limiting the ban to obvious consumption, the policy implies that non-obvious (discreet) viewing or sharing of obscene material is permitted. This is consistent with reports that the director treated the viewing of p[*]rnography on public computers as acceptable so long as it was not blatant. A policy that effectively allows obscenity inside a public library—including potentially in the presence of children—is the opposite of protecting minors.²

In Bridgewater-Raritan, elected Board of Education member Jeremy Li has repeatedly been shut down when he attempts to place inappropriate library materials or parental notification measures on the public record. Video from a recent meeting shows Li speaking about prohibiting visual or explicit written descriptions in elementary and middle school libraries. The superintendent and board president walked out. The public stream was then ended. Li has described earlier instances in which a recess was called and his microphone cut mid-speech while he advocated for a parental notification amendment that would allow parents to prevent their own children from checking out s[*]xually explicit books. The amendment did not remove any books; it sought to put parents “back in the driver’s seat.”³

These are not isolated incidents of “decorum.”

Elected Officials Silenced

Jeremy Li’s experience is particularly significant because he is an elected official exercising oversight. The board is supposed to oversee the superintendent, not the reverse. When discussion of library materials is terminated by walkouts and by ending the public record, the public is denied the very transparency school boards are required to provide.

Parents and Citizens Silenced

In Wayne Township in October 2021, parent Pamela Macek stood at the podium during public comment and began reading passages from Gender Queer: A Memoir, a book available in the high school library that contains explicit illustrations and text. Within approximately 14 seconds, Board President Catherine Kazan interrupted her, stating it was inappropriate with young people present and that she should “verbalize [her] complaint without reading the book.” Macek continued. Her microphone was cut. She kept speaking without it. The president called for police assistance and threatened to clear the room.⁴

The Freehold denial of public comment follows the same logic: the substance of the complaint (children’s exposure to p[*]rnography on library computers) is treated as grounds to restrict speech about it.

Even Discussing an Ethics Complaint Is Restricted

In North Hunterdon-Voorhees, I filed an ethics complaint in October 2024 concerning the board’s handling of school library materials. When I attempted to discuss the status of my own complaint at subsequent meetings, I was shut down—first by the board attorney, later by the board president—over speculative concerns about confidentiality or potential defamatory statements. A prior speaker who criticized the same complaint was allowed to speak. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reviewed the record and sent a letter to the board. FIRE described the selective enforcement as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional. The letter asked the board to rescind any policy or practice that prohibits referencing ethics complaints and to allow commenters to discuss relevant district matters.⁵

Why This Pattern Exists

The consistent silencing of parents, citizens, and even elected board members who object to s[*]xually explicit materials for children is not random. It follows directly from American Library Association policy.

In its official interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights titled “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors,” the ALA states that “all people, of all ages, should have equal and equitable access to all library resources and services.” It explicitly declares that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources and services as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights. Article V of that document provides that a person’s right to use a library “should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” The ALA interpretation treats any restriction based solely on age, apparent maturity, or educational level as a violation of that principle.⁶

Under this framework, efforts to keep inappropriate materials away from children are reframed as age discrimination. Libraries are instructed not to act in loco parentis; only parents may restrict their own children’s access. The practical result is that public and school library boards, trained and guided by ALA standards, treat parental concerns about explicit content as an attack on intellectual freedom rather than a legitimate request for age-appropriate standards. When citizens or board members challenge that orthodoxy, the institutional response is often to shut down the discussion itself.

How to Fix This

The silencing of parents, citizens, and elected board members is a downstream effect of a single upstream decision: the adoption of American Library Association policy as if it were binding law.

It is not.

The Library Bill of Rights and its interpretations—including the one that treats age-based restrictions as discrimination—are internal documents of a private trade association. They have no force of law. No statute requires any public library or school library in New Jersey (or anywhere else) to follow them. Boards that claim they are “powerless” to keep inappropriate material away from children are not powerless. They have simply chosen to subordinate local authority to ALA guidance.

The remedy is straightforward:

1. Remove all ALA policy from library and school board policies. 

Delete the Library Bill of Rights, every interpretation of it, and any language that incorporates ALA standards on intellectual freedom, access for minors, or collection development. These documents function as the camel’s nose under the tent, pictured top right. Once adopted, they are used to argue that any effort to protect children is censorship or age discrimination.

2. Return to local law, community standards, and common sense.

Public libraries and school libraries operate under state statutes, local ordinances, and the authority of elected or appointed boards. Those boards have both the legal power and the responsibility to set age-appropriate standards, require parental consent where appropriate, filter content, and remove materials that violate community standards or applicable law (including New Jersey’s obscenity statutes regarding minors, like N.J.S. 2C:34-3).

3. Assert that authority clearly.

Boards should adopt policies that explicitly state they are not bound by ALA guidance and that decisions about materials available to children will be guided by local community standards, parental rights, and the best interests of minors—not by a private organization’s ideological framework.

Libraries are not required to treat a 10-year-old the same as a 40-year-old. They never were. The claim that they must do so comes from ALA policy, not from the US Constitution nor New Jersey law. When boards delete that policy and reclaim their own authority, the institutional pressure to silence parents and dissenting board members loses its foundation.

The power has always been local. It simply has to be exercised.

———

Endnotes

1. Freehold Public Library Board of Trustees special meeting, August 5, 2026. Contemporaneous reporting and video documentation of the vote against public comment; Shore News Network, “Head Librarian Who Allowed P[*]rn Use on Computers Faces Uncertain Future in Freehold,” August 6, 2026; contemporaneous posts from attendees including the author.

Freehold Public Library Board voted NO to public comment about the director allowing p**n to be viewed in the facility

One guy said so much for free public speech, I shouted out about it too, the people should be able to speak! https://t.co/c6NMhO9K0j pic.twitter.com/dEshlY3T6E

— Wake Up NJ 🇺🇸 New Jersey (@wakeupnj) August 6, 2026

2. Freehold Public Library, Library Code of Conduct, adopted March 26, 2024, p. 3. Available via the library’s Services page: https://freeholdpubliclibrary.org/services.php (Google Drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-UeGKjZIV35sAhQEs9h4UOaMYW7C0QGh/view). The policy prohibits only “Obvious consumption or sharing of obscene content in the library.”

3. Video of Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education meeting showing walkouts and the stream being ended while Jeremy Li addressed library materials; Jeremy Li public statements and Facebook posts describing earlier microphone cuts and recesses during discussion of a parental notification amendment for s[*]xually explicit books (2025–2026).  Start at 1:37:36 and go to 1:45:32.

4. ProPublica, “The Conservative Transformation of the Wayne Township School Board,” June 29, 2023 (detailing the October 2021 meeting); TapInto Wayne and local coverage of the October 7, 2021 Board of Education meeting, including video of the interruption and microphone cut while Pamela Macek read from Gender Queer.

5. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “New Jersey school board shuts down speaker for discussing his own ethics complaint,” June 18, 2026. The article documents the selective restriction on discussion of my October 2024 ethics complaint regarding North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board handling of school library materials and FIRE’s formal letter to the board.

6. American Library Association, “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 (accessed August 2026). The interpretation states that policies preventing minors from accessing the same resources as adults violate the Library Bill of Rights and that any restriction based solely on age violates Article V.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/silenced-for-speaking-up.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

The Double Standard: 'Destroy Them' and 'Go In for the Kill' Are Just Idioms—But a Red Circle Around a Librarian's Head Is Targeting

In the recent discussion of cartoonist Ryan Estrada, we saw him publish guidance for authors and activists confronting parents who challenge materials in school libraries. One section states: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.) He has also offered to provide more “ammunition” to those who email him. When called out, Estrada has framed the language as figurative—an idiom—and responded with a comic casting a critic as the big bad wolf.¹

Contrast that with the treatment of school librarian Amanda Jones.

In July 2022, after Jones spoke against censorship at a Livingston Parish Library Board meeting in Louisiana, the Facebook page of Citizens for a New Louisiana posted a photo of her speaking. The image placed a red circle (with a white border) around her head and asked why she was “fighting so hard to keep s[*]xually erotic and p[*]rnographic materials in the kid’s section.”²

Jones later described the circle as a “target.” In her memoir That Librarian she wrote: “They posted a picture of me with a target around my head. According to them, it’s just a circle, but who are they kidding?”³ She launched multi-year defamation lawsuits against the posters, arguing the image and accompanying text damaged her reputation and contributed to harassment.⁴

Yet her first reaction was different. In a training video she recorded for other librarians (August 28, 2023), Jones herself admitted:

“When I first started being attacked, I thought ‘This is not serious, like this is ridiculous.’ I went on their page and put the laughing emoji… and I wish I could take that back cuz it’s not funny… and they talk about that all the time. ‘She put the laugh, she thinks it’s funny.’ So I learned that the hard way.”⁵

What she initially treated as absurd enough to laugh at publicly became, within weeks, the foundation of sustained litigation. A red circle is one of the most ordinary tools in digital photo editing and annotation—the default highlight function in countless apps precisely because it draws the eye without implying violence. Treating that common editing mark as actionable “targeting” while dismissing explicit militaristic language directed at parents (“Destroy them,” “go in for the kill,” offers of “ammunition”) as mere idiom is the double standard in plain view.

Parents who speak at school board or library meetings are fair game for destruction rhetoric and cartoon portrayals as the big bad wolf. Librarians and their allies who face ordinary visual highlighting of their public comments receive multi-year lawsuits, national media sympathy, and awards for courage.

One set of statements is explained away as colorful language. The other is treated as a serious threat of violence—even when the person later suing over it first responded with a laughing emoji.

If you're a big bad wolf who wishes to support the legal defense of free speech against double standards and SLAPP-style suits arising from reporting on these issues:  

• Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
• https://www.givesendgo.com/LegalFundForParents

———

END NOTES

1. See the detailed documentation and screenshots in “‘Destroy Them’: Cartoonist Ryan Estrada Turns Real Dictatorship Book Bans into a Campaign Against American Parents,” SafeLibraries, August 1, 2026: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/destroy-them-cartoonist-ryan-estrada.html

2. The original Facebook post and the red-circle description appear in Jones’s own petition for damages (filed August 2022) and are summarized in contemporaneous reporting:  

• Petition for Damages: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22130936/amanda-jones-petition-for-damages-injunctive-relief.pdf  
• The Hill, August 13, 2022: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3599286-librarian-sues-for-defamation-after-conservative-activist-attacks-over-lgbtq-books/  
• Wikipedia summary of the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Jones_(librarian)

3. Amanda Jones, That Librarian: The Fight Against Book Banning in America (Bloomsbury, 2024), quoted in Oprah Daily, August 27, 2024: https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/books/a61600534/the-librarian-amanda-jones-book-bans/

4. Court records and appellate history confirming the multi-year litigation:  

• Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal opinion (October 7, 2025): https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/first-circuit-court-of-appeal/2025/2023ca0654.html  
• Additional coverage: New York Times, September 3, 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/books/amanda-jones-librarian-book-bans.html
• https://archive.ph/mDknI

5. Transcript of Amanda Jones’s August 28, 2023 training video for librarians (timestamp ~16:04), published on SafeLibraries, September 2024: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/09/amanda-jones-trains-librarians-to-blind.html  

• Original video: https://youtu.be/yYr3qjvXXAA

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-double-standard-destroy-them-and-go.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

'Destroy Them': Cartoonist Ryan Estrada Turns Real Dictatorship Book Bans into a Campaign Against American Parents

Ryan Estrada is a cartoonist who gained prominence in part through the real experiences of his wife, Kim Hyun-sook (also rendered Gim Hyeon-suk or Hyun Sook). Under South Korea’s military dictatorship of Chun Doo-hwan, she participated in an underground “banned book club” that read forbidden works by Paulo Freire, Che Guevara, Noam Chomsky, Betty Friedan, and others. She faced genuine risks of surveillance, arrest, interrogation, or worse, and was interrogated by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. That was actual government book banning and suppression of dissent.

Estrada later used his artistic skills to depict her experiences. He has since leveraged that platform to promote the American Library Association’s narrative of “book bans” in the United States. In the U.S. context, the term is routinely applied to parents and community members who object to certain materials in public school libraries or classrooms—materials many view as age-inappropriate. Critics of this framing, including parents speaking at public meetings, are frequently labeled “book banners,” “extremists,” or “Christofascists.”

Estrada has gone further. He has published detailed guidance for authors and others on how to confront parents who challenge books at school board meetings. One section includes the language: “And then, you get to the fun part… SIX: Destroy them; Everyone is on your side and paying attention. Now you go in for the kill.” (Emphasis in original.)

I previously highlighted the danger in that rhetoric (July 27, 2025). 

NJ’s leading child grumor Martha Hickson (imho) promotes an author (Ryan Estrada) and his writing where he trains other authors to oppose parents who challenge books like this:

“Destroy them” “NOW YOU GO IN FOR THE KILL” “book-haters” “complete idiots”https://t.co/vMPDbHLmx5 pic.twitter.com/z5OIG5rJQx

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) July 27, 2025

Today Estrada reframes my criticism as a claim that “AUTHORS WANT TO ‘KILL’ PARENTS!!!” and responds with a comic titled “KILL `EM WITH KINDNESS,” casting me as the big bad wolf. The comic was presented at the Perth Comics Festival 2026.

I documented the sequence here::

I just appeared at the Perth Comics Festival, thanks to Ryan Estrada who wrote an entire comic where I was the main character! See that guy speaking? That’s him. See the wolf 🐺? That’s me! Only I didn’t say that. pic.twitter.com/OrSHAUzBXL

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) August 1, 2026

Others have also noted the pattern:

Leftists lie to gain power
(See thread if you’re interested in what we’re up against in the fight to keep p[*]rn books away from kids in taxpayer funded public libraries.) https://t.co/J92UbiP8ns

— America First (@KihneSheila) August 1, 2026

One reader even points out that Estrada harassed him for several days and ended up censoring citizens:

That pic at the bottom is when he came chasing after us. He'd been harassing me for several days when we found out he was coming to town for our fiscal court meeting. Having seen in his texts that hewas a taco short of a combo plate, I told our people not to go to the meeting.

— Citizens for Decency (@ForCitizen57725) August 1, 2026

I am currently defending against SLAPP-style lawsuits related to reporting on these issues. If you wish to support the legal defense of free speech in these matters: 

• Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

NOTE ADDED EVEN DATE:

Already Ryan Estrada has responded to the above post.  He essentially doubled down.

"...and just since the person mentioned here wrote a whole essay on the premise that he never said it, here it is."

He shows a graphic that does not say, "authors want to 'kill' parents!!!"  Instead, it says, "authors ... oppose parents."  It's not the same.  And he quoted me saying, "Author makes call to 'kill' parents...."  He did.

Then he follows up with a second post:

"But he knows that, as even in the very rant where he claims he didn't, he calls me a 'stochastic terrorist' for using the idiom 'go in for the kill' in the context of public debate.

"Bro confuses kindness with obedience so thinks a public disagreeing with him is not just unkind, but terrorism."

Here he continues to lie and mischaracterize to cover up that I outed what he did/said.  

"Rant," he says.  I had nothing to say about him for quite a while until he wrote an entire comic making me the big bad wolf where it was displayed at the Perth Comics Festival.  I guess I'm in good company given cartoons like this:

I did not "rant."  I responded.  And I would not have responded had he not lied in a way that threatens me with his stochastic terror.  He said that I said, and has since doubled down on that, that authors want to "kill" parents.  He knows that's a lie but that it will rile people up.  

Indeed one responder has already said, "I would love to read more about this idea that authors want to 'kill' parents, that's wild."  Another said, "Aw, c'mon, Ryan, how is a raving lunatic supposed to remember every rant?"  To that, Estrada responds by admitting to misquoting me, but keeps up the ridicule: "I do regret that I got one word of the quote wrong, because 'makes call to kill parents' is actually a much funnier misquoting of my original point."  Is he admitting to intentionally misquoting me to be "much funnier"?

I did not claim stochastic terror was caused by an idiom nor that it was in the context of public debate.  That's his words.  Rather I linked his entire piece for full context, and it's in the context of what he wrote, not public debate.  That context includes his writing detailed directions for others to target parents who challenge books.  

Among other things, he says the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill."  "Go in for the kill" are the only words he put in bold font.  If I said that about school librarians, if I wrote a long piece to urge other parents to eliminate obstructions by school librarians, if I said the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill," you can bet Estrada and many others would be calling that stochastic terror and calling for me to be investigated and mass canceled. 

If I recall correctly, Estrada previously reported me to the FBI essentially for stochastic terror.  He reported that I tweeted urging parents to attend an American Library Association conference.  I did.  I do.  Parents should attend to see for themselves how children are harmed by ALA policy and practices.  When they do they are shocked that the vast majority of training is about DEI.  Taxpayer money pays to send librarians to ALA conferences to learn about librarianship, not about DEI.  It's a legitimate concern to raise.  It's not stochastic terror to urge people to attend ALA conferences.  

But apparently he thought that was because any excuse to silence me and parents like me can and will be used.  So if he can say it's stochastic terror for me to say parents should go to ALA conferences, then I can certainly say the full context of what he wrote, including the "fun part" is when you "destroy them" and "go in for the kill," is stochastic terror.

This is not a case with the public not agreeing with me, as he implies because he always belittles people with whom he disagrees.  This is not a case about me at all.  That's misdirection.  This is a case where he is providing specific training on how to eliminate parental opposition to inappropriate material in schools by using "fun" training to "destroy them" and "go in for the kill" at school board meetings, then he goes on to mock people who call him out for providing such training.  And he makes it sound palatable by raising the specter of real censorship by a Korean dictator and comparing it with America parents who wish to keep inappropriate books out of American public schools.  Inappropriate books in schools like this one, "Gravity's Rainbow":

I have never felt such shame in words that have come out of my mouth.

It’s hard to conceive of how this kind of content is still in any school library in our district.

Hillsborough parents, join me in the fight. DM me. If you wonder if these kinds of books are in your kids… pic.twitter.com/wtc44QNGiM

— Julie Gebhards (@julie_gebhards) July 15, 2026

Yes, he's not going to kill anyone and he's not openly urging that, but stochastic terror is the public demonization of someone in a way that is statistically likely to inspire random acts of violence by ideologically motivated individuals, while Estrada maintains plausible deniability.  Stochastic itself means random or probabilistic.  Over time, someone in a large audience, and he has one, relatively speaking, almost 16K followers on Bluesky, may act out to have "fun" "destroying" and "killing" someone he maligns as he does, like he is maligning me.  What he said is false and is not legitimate political criticism.  I would never say about school librarians what he says about parents.  Go have fun destroying and killing.  No one would.

The more he speaks, the more he reveals about himself (like his admitting to a misquote).

Do not allow this man Ryan Estrada to attend any school or library event, whether in person or via electronic means.

That's my opinion, anyway.

He sure has an interesting way of spreading kindness.

Don’t forget this gem from “The Ryan Estrada Method”: 😆

“If you ever ... need some hints on where to look for the ammo to destroy them, feel free to email ...”

If anyone wants a fun mental challenge, explain—without…

— Protect Salado Kids (@ProtectSaladoKs) August 2, 2026

Quote from @ProtectSaladoKs:

He sure has an interesting way of spreading kindness.

Don’t forget this gem from “The Ryan Estrada Method”: 😆

“If you ever ... need some hints on where to look for the ammo to destroy them, feel free to email ...”

If anyone wants a fun mental challenge, explain—without reference to Cluster B personality disorders—how Mr. Estrada expresses kindness in the following (real) terms he uses to describe people who want to protect children from harmful material in libraries:

- lying book banners

- angry anti-book activists who insult [board members] with zero care or empathy

- complete idiots

- dumb dorks

- terrible people

To be clear, using strong, even forceful language is not objectionable per se. (Although Mr. Estrada’s is often belligerent and frankly militaristic. In today’s climate, post-Charlie Kirk, parents have every right to raise an eyebrow.) What is worthy of critique—and yes, ridicule—is the utter lack of self-awareness in claiming his primary tactic is kindness, when it patently is not.

https://archive.ph/pEJCS#selection-427.0-427.142

NOTE DATED 2 AUGUST 2026:

The next day after I published the above I have published a new and related post:

• "The Double Standard: 'Destroy Them' and 'Go In for the Kill' Are Just Idioms—But a Red Circle Around a Librarian's Head Is Targeting," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 August 2026.

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/08/destroy-them-cartoonist-ryan-estrada.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

The Librarians Film is Agitprop to Produce Outrage So American Library Association Librarians Can Continue Harming Children

The Librarians film is agitprop intended to produce outrage about "censorship" and "book bans" among the general public so the American Library Association's school librarians may continue to ply schoolchildren with inappropriate material, as they have for 60 years.

Worse, the film is intended to be used as agitprop for years to come.  Agitprop means "agitation" and "propaganda," per Dr. James Lindsay, who also discusses "paltering," which is exactly what the ALA does—particularly in The Librarians.

I have already written about the film in The Hill, including its paltering by providing a half-quote of President Dwight D. Eisenhower to give an impression about inappropriate books in schools that is essentially opposite of what the full quote said.  Please read:

• "Shame on PBS: 'The Librarians' is One Big Lie to Parents and Kids," by Dan Kleinman, opinion contributor, The Hill, February 2, 2026. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5715291-shame-on-pbs-the-librarians-is-one-big-lie-to-parents-and-kids/.

I will dissect the film as time goes on, so follow me here and @OccupyLibraries.  But in the meantime, let's look as how the film is agitprop—because Kim A. Snyder, the film's director, says it is:

[Amanda] Jones said that the film shows how librarians are banding together and bringing these stories to light.

"We've gone from being independent and isolated to what Kim has said, that we're like librarians without borders because we're building relationships with other librarians," Jones said.

Now, after screening the documentary in various places, the "librarians without borders" have started a movement. "The Librarians" team plans to continue this campaign throughout 2026. They hope to encourage civic engagement and take these book debates out of a polarized partisan space. 

The PBS broadcast premiere puts the documentary into homes all over the country. 

"The majority of Americans really care but had no idea things had gotten like this, specifically in terms of the impact on the librarian," Snyder said. "We want to expose that and have people be both outraged and activated to get civically engaged. We also want to support organizations of librarians as they are the firewall protecting one of the most fundamental rights in our democracy."

Source:  "Louisiana Librarian Who Fought Against Book Bans Will Be Featured on New PBS Documentary," by Joy Holden, The Advocate, February 6, 2026.

Kim Snyder is consistent with her message that The Librarians is agitprop designed to get people who support harming kids to get onto library and school boards:

Kim A. Snyder directed “The Librarians” 2025 documentary by American Library Association. It’s agitprop to motivate people to get on school + library boards to ensure children remain exposed to ALA’s indoctrination and s•xualization plan.

Now hear Kim Snyder say this herself. pic.twitter.com/p69pvyDlGa

— Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries (@OccupyLibraries) February 6, 2026

So let's not all be taken in by an organization that has worked for over 60 years to eliminate parental rights and indoctrinate schoolchildren.

Lastly, listen to Dr. James Lindsay discussing agitprop and how paltering is used for that purpose—and remember to follow me for more on this agitprop called The Librarians as time goes on.

—

URL of this page: 

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-librarians-film-is-agitprop.html 

On Twitter: 

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Freedom to Read Act Incorporation Into School Policy Eliminates Local Control

Dear North Hunterdon-Voorhees School Board Members,

For weather-related reasons, I will not attend the Board of Education meeting Tuesday, January 27, 2026.  But I hereby submit comments nonetheless for your consideration.  I see you are having a "first reading."  So I suppose my comments would apply to that or to a possible "second reading."

[Read the 11pp proposed policy 6163.1 here.]

[Watch NHV BOE discuss the policy here.]

Easy suggestion first.  I'd like to tell you my experience obtaining the policy on the agenda so you can know how some might view it, or actually not view it, which is the problem I'll be addressing.

It did indeed take a bit of rooting around to finally find the page having the agenda.  Then the agenda says, "First Reading of Policy."  It's too general.  What policy?  It's under "Policy and School Security," so that tells me almost nothing.  I took a gamble and clicked on the link.  No real notice went to the public other than "first reading of policy."  It's almost like it's sneaking in or perhaps being hidden from people like me.  Only then did I finally see "Policy 6163.1 – Media Center/Library" and the changes to be made, then only if I scrolled down to the next page.  You really have to dig and maneuver to get to the point where you finally get the notice you should already have had from the agenda but it's not there.  The problem with this is, besides not providing notice in an understandable form, people who are casually involved in school workings may not ever get to the point of being properly noticed, while the regulars who already know one has to root around are at a significant advantage over casual viewers.  You could be discouraging casual viewers, let alone not providing adequate notice.  So that's just a suggestion for you to consider.

Another easy suggestion.  Existing policy requires people to state their name and address and affiliation, if any, before speaking.  At least in other states, that's a violation of state and federal constitutional rights to seek redress of the government and attorneys general have forced public bodies to drop such requirements.  Further, in modern times, that exposes people to potential harassment, and it gets recorded on video, so the exposure is perpetual.  American Library Association members, for example, file OPRA/FOIA requests for such information, then it is used in lawsuits, movies, whatever.  Such information should be clear that it is optional, not required.  Who knows, it might even cut back on the need to respond to OPRA requests if the information is simply not collected in the first place, thereby reducing any costs in researching and replying to such requests.

Now regarding the 6163.1 proposed media center, library policy:

1) The policy allows for electronic databases to be used, and they should.  However, some of these databases expose children to inappropriate material not allowed if such material were purchased in print for the school library.  The proposed policy does not account for that and it should.

2) The policy states, "Every student shall have access to a media collection containing materials appropriate to age level...."  Gender Queer is "age appropriate" but it otherwise is what Pico calls "pervasively vulgar or otherwise educationally unsuitable" so it may be removed from the library.  Playboy would be age appropriate, for example.  That is a weakness in the policy.  The policy would allow Gender Queer while Board of Education v. Pico, U.S. Supreme Court 1982 holds the exact opposite result and the book would be removed.

3) The former version of the policy said, "The superintendent has final responsibility for the selection of media center materials by professionally trained personnel including media specialists, teachers, principals and supervisors."  That's being removed.  The new policy eliminates the Superintendent and substitutes therefor the school librarian.  Under Pico, the Superintendent has the authority to immediately remove material that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable.  No review committee would be needed, saving everyone a ton of time and money.  Under the new policy, the school librarian now makes the decisions, not the Superintendent.  That eliminates the protections of Pico.  Further, nothing at all will ever be deemed as inappropriate by school librarians, other than works by conservatives or dead white males, a term I get from American Library Association directives.  The former school librarian for example, Martha Hickson, testified in Trenton, as shown in the new American Library Association film called "The Librarians," that, "in my professional role, there is no p*rn*graphy for minors in, uh, school libraries so there is no need to restrict it.  Book restrictions are, however, a form of censorship.  Your personal opinion about obscenity does not make it so."  Martha Hickson goes on to say, in response to what a legislator said, "fifth graders *have* p*nises."  So the change in the policy to eliminate the Superintendent and substitute in the school librarian will ensure that nothing ever gets removed.  Voting for this policy change is like voting for anything goes in the school library.  Librarians are trained by American Library Association that nothing is ever p*rn*graphy because only a lawyer or a judge can make that decision, and, as Martha Hickson testified, it will be claimed it's censorship to remove such material.

4) The policy does not disclose that Pico applies and California v. Miller, U.S. Supreme Court 1973, does not apply to school books.  The "as a whole" standard comes from the Miller case.  Miller does not apply in schools.  Pico does.  So, for example, a school may remove Gender Queer from a school library for being pervasively vulgar and/or educationally unsuitable.  Indeed Pico has been used repeatedly to remove that very book successfully.  Miller, on the other hand, would require Gender Queer to stay in the library, since "as a whole" it is not obscene, and only a judge can rule it as such anyway.  So under Pico, a Superintendent may remove Gender Queer immediately, and under Miller, Gender Queer will never be removed.  No book ever will be removed under Miller since Miller is almost never used to determine works to be obscene.  It would be a ridiculous endeavor since a case by case basis would be needed, precisely the reason why American Library Association holds it out as the gold standard when in reality it does not apply.

5) The policy is essentially a restatement of the NJ Freedom to Read Act, a law that will eventually be challenged and fail since it overrides Pico and N.J.S. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18, at a minimum.  So I'll save the time of laying it out instance by instance but the comparison with FTRA shows it is essentially a copy, and FTRA was written by American Library Association in Chicago, IL.  Board members have an ethical duty to apply local law, not material written by outside special interests groups like American Library Association.  For example, the diversity and inclusion language as defined by American Library Association and included in the proposed policy and FTRA would make it so Gender Queer may not be removed, despite Pico, despite 2C:34-3.  So yet again, the policy ensures children will, by policy, be exposed to material that could otherwise be removed or not purchased, but for the policy.  As if the policy overrides New Jersey law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

6) The policy's removal request procedure is one recommended by American Library Association to intentionally a) drag out the process, b) cost money, c) provide the excuse that book reconsiderations waste money, d) asks leading questions of requesters to get them to say things not relevant to the review but that can be used to sink their request, e) unnecessarily narrows the pool of potential complainants.  I'm surprised it didn't put a multi-year limit on again requesting a review since Martha Hickson said it should be five years precisely to eliminate the constitutional rights to seek redress of the government for four years.

7) The inclusion of the parent in the review committee is an American Library Association ruse.  It's to make parents think their input is included.  In reality, however a parent votes, it is always overridden by the rest of the committee.  It's a ruse.  In a Florida case, three parents did a comprehensive review of three books and decided two stay but one goes.  They wrote a full report.  The committee ruled to keep all books without even considering the parents' input for which they worked so hard as part of the committee.  When the parents asked why their hard work was not even considered, the librarian on the committee said it wouldn't have mattered since the rest of the committee voted to retain all three books.  This is the very ruse that this new policy embeds.  I guarantee you all parental input on the committee will be ignored.  This will be at least the third way that absolutely nothing will ever be removed from the school library.  And it is all because Chicago's ALA has been working towards this goal for over 60 years.  If you vote for this policy, you vote for Chicago ALA policy and your kids will be harmed.  ALA is getting the school to play all these games at whatever time and expense just to cover up that nothing will ever be removed from the library.  Just skip over the charade and make the policy say nothing will ever be removed from the library, so don't ask, and don't complain, and that's it.  Done.

8) The policy says challenged material stays on the shelves until the challenge is finalized.  That language comes directly from American Library Association.  This is now a fourth way the children will remain exposed to inappropriate material despite Pico, 2C:34-3, and the Superintendent's previous ability to immediately remove materials under Pico.

9) The policy exempts from criminal and civil liability school librarians who violate 2C:34-3. By policy, poof, 2C:34-3 disappears.  Pico disappears.  Superintendents making appropriate decisions under Pico, poof, gone.  All by the proposed policy.

10) The policy does not cover the communications of the school librarian.  Former school librarian Martha Hickson used her personal Twitter account to conduct school business.  She even provided training to librarians nationwide while recording on school grounds presumably during school time specifically telling them to direct message her on her personal Twitter account.  Multiple OPRA requests for her communications were easily defeated by claiming there's no control over her personal accounts and she otherwise has no emails to disclose--because she did everything on her personal account.  That cannot be allowed to happen again.  Require that school business is conducted on school-supplied resources for the board's own good and for proper compliance with open government and records retention laws.  Consider making persistently conducting school business on personal accounts a terminable offense.  Librarians are trained to use Slack and Signal to circumvent parents, legislators, and the courts.  That must not be allowed and can be precluded by policy.  It should be added to the proposed policy, although it suffers from so much that it should be defeated.  Sure, let them use personal accounts for personal goals and friendships and general librarianship growth, but for school-related communications, that should be precluded.  Martha Hickson, for example, regularly communicated school business via her personal accounts with American Library Association.  That is precisely why 400 people came to school board meetings and overwhelmed the four locals, two of which now appear derisively in "The Librarians" by American Library Association.  The ALA president even gave a speech to all ALA membership that Martha Hickson was super important in ALA's imposing its way in North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School.  All done without any records exposed to open government laws or retained under government retention laws.  That has to be stopped.  If anyone wishes to engage American Library Association about school business, it must be via use of school communications means subject to New Jersey laws and board policy.

11) The policy doesn't even address the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision from June 27, 2025, addressing parental rights, religious freedom, and the use of certain books in public elementary schools. Public schools cannot compel young children to participate in instruction or exposure to materials that interfere with religious upbringing in a significant way. The Court emphasized parental rights in directing the religious and moral development of their children.  American Library Association hates that case.  That's why it's not in the proposed policy.  The only parental rights present are a ruse, as previously stated.

12) "In selecting materials to recommend for purchase, the media specialist shall evaluate the existing collection and consult reputable, unbiased, professionally prepared selection aids, and specialists from all departments and/or all grade levels." This is specifically designed to use only reviews from ALA-approved sources including ALA's own Booklist.  It is specifically designed to disallow consideration of reviews from parental groups like RatedBooks dot org.  It embeds into the policy an anti parent policy. Did you know that ALA hated BookLooks dot org so much (a parental review site that no longer exists) that it created its own Book Résumés that's just like BookLooks only without the excerpts and graphics but with all the glowing reviews from the approved book review sites?  Did you know it was Martha Hickson who initially used NHV time, money, and servers to build what eventually got adopted by ALA as the new Book Résumés site?  So the proposed policy includes yet again another subtle but present anti parent policy.

13) Limiting access to children to developmentally appropriate material is not censorship.  

14) Books may have s*xualized content but it's not noted in Scholastic reviews and the like.  The policy does not address that.  

15) Nor does the policy address librarians making available websites that provide access to the very material school policy otherwise precludes.

So what we have in the new policy is the wording from the Freedom to Read Act from Chicago's American Library Association that has been working for 60-plus years to eliminate parental rights and indoctrinate children, crystallized into a policy that was essentially hidden on the agenda page, all to ensure children by policy get indoctrinated and s*xua*lized per ALA diktat.  And the policy lacks significant protections and allowances for parental rights.

I have no clue who came up with the wording for the proposed changes, but that person or those persons did what's best for American Library Association, and the school children be damned.

Don't be angry with the way I worded things or what other board members may say about me.  Set that aside.  For the children, consider what I have said and consider if you really truly want this proposed policy 6163.1 to be applied to your school and your school children and your school parents.  

Your policy should allow your Superintendent to remove books like Gender Queer and if it doesn't, something's off.  Recall the whole multi-year battle over the books started when the Superintendent told Martha Hickson to remove a certain book, and Martha Hickson went immediately to American Library Association, got them instantly engaged, then intimidated the Superintendent into backing down from his request.  The ALA bullying was nonstop after that.  And it continues to this day with the proposed wording of policy 6163.1.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of these matters.

Dan Kleinman

—

Dear NHV Board of Ed,

I hereby add additional information based on new information just received, then one additional comment.

Beth Bourne has published on X https://x.com/bourne_beth2345/status/2015961359180300604?s=61 that the California Freedom to Read Act is causing librarians to admit nothing will ever again be removed from a library no matter how inappropriate.  She includes a video of the librarians not caring a whit about harm to the children.  

This is directly applicable to proposed policy 6163.1 since the proposed policy is essentially a mini version of the New Jersey Freedom to Read Act.  So you can see the similarity between the California and the New Jersey version, because American Library Association wrote them both, and whomever wrote the proposed policy also inserted the American Library Association wish list that means "no restrictions for children."

As I stated in my original email this morning, the proposed policy implements the NJ FTRA so it will ensure school children are indoctrinated and s*xualized per ALA via NHV BOE school policy.

Here is what Beth Bourne wrote, an analogous confirmation from a California public library:

🚨🚨UNREAL: Yesterday I asked the indoctrinated far-left librarians in Davis why they want kids to access s[*]xually-explicit books that encourage p[*]rn consumption, like “Let’s Talk About It.”

The library manager said the recent passing of “California Freedom to Read Act” (AB 1825) means no restrictions for children.

 

The librarians also seemed fine with predatory men self-identifying into the Women’s Restroom.

To prove the stupidity of the policy, I identified as a man and walked into the Men’s Restroom.

You can’t hate @GavinNewsom and @TheDemocrats enough. 

“The California Freedom to Read Act (AB 1825), signed in September 2024 and effective January 2025, requires public libraries receiving state funds to adopt written collection development policies by January 1, 2026, to prevent book bans.

It prohibits removing materials based on topics or views, protects library staff from retaliation, and forbids restricting access based on age or background.”

Why do children need to be indoctrinated into radical queer theory and transgenderism?

Davis branch library in Yolo County, CA near Sacramento.

While I am writing with that new information, here is an additional problem with the proposed policy.

16)  Policy 6163.1 should provide for parents what the librarians and school teachers already have, namely, access to a database of all holdings in the school library and all holdings in classroom libraries, sorted by classroom.  Full transparency is the key here.  How can parents exercise constitutional rights if they are kept in the dark about school and classroom library contents?  Martha Hickson even put up black paper on the library windows to prevent anyone from looking in.  I entered the library once for a few minutes when it was open and was accused of criminal activity for breaking into the library after hours, supposedly.  Why the secrecy?  Why the reaction if gosh forbid a parent gets inside the library?  Why the OPRA request for library security camera videos to see the alleged crime?  How will parents know what's in the library if some policy does not require full access and if the library windows and classroom libraries are kept out of sight?

And this suggestion is also based on new information since I wrote this morning:

17) Policy 6163.1 should include a means to perform appropriate background checks on possible school librarian candidates, including psychological examinations.  Times have changed and librarians have turned dark.  Such people should be weeded out.  I won't list names but one librarian has just been arrested for threatening the President.  Another one threatened the President but has not yet been arrested.  Others threaten Elon Musk with death.  School librarians.  Martha Hickson herself posted about 8647, so yet another threat to the President, right from the former school librarian who first ran to American Library Association and caused all the problems in the first place.  Granted she was retired at the time of the threat.  A library director in Louisiana was recorded days ago telling a patron that her "d*ck" was bigger than his so he should "s*ck" hers.  Multiple librarians are involved in what's called ICE protests but is really part of a planned insurrection against the American government.  Oh yes, Martha Hickson is one.  Such people should not be hired.  The policy should weed them out, perhaps even allow for their removal if such behavior occurs during employment.  Any investigation should include their social media.  Many adults working in the public school system suffer from one or more mental health issues.  The proposed policy leaves out that these kinds of people should not be anywhere near children, and there's no mention of anything at all to prevent such possible disasters.  The Boy Scouts say "Be Prepared."  The proposed changes to policy 6163.1 leaves on the blindfolds.

Thank you for these additional considerations.  You're in charge.  You need to do the right thing now by setting appropriate policy.  The proposed policy is a disaster waiting to happen.

—

URL of this page: 

https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/01/freedom-to-read-act-incorporation.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech