Showing posts with label PatTrueman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PatTrueman. Show all posts

Friday, March 29, 2013

ALA Listed As Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women

ALA is a "leading contributor to
the sexual exploitation of women,"
according to the "Dirty Dozen List"
The American Library Association [ALA] "support[s] the distribution of hardcore, possibly obscene pornography in public libraries across America," and, as a result, has been listed on Morality in Media's "Dirty Dozen List ... of the top 12 facilitators of porn in America."
For years, this self-styled champion of First Amendment freedoms has worked to encourage public libraries to keep their computer unfiltered.  The ALA's misguided campaign has resulted in countless patrons of all ages being able to access or being inadvertently exposed to hardcore adult pornography and even child pornography on library computers.  The ALA has also filed lawsuits (and LOST) against legislative enactments requiring use of filters, and continues to disseminate questionable information to libraries about their responsibility to filter pornography.
Like other news about how the ALA harms the nation which library media including American Libraries and Library Journal ignore, I predict library media will not publish that ALA is a "top facilitator of porn in America."  So please follow me for stories library media essentially censor out.  To me, this is newsworthy, coming from MIM:
"Our nation is now suffering an untreated pandemic of harm from the widespread distribution of pornography and the American Library Association bears great responsibility for that harm."

LodgeNet, here shown in
Comfort Inn & Suites,
is the largest purveyor
of porn in hotels, and it is
a fellow member with ALA
on MIM's "Dirty Dozen List"
The ALA is listed as a top porn facilitator along with the likes of LodgeNet, which "provides most of the in-room TV pornography to major hotels and motels.  Despite the federal and many state laws, which prohibit obscene materials on cable and satellite TV, LodgetNet [sic] has made untold millions by providing hardcore pornography to its customers.  Children have also been exposed to this material."

I challenge ALA to respond substantively to MIM and thereby the general public, and library media to report on this matter and the ALA's response or lack thereof.  ALA is being challenged as a "leading contributor to the sexual exploitation of women" and as one of the "top 12 facilitators of porn in America."  Will ALA remain silent?  Will library media let ALA skate?

Experience has taught me it is the habit of the ALA and library media to ignore or censor stories or parts thereof they do not want people to hear, such as when the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] revealed that ALA is misleading libraries nationwide.  A story as significant as that was intentionally not reported while the Library Journal's former Editor-in-Chief Francine Fialkoff mocked the CIPA law's author, Ernest Istook.  Such censorship and animosity makes such stories all the more interesting and important, does it not?

For full disclosure, my own SafeLibraries blog is listed by MIM as part of the "Proof of ALA's Profit from Porn & Obscenity."  Thank you, Pat Trueman and Dawn Hawkins.

Read MIM's letter to ALA, links and graphics below mine:



March 4, 2013

Mr. Keith Michael Fiels
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611

Dear Mr. Fiels:

We are writing you to express concern regarding your support of the distribution of hardcore, possibly obscene pornography in public libraries across America.

Public statements and advice to public library administrators by officials of the American Library Association, as well as materials on your website appear to favor the distribution of pornography via library computers.  At a minimum, your policy positions seem to oppose Internet filters that would block pornography for public libraries.

No public library in America is constitutionally required to provide pornography to patrons on computer or in printed publications.  This fact was made clear in congressional testimony and by the U. S. Supreme Court when the Children's Internet Protection Act was considered.

Shortly, Morality in Media will publicly announce the "Dirty Dozen List," which contains the top promoters of pornography in America.  After careful consideration, we have decided to include American Library Association on that list.

All children, women, and men have a natural human dignity and thus a right to live in a decent society; and as the Supreme Court has recognized, obscene materials, which are inherently degrading, dehumanizing, and exploitive, violate this right.  Morality In Media exists to make society aware of the many harms of pornography; to equip individuals and families to overcome or protect against those harms; and, to advocate that all laws defending the right to be free from pornography are vigorously enforced.

Not only does pornography exploit, degrade and dehumanize the people in the films and photos, but it exploits, degrades and dehumanizes the people exposed to it, teaching them to view others as merely objects for selfish pleasure.

ALA's former de facto leader Judith Krug
wearing button mocking Attorney General
John Ashcroft and the USA PATRIOT Act
Our nation is now suffering an untreated pandemic of harm from the widespread distribution of pornography and the American Library Association bears great responsibility for that harm.

Adults, and even children, are developing life-long addictions to pornography.  Sexual violence against women, including rape, and sexual harassment of women are directly tied to the consumption of pornography.  On average, American children are first exposed to pornography at age 11 and many act out what they see in hardcore pornography; four out of five 16 year-olds now regularly access pornography online and many are developing life-long social/sexual problems as a result.  56% of matrimonial lawyers cited obsessive interest in pornographic websites as a factor in divorce cases they handled in the previous year.  There is increased demand for child pornography because adult-porn users are finding that they are no longer excited by adult images—and pornography is a contributing factor in the increased demand for sexually-trafficked women and children in the U.S.

A wealth of peer-reviewed research demonstrates the many other harms of pornography.  We maintain a database of such studies at PornHarmsResearch.com.

We also have many testimonials from people formerly caught up in the pornography industry, of being exploited, given illicit drugs, coerced to perform objectionable acts and therefore sexually trafficked in violation of the U. S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

It may be easy to detach from the issue and consider pornography as a mere profitable part of modern life—but only by avoiding common sense.  We at Morality in Media have dedicated countless hours to researching pornography and promoting awareness to its many devastating harms and thus we urge you to consider a different course and discourage public libraries from allowing pornography.

Sincerely,

Patrick A. Trueman
President & CEO

Dawn Hawkins
Executive Director


NOTE ADDED 1 APRIL 2013:

The following stories are directly relevant:

NOTE ADDED 2 APRIL 2013:

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq.
Note that the ALA has responded to this library porn scandal, evidencing that MIM has scored a direct hit, with a long statement that continues to promote its false, porn promoting diktat:

Go ahead and read it, a lot of it is good/accurate, but it contains materially false statements designed to further entrench its porn facilitation advice in public libraries nationwide.  In other words, the ALA is doubling down on the scandal.

I rarely see the ALA respond so fast to anything, evidencing just how close this hit to the heart of the porn facilitators.  And notice the careful wording:  "Recent court filings, news reports, and online posts, however, have begun to shine a spotlight on libraries' filtering policies and practices."  Like the Dirty Dozen List and the widespread news coverage?

In addition to the above cover up, another indication little will be done is the ad hominem response of a number of librarians:





In the following graphic, discussion about the ALA's inclusion in the "Dirty Dozen List" at an open Facebook group called ALA Think Tank—that is not open to me because the free speech advocates block me—turned to me when I committed the free speech sin of—retweeting someone.  See how they talked about/recommended blocking me.  One admits she is "passive aggressive" towards me and calls me "that crazy virgin from Safe Libraries."  The next one is concerned people might be exercising their freedom to read.


By the way, that "Ingrid Dontgoogleme" woman is the very same one who practices censorship and redacts comments to push her political viewpoint on others in her public library and on anyone who will listen and follow: click here for details if interested.

The point being, if librarians are going to be mocking people for reporting on those exposing the ALA's policies that harm communities, very little will be done to change those policies.  If the people responsible for those policies are doubling down on them, expect more communities to spread more harm to more children.

Let me remind you what leading librarian Will Manley said about the library profession:

See also continued news and advocacy group coverage of the "Dirty Dozen List" and the ALA's inclusion on that list:

NOTE ADDED 4 APRIL 2013:

I challenged the ALA to debate the issues, and I published that challenge in a comment to "Filtering and the First Amendment," by Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., American Libraries, 2 April 2013.  American Libraries is the ALA's monthly membership magazine.  After almost a day, the ALA removed, censored out?, the comment, as it does frequently, so I'll republish it here:

REQUEST FOR DEBATE
Dear Ms. Caldwell-Stone,
I hereby request a debate with you or the ALA OIF Director Barbara Jones on the issues that you raise here or on related issues. Yes, I am indirectly the reason the ALA is in the news as a porn facilitator that caused you to write this piece, but that only makes debate with me more interesting. We once both appeared on an NPR radio broadcast, and you/OIF have several times talked about me publicly when I was not present, but it is time we meet and talk face to face in a forum where people can learn from what we say. Perhaps at an ALA annual meeting, for example.
So what do you say, will you or a suitable alternate accept the challenge?
Thank you for your consideration.
-Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries


Screen shot 2013-04-02 at 10.32.28 PM of
comment later censored by ALA
at American Libraries magazine

SECOND NOTE ADDED 4 APRIL 2013:

I have been blocked from viewing the open Facebook group called ALA Think Tank, likely in response to what I reported about it above.  I just sought membership in the group since they were discussing me negatively.  I guessed there was a technical problem so I tried twice more; it is just a single click to try to join.  Finally, I was accepted into the group by JP Porcaro (John Porcaro resume).

Within seconds he immediately blocked me.  So he only accepted me to block me, since one can't block people not already in groups from Facebook groups, only those already in the group.  And JP was named by Library Journal as a 2012 "Community Builder" Mover and Shaker.  Now he's a "virtual services" librarian at New Jersey City University protecting free speech.  What he really is is a pro-censorship librarian.  The double standard is unbelievable.
Censorious librarian JP Porcaro adds me to
ALA Think Tank Facebook group only to
create the means to block me from
ever again viewing the contents
of that 3,000 member group.

I met him and spoke with him at a New Jersey Library Association meeting.  He was very nice.  Now he's a very nice censor.


NOTE ADDED 8 APRIL 2013:

American Libraries magazine continually removes my debate challenge.  I had reposted it since other comments had been posted so I assumed out of an abundance of fairness despite past history that a technical glitch had occurred.  I was wrong.  My second comment was removed as well.  This time, Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries Senior Editor, responded online with "COMMENT REMOVED; A comment has been removed for violating American Libraries' comment policy."

Look at the policy.  It says, "editors reserve the right to remove any comment deemed offensive; Please stay on topic; No defamatory remarks about other people; No cursing or pornography; No advertisements or spam; No politics external to ALA or endorsement of any candidate in an ALA election; No organizing boycotts."  That sounds perfectly reasonable, on its face.  But, as applied, or perhaps despite the policy, my comment was removed.  Read my "REQUEST FOR DEBATE" comment above to see for yourself if my comment violated ALA policy in any way.

So this time, after the second comment removal, I replied with a new comment.  And I might as well put it here since the ALA will likely remove it:

HOW DID THE REMOVED COMMENT VIOLATE COMMENT POLICY? 
Beverly Goldberg, you or someone at American Libraries removed my comment a second time.  A comment to an article about free speech and censorship, you removed it.  A simple request for a debate on the issues raised by the OIF in its response to the ALA being listed as one of the nation's leading porn facilitators that made national news such as on NPR, based in part on what I have published about the ALA's activities.  It appears you are simply deleting speech that you do not like.  You really need to specify exactly how my comment violated your comment policy.  If you state it is because I included a link under my name, that is not good enough since your comment software specifically asks people to include their "Homepage," then links that home page to their name.  I did not in any way whatsoever violate your comment policy, so you need to explain it so I can make comments here and not have them censored out. 
Indeed the first comment you removed without a note that the comment violated policy.  This second time you claim the comment, the same comment, mind you, violated policy.  So right there's already evidence of arbitrary treatment. 
Beverly Goldberg, you really, really have to explain how the comment violates your policy in any way whatsoever.  I am noting how you continually censor me out, and others are noting that as well, such as on LISnews, and it harms ALA efforts to appear to be censorship experts.  Real censorship experts do not censor out calls for debate on issues of national news by the very person largely responsible for that news.  So be very specific and explain exactly how the comment I left violates your comment policy in any way whatsoever.

Honestly, how can the ALA expect to be taken seriously on censorship when it silences debate using the very means it claims to oppose, namely, censorship?  Here's a graphic, FYI:

Evident censorship byALA's American Libraries
Senior Editor Beverly Goldberg



or

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: American Library Association, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611, USA

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Crying Censorship and the ALA; Don't Let the ALA Redefine Censorship

Stanley Fish has written an excellent article on censorship in The New York Times called "Crying Censorship." He points out that much of what people call "censorship" is really "judgment" that "has nothing to with freedom of expression," and is "not [a] blow[] against the First Amendment."

Specifically addressing libraries, Mr. Fish says, "Nor is it censorship when a library decides not to purchase a book or to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders."

The American Library Association [ALA], on the other hand, pins almost its entire raison d'être on claiming to defend against "censorship" and First Amendment violations. For example, the so-called "Library Bill of Rights" includes, "Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment."

What is "censorship"? Stanley Fish defines censorship this way:

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.


The ALA defines censorship in a totally different way, likely using a Saul Alinsky technique of redefining the language for political gain, and notice how people are now called "censors" repeatedly:

What Is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.


Source: "Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A," American Library Association, 29 May 2007.

The Stanley Fish and ALA definitions are almost diametrically opposed. Everyone knows the Stanley Fish one is correct. The question is, when will people expose the ALA definition as being false?

"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." That is from Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant and former communications director and senior strategist for Senator Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign. Stanley Fish would likely agree.

The take away from this is that when the ALA's false cries of censorship or First Amendment violations are being made in your town, do not let the ALA redefine the true definition of censorship. Do what the community knows is right and legal, not what the ALA wants or browbeats the community into. As former U.S. Department of Justice official Pat Trueman just said, "That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-pornography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep pornography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries...."

Here is Stanley Fish's article reprinted for educational purposes:

"Crying Censorship", by Stanley Fish, The New York Times, 24 August 2008.

Salman Rushdie, self-appointed poster boy for the First Amendment, is at it again. This time he’s not standing up for free expression on his own behalf, but on behalf of another author, Sherry Jones, whose debut novel about the prophet Muhammad’s child bride had been withdrawn by Random House after consultants warned that its publication “could incite racial conflict.”

Random House is also Rushdie’s publisher, and his response to the news was to send an e-mail to The Associated Press. (I never thought of that; maybe I’ll try it myself.) It read, “I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have canceled another author’s novel because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals. This is censorship by fear and it sets a very bad precedent indeed.”

This little brouhaha has been widely reported and commentators have tended to endow it with large philosophical and political implications (the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005 and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh are often referenced). A story in The Times of London online edition describes it “the latest showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” One respondent declared bravely, “I will never buy another book published by Random House,” and added, in a frenzy of patriotism, “We are Americans. We are free to choose what we want to read.”

Well, I guess we are, although that wouldn’t be my definition of what it means to be an American. It is also true, however, that Random House is free to publish or decline to publish whatever it likes, and its decision to do either has nothing whatsoever to do with the Western tradition of free speech or any other high-sounding abstraction.

Rushdie and the pious pundits think otherwise because they don’t quite understand what censorship is. Or, rather, they conflate the colloquial sense of the word with the sense it has in philosophical and legal contexts. In the colloquial sense, censorship occurs whenever we don’t say or write something because we fear adverse consequences, or because we feel that what we would like to say is inappropriate in the circumstances, or because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings. (This is often called self-censorship. I call it civilized behavior.)

From the other direction, many think it censorship when an employee is disciplined or not promoted because of something he or she has said, when people are ejected from a public event because they are judged to be disrupting the proceedings, or when a newspaper declines to accept an advertisement, rejects an op-ed or a letter, or fails to report on something others think important. But if censorship is the proper name for all these actions, then censorship is what is being practiced most of the time and is in fact the norm rather than the (always suspect) exception.

But censorship is not the proper name; a better one would be judgment. We go through life adjusting our behavior to the protocols and imperatives of different situations, and often the adjustments involve deciding to refrain from saying something. It’s a calculation, a judgment call. It might be wise or unwise, prudent or overly cautious, but it has nothing to with freedom of expression.

Judgment is also what employers exercise when they determine that something an employee has said or written so undermines the enterprise that it warrants dismissal. To the objection that such an action would amount to a curtailing of the employee’s First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court has answered (in Connick v. Myers, 1983) only if the speech in question were directed at a matter of public concern; otherwise, wrote Justice Byron White, “when close working relationships are essential to fulfilling… responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer’s judgment is appropriate.”

Many thought it was censorship in 2004 when ABC refused to air an ad critical of President Bush during the Super Bowl, or when affiliates of the same network refused to show “Saving Private Ryan” out of a fear that under new regulations they would be subject to fines for presenting material containing profanity and graphic violence. Again, these decisions may have been ill-advised or pusillanimous, but they were not blows against the First Amendment and they were not censorship. No doubt the ad played on some other day, and no one is interdicting the showing of the movie, which is readily available in any number of venues. Nor is it censorship when a library decides not to purchase a book or to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders.

But if none of these actions fits the definition of censorship, what does?

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.

So what Random House did was not censorship. (Some other press is perfectly free to publish Jones’s book, and one probably will.) It may have been cowardly or alarmist, or it may have been good business, or it may have been an attempt to avoid trouble that ended up buying trouble. But whatever it was, it doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional or philosophical concern. And it is certainly not an episode in some “showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” Formulations like that at once inflate a minor business decision and trivialize something too important and complex to be reduced to a high-school civics lesson about the glories of the First Amendment.

*****

(Note: The original version of this essay inadvertently omitted the words “by fear” in the quoted e-mail. This has since been corrected.)

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


NOTE ADDED 20 JULY 2013:

Three links were updated to provided archived versions of those documents no longer at their original links.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, August 25, 2008

ALA Ruse Keeping Porn Widely Available and Media Inaccuracies Force Council Bluffs, Iowa, Citizens to Endure Public Library Porn

The Council Bluffs Public Library in Iowa choose to use "protective hoods" instead of Internet filters claiming the filters do not work. Result? Children are still seeing porn on other people's computers. Pat Trueman, former chief obscenity prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, came out swinging against the American Library Association [ALA]:

"That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-pornography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep pornography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries out of having filters," states Trueman.


A ruse! Very pro-pornography! Scaring libraries out of having filters!! Trueman doesn't stop there. He goes after the media for misleading the public:

The station also reported that there is no law banning porn in public libraries -- another inaccurate aspect of the KMTV news report, says Trueman.

''There's a federal Children's Internet Protection Act that says if you want federal funds, you must keep pornography off the screens of your computers in the library and public school," the attorney explains.


Pat Trueman is yet another person confirming what SafeLibraries has been saying. The ALA misleads people to get them to do as the ALA wants, the media are sometimes part of the misinformation problem, and children continue to be harmed needlessly as a result. It does me good to see someone else so unafraid of the ALA as to speak out truthfully and forcefully about the negative effects of ALA policy on local communities.

Legal porn is constitutionally protected, but that does not mean a public library must provide access to it--see US v. ALA. And even the ACLU nows says filters are over 95% effective and no longer block health-related web sites. I wonder what your own library laws say and whether the library is acting outside the bounds of that law, thereby allowing the government to ensure compliance.

Council Bluffs, IA, make no mistake. You are now yet another community where local control of the public library is being thwarted by the ALA, and media inaccuracies do not help.

Pat Trueman, please contact me.

Here is a link to the original article (with an embedded link to a news video) about which Pat Trueman is speaking: "Porn at the Public Library," by Molli Graham, KMTV Action 3 News, August 2008.

Pat Trueman's responses, some of which are quoted above, are a direct response to the Molli Graham story and appear in "Library Porn Report Inaccurate, Says Attorney," by Jeff Johnson, OneNewsNow, 13 August 2008, reprinted here for educational purposes:

Library Porn Report Inaccurate, Says Attorney
Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 8/13/2008 10:00:00 AM

laptop on fireA pro-family attorney is decrying a bad decision by the Council Bluffs, Iowa, library board and inaccurate reporting by a local television station -- both related to pornography in a local public library.

After a local mother complained about her 14-year-old daughter being exposed to pornography at the Council Bluffs public library, Omaha TV station KMTV sent its Action News reporter, Molli Graham, to investigate.

"That's right, a trip to the Council Bluffs public library landed Patty Lyon's daughter next to a man surfing porn," Graham reported. "Turns out in Council Bluffs, there are no protective filters. Some of those filters end up blocking out health and other useful sites, so the library board voted no."

But Pat Trueman, special counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund and former chief obscenity prosecutor for the Justice Department, says that is not accurate.

"That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-pornography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep pornography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries out of having filters," states Trueman.

"Reality today, as people who have filters on their home computers know, is that most filters are virtually 100-percent accurate. They keep the porn out. They allow you to get to regular websites...."

The station also reported that there is no law banning porn in public libraries -- another inaccurate aspect of the KMTV news report, says Trueman.

''There's a federal Children's Internet Protection Act that says if you want federal funds, you must keep pornography off the screens of your computers in the library and public school," the attorney explains. "Council Bluffs apparently thought pornography is more important than the money."

But Trueman wonders if the taxpayers or library patrons in Council Bluffs would agree that allowing porn to be accessible is more important than having money to fund the public library system.

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