Public awareness of crime, sexual harassment in libraries, and inappropriate books and web sites in schools due to American Library Association policy. ⚖️
Regarding HB1311 on 5/7/2024, I have an illuminating document from a University of Houston professor who explains how for almost 60 years American Library Association has been working to take power away from parents and school boards precisely to expose school children to inappropriate material. It's linked below and you'll hear it from no one else.
You see, you have a piece of legislation that came up this year, and you have to decide it this year, all based on some guidance from David Paige who remains part of the American Library Association from Chicago, Illinois. That guidance, like that 1311 "safeguards the rights of parents" when the exact opposite is true, is crafted to be misleading about the legislation and is based on 60 years of people trying to accomplish what 1311 would accomplish. They don't have the power to force this law themselves so they work to mislead state and federal legislators into voting for it. People with 60 years of experience are misleading people with six months of experience into passing a law that meets the aspirational creed of a private Chicago organization that works for the exact opposite of what's best for the education of school children, those in New Hampshire included.
This article linked below provides the balance you need to see clearly what is really going on. It catches you up on 60 years of political activism from activists in Chicago seeking to obtain control of school libraries nationwide. Indeed, ALA is working to get these same laws passed in states nationwide and has already fooled Illinois and Maryland into passing such laws. Will New Hampshire be next? Only you can stop it. I strongly urge you all to read this before voting on whether to set The Chicago Way into the law of New Hampshire, because then you'll vote against HB 1311, your eyes having been opened:
Thank you. Feel free to contact me (phone, text, Signal, Telegram, same number, 973-610-8296). And I may be sending a second email regarding HB 1311.
Above was sent via email to: Ruth.Ward@leg.state.nh.us; Carrie.Gendreau@leg.state.nh.us; Timothy.Lang@leg.state.nh.us; Donovan.Fenton@leg.state.nh.us; Suzanne.Prentiss@leg.state.nh.us; peter.mulvey@leg.state.nh.us.
Dear Connecticut Legislators Discussing HB05417 on March 11, 2024, 11AM:
Why are we here? We are here because the American Library Association [ALA] based in Chicago, Illinois, has been working for over half a century to s-xualize and indoctrinate America’s children via the medium of its so-called "Library Bill of Rights" that half a century ago made it "age" discrimination to keep anything from children. See, Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442 (archived: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing). This has driven the faster and faster pushing of inappropriate material into school libraries causing parents to challenge such material in greater numbers and frequency, then the librarians complain about all the parents complaining, after ALA first caused the problem. So in an effort to stop all parents anywhere from challenging materials, ALA had to come up with something. ALA wants its "Library Bill of Rights" to be codified into state law, thereby effectively overruling the US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico ( https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/ ) and blocking parents from even filing complaints in the first place. This Chicago organization called ALA has over a third of state legislatures considering whether to codify this "Library Bill of Rights" that one court ruled means "nothing." Such legislation has already passed into law in Illinois, ALA’s home state. But it has been rejected in Rhode Island, a state closer to Connecticut. Now such legislation to overrule the Pico case and the First Amendment comes to Connecticut in the form of HB 05417. So that’s why we are here. The question is, will Connecticut legislators pass into law what a private organization from Illinois has put forth to try to turn its nothing "Library Bill of Rights" into Connecticut law?
I’m Dan Kleinman, the Executive Director of the World Library Association based in Bee Cave, Texas. WLA is the new alternative to ALA. For opposing a similar law in New Jersey, also promoted by that same Illinois private organization, NJ state senator Andrew Zwicker called me a "meddling minority." So the World Library Association from Texas is a meddling minority but the American Library Association from Illinois that essentially wrote the Connecticut legislation and that of many other states is not. The meddling being done is by the Illinois organization trying to mislead Connecticut legislators into violating Pico with false claims of First Amendment rights, the "right to read," and the right for children to "see themselves" in the books they are reading.
This effort by ALA has encompassed about 20 states so far, almost half of the United States. The details of exactly how and why it is so bad, along with what states are considering codifying the Illinois organization’s aspirational creed that means nothing, is written at the Right to Read Act page on World Library Association here: https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/ I feel there is no better guide on the topic from the point of view of parents. To be very clear, ALA has worked for a very long time to mislead legislators nationwide into doing what the Illinois private organization wants, namely, ensure children get access to all materials at any age per the "Library Bill of Rights." As you consider this legislation, ask yourselves if you wish to be misled and to discard US Supreme Court precedent designed to protect children from harm, and to discard the First Amendment and likely your own state constitution.
And there it is, Connecticut Constitution, Article I (a real Article I, not the fake stuff in the Library Bill of Rights), Section 16, "The citizens have a right … to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance." So if HB 05417 passes into law, it will immediately violate the Connecticut Constitution because parents will lose the right to seek redress from the school board whose hands are now tied by the law. This is why you don’t want a private organization from Illinois writing any laws for Connecticut. ALA simply doesn’t give a whit about the Connecticut Constitution or anything else for that matter.
One way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is with "long-term inoculation." This is in training from EveryLibrary, a crypto ALA affiliate. As part of long-term inoculation, ALA (via EveryLibrary) specifically states, "Get to know your legislators and local leaders," in the context of "identifying and activating others who care." Have any Connecticut legislators been "identified and activated" to "care" about ensuring children have unlimited access to anything whatsoever? Have any librarians or library associations gotten to "know their legislators"? See this for yourselves here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. And the crypto nature of EveryLibrary being a part of American Library Association is detailed here, as well as details on its "long-term inoculation": https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html
A second way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is via training ALA’s top lawyer gave to librarians, that before legislation is written, because that’s the goal they are after, before legislation is written, there needs to be "sustained messaging" that takes away the idea that certain materials are s-xually inappropriate for children and "reframes" the issue as one of diversity, inclusion, and the right for kids to "see themselves" in the materials they are provided. This statement was surfaced and reported by me, after which Utah Senator Mike Lee discussed it at a recent "Banned Books" hearing on Capitol Hill. He played the recording then afterwords said ALA’s lawyer was "saying the quiet part out loud," that ALA is gr—ming and s-xualizing children. His words. As Utah Senator Mike Lee put it, “the goal is to s-xualize children, to provide minors with s-xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.” Watch Senate Mike Lee display then discuss this video World Library Association surfaced and listen to his discussion of the issues regarding the contents of supposed "banned books": https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments. So ALA has decades ago made it age discrimination to keep kids from materials, the Pico cases allows for the removal of inappropriate material, books like Gender Queer have been successfully removed from many schools under the Pico case, and ALA couldn’t stand for that. So it created "Unite Against Book Bans," one of the goals of which was to get legislation passed nationwide that would prevent parents from applying the Pico case and prevent parents from exercising their First Amendment rights to seek redress of the government from governmental actions. And here you are in Connecticut discussing this very legislation that has been the subject of "long-term inoculation" and "sustained messaging" that "reframes" known inappropriate material as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And along comes HB 05417. It would make the following the law of Connecticut: “No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board; (2) An author’s race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views; (3) Personal discomfort, morality or political or religious views of a member or members of the board; (4) An author’s points of view concerning current events, whether international, national or local; (5) The race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views of a protagonist or other characters or as otherwise represented in the library material; or (6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships.” Now compare that with the "Library Bill of Rights" that the Berry v. Yosemite Community College District court case ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).
"No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board…" says HB 05417. Article II of the Library Bill of Rights, they call it an "Article" to make it sound official, maintains that "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." Do you see the slight word change from the Illinois version to the Connecticut version? Much of the rest of HB 05417 is based on the Library Bill of Rights with some word changes. But at least that language comports generally with the Pico case.
As you get further into HB 05417, it simply defies the Pico case. That case allows schools to immediately remove materials that are educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar. HB 05417, on the other hand, eliminates those concerns by saying, "(6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships." Gender Queer was removed from many schools as it violated the Pico case. However, under HB 05417, Gender Queer would never be removed because it is "related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships." Pervasive vulgarity or educational unsuitability and the Pico case goes right out the window when the words of HB 05417 are applied. Not only does HB 05417 eliminate the US Supreme Court Pico case, it also eliminates the First Amendment’s and Connecticut Constitution’s grant of right of redress. If the school board is constrained by law from removing Gender Queer and similar books, then parent’s rights to seek redress of the government are eliminated, gone, this is the goal of ALA. Under HB 05417, there is no longer a right to ask a school board to remove a book from the school. Those rights are gone. HB 05417 takes those rights away. Under the wording of HB 05417, there is not a single book in the library now or ever that may be challenged by a parent and removed by a school board. This is the goal of the Illinois based private organization called ALA. I feel certain no parents want this legislation HB 05417 to pass into law in Connecticut except those few who support that Illinois organization more than they support the law, community standards, and common sense, and except those few legislators who have been successfully coopted by the "long-term inoculation" and the "sustained messaging" from the Illinois based private association of librarians.
I further feel certain that should HB 05417 pass into law, it will be challenged in court for First Amendment violations, among other things, then eventually struck down. Will that out-of-state private organization fund all that legal footwork to protect Connecticut’s children? Of course not. HB 05417 should never become law in the first place, and it should never be reworded because it is fatally flawed. It comes from an out-of-state organization as part of a half century effort to "long-term inoculate" adults so they drop their guard and allow children to be s-xualized and indoctrinated in school despite that being against the law, community standards, and common sense. When the ALA lawyer says to "reframe" inappropriate material as DEI so kids can "see themselves," anyone can see for him or herself what’s going on, and Senator Lee’s words make it crystal clear.
Have you noticed school children have been inundated with educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar school books nationwide? Librarians are working to pass legislation to ensure schools retain such materials despite United States Supreme Court rulings and common sense, precisely to use the power of the state to stop parents from complaining to school boards about such materials.
It is a very dangerous development in the war to s3xualize children, it must be stopped, and this post will detail how a small group of people made up and promoted the claimed "right to read," precisely to cut off parents and impose their own worldview on America. Once that is realized, no parent or legislator will want legislation that would codify this radical foothold on the American education system.
Indeed, the ultimate way to stop this is to get on school and library boards, remove all references to the "Library Bill of Rights," stop any librarian interaction whatsoever with any current library association, then legally remove all educationally unsuitable material from schools, the way it used to be before librarians imposed their made-up rules on everyone. It's the librarians who are the true minority, not the parents.
Here's the story I just read that spills the beans on American Library Association's attempt to legislate their 1960s radical view of age discrimination:
Eadopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of
25
Rights that indicates materials should not be proscribed or
10300HB2789ham001
- 3 -
LRB103 29629 AWJ 58578 a
1
removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or, in
2
the alternative, develop a written statement declaring the
3
inherent authority of the library or library system toprovide
4
an adequatecollectionstockof books and other materials
5
sufficient in size and varied in kind and subject matter to
6
satisfy the library needs of the people of this stateand
7
prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources.
This legislation will codify the "Library Bill of Rights" in Illinois and become the model legislation for nationwide codification.
So let me explain a general overview of whence comes the "Library Bill of Rights" and how the word "age" got added that American Library Association hopes becomes law. Then you'll know why this legislation must be defeated by any means, or the s3xualization and indoctrination of school children will become set in stone and there won't be any means whatsoever to stop the onslaught. The First Amendment right to seek redress of governments will be overturned by this legislation, as will US Supreme Court precedent. Redress will be gone. Parents children will be s3xualized. Game over. Marxists win.
The @ALALibrary is the problem. “Age” is now equated with other aspects such as background or views with no mention of what may be inappropriate. This is why they call all challenges a “ban” or “censorship”. pic.twitter.com/4bkixBmWpK
However, the Code of Ethics of the Library Bill of Rights is not a federal statute, but is promulgated by the American Library Association. The Library Bill of Rights is an unambiguous statement of principles that should govern the service of all libraries. While the documents represent the policies of the American Library Association, there is nothing to indicate that there would be a private cause of action based upon a violation.
Third, the "Library Bill of Rights" is just an aspirational creed for librarians—so it should not be applied generally via law:
Wiegand, Shirley A. “Reality Bites: The Collision of Rhetoric, Rights, and Reality and the Library Bill of Rights.” Library Trends, Library Trends: The Library Bill of Rights, 45, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 75–86. https://hdl.handle.net/2142/8065.
This creed, albeit lacking in legal support, might provide inspiration to library professionals and would provide them with a standard which goes beyond First Amendment mandate. It might be incorporated into the employment contract for library professionals, but it would not represent the current state of legal principles.
Fourth, at least one library has already removed from its policies all references to the "Library Bill of Rights" precisely because its inclusion of the word "age" is so harmful to the children of the community:
Schaper, Arthur. “Big Victory: Wyoming Library Board Cuts Ties With American Library Association Over Graphic Children’s Books; Board Didn’t Back Down to Mob of Pro-LGBT Leftists at Meeting; Also Modified Library’s Mission Statement; And More to Come!; A Culmination of Hard Work by Wyoming MassResistance Parents.” MassResistance, November 6, 2022. https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/22d/WY-Library-exits-ALA/index.html.
The Campbell County Public Library (CCPL) will no longer have any association with, nor be associated with The American Library Association (ALA) its affiliate organizations, subdivisions or subsidiaries thereof. No CCPL public funding will be used for any membership, training, informational services, or events sponsored by the aforementioned groups or any groups associated with them. CCPL policies will be adjusted to reflect the same.
Fifth and lastly, it is important to know that American Library Association has admitted it knows certain materials in schools are "s3xually inappropriate for minors," but it trains librarians to "reframe" such material as diversity and inclusion, before such matters even get to legislators. Yes, ALA is specifically targeting legislators for misinformation, and here we are, ALA is trying to get legislation passed to codify its "Library Bill of Rights." Read/watch:
But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s3xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody's right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library.
So librarians know such material is inappropriate for children, but they are still going to spread it just by "reframing" it, just by fooling people. Now these very same people want our legislators to pass laws codifying the reframing of inappropriate material that violates Board of Education v. Pico as "diversity" and "inclusion." Truly diabolical to fool legislators into allowing librarians to continue to harm children by making this "reframing" the law of the land.
Now back to the "Library Bills of Rights" and how "age" got inserted.
A small group of librarians just decided to add the word "age" to their "Library Bill of Rights" that they had previously made up. They were enamored with the anything-goes-at-any-age views of a 1960s radical sociologist named Edgar Friedenberg who wanted equality of rights between adult and child library uses. So they added the word "age." You see, before then, everyone knew you don't allow children school library access to inappropriate material. We all know it now too, we just let the librarians bully us into thinking it's a First Amendment right when it isn't.
Marxists in govt schools now have a powerful ally, the American Library Asso. (ALA). It has elected a new Pres., Emily Drabinski who describes herself as a “Marxist lesbian”. The ALA will now turn our libraries woke. As a librarian myself, I will be in the trenches fighting ALA!
To Xi Van Fleet @XVanFleet who experienced Marxist indoctrination first hand, Friedenberg looks like a Marxist because he believed parents have no authority over their children. That comes directly from the Marxist goal of abolition of family. It also comes from the Marxist goal of abolition of religion. When there is an absence of morality, there is no longer a difference between right and wrong. Therefore, anything goes in terms of books for children. See:
Why are school boards and the propagandists in the media defending rapists and attacking parents? The sobering answer to that question is that the abolition of family is essential to the successful infiltration of their ideology. If Marxists can abolish parental authority, the state can control the educational system—and ultimately society.
So this Marxist Edgar Friedenberg is the genesis of the word "age" in the "Library Bill of Rights." And now the American Library Association, itself Marxist, wants to get the "Library Bill of Rights" codified nationally. Should we allow that? Should legislators agree to that? If they do, what does that say about them?
But thanks to the out and open s3xual indoctrination of school children by school librarians using the "Library Bill of Rights" as both sword and shield, parents have finally began to wake up and have been successfully using US Supreme Court cases to get books like "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe and "All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto" by George M. Johnson pulled from public schools.
American Library Association reacted by giving those books awards and creating "Unite Against Book Bans" to lie about the legal removal of educationally unsuitable material from public schools and to cast the parents as a small minority of religious nuts driven by dark money to take away the alleged right to read of students.
Part of Unite Against Book Bans involves legislative efforts, like asking your legislator loaded and deceptive questions, like, "Would you introduce or sponsor legislation that would prohibit government entities from banning books from local libraries and schools because of the content, ideas, or viewpoints expressed in the book?" and "Would you introduce or sponsor legislation that would protect librarians and educators for doing their job of providing a variety of age-appropriate reading materials to students?" Source: Unite Against Book Bans; Candidate Questionnairehttps://uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UABB_CandidateQuestionnaire_02-ac.pdf
Those push questions exactly mirror the very law ALA seeks to get passed in Illinois. What a coincidence.
This legislation is so precious to ALA that it is funding school librarian Amanda Jones to sue parents for defamation, and in return Amanda Jones has asked her Louisiana legislature to pass laws to ban parents from challenging books. Another coincidence.
Moving forward, legislation is needed to protect your constituents against these types of unfounded, vicious attacks. I hope that you will not only speak up against their actions, but take action as a political leader to prevent this from continuing.
I myself have been named in the defamation lawsuit of another school librarian suing other parents, but I digress:
So let's get to the meat of the matter. Heard of the right to read for school children in schools? It's a "phantom right" perpetrated by American Library Association and other politically motivated groups, according to:
Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442.
Abstract:
What accounts for the persistence of school book banning controversies in the United States? In Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that book removal violates children's right to read, but school book challenges have only increased since then. I argue that Americans have been unable to put this controversy to rest because a misleading narrative of censorship framed the Pico case and has continued to frame the question since. That narrative depicted what is fundamentally a contest between competing adult authorities—educational professionals and parents—as instead a contest between children and adults. By reconstructing the development of this narrative by young adult authors and professional educators in the 1970s, I show that the invention of children's "right to read" in this period sought to discredit the legitimate democratic authority of school boards over curricular decisions in a way that left the conflict simmering and unresolvable.
This article is outstanding in a number of ways. It's well written, well researched, and it sheds light rarely seen elsewhere about the scam ALA plays on the American public. I may not republish it, but I do have permission to share it, so ask me if you would like a copy.
Here's what I learned from this article:
1
There's no such thing as a banned book. Children's "right to read" was invented to "discredit the legitimate democratic authority of school boards over curricular decisions."
2
Newspapers always target parents in book challenge cases yet they never raise the issue of how the inappropriate books got into the library in the first place. Censorship is always the issue, never the initial selection of the material. Why is that?
3
The right in book challenges is always the "student's right to read," rather than how such a book was selected in the first place.
4
Everyone's always critical of the parents challenging the books. No one looks at the "motives of the educators who select the works that end up being challenged." So parents and school boards suffer high scrutiny, while everyone overlooks "the motives and authority of the writers and educators in generating and assigning the controversial work." And University of Houston Professor Rita Koganzon is going to correct that shortfall now.
5
Basically, "young adult" or YA literature "became a vehicle for professional educators to counter the reticent child-rearing practices of families and communities by treating them as obstacles to their children's healthy development." Sound familiar with all the gender transitions going on without parental involvement? So YA authors hopped on ALA's censorship train and "position[ed] themselves as alternative sources of education against families." Then when their books got challenged, "they transformed their case for promoting YA books through library and curricular selection into a case for students' rights to read them, thereby obscuring their own pedagogical purposes behind rights claims."
6
"[A]uthors of YA books understood their work as an intervention into child-rearing and a subversion of reticent parents unwilling to expose their children to controversial s3xual and social issues." "[L]ike YA writers, educators saw their efforts in competition with those of parents and communities, if not in outright opposition to them. Both writers and educators viewed families as failing to equip their children with updated views about s[3]xuality and hot-button social issues and saw YA books in school libraries and curricula as a means to counteract them." "Having forged a strategic alliance, YA writers and professional educators transformed their battle for educational authority against parents into a claim about the rights of children against censorship, not only obscuring the nature of the conflict but also undermining their own pedagogical authority in the process."
7
In the 1970s, there never was any "book banning." It was just a contest between educators/writers and parents/communities. The tussle between the "book banners" and the "book selectors" is the heart of the problem. The made-up "right to read" just obscured this tussle. It was "conceived as a means of discrediting parental dissent and shielding educators from community opposition." This "rights talk" is all made up to for the writers/educators/librarians to fool people.
8
A "series of questionable assumptions about family life and children's experiences" was used to justify the entire YA genre, such as the assumption "parents were unjustifiably concealing [information] from [their children]." Author Judy Blume was part of the problem. "YA books did not so much reveal the facts of life to adolescents as transform the facts of life from peripheral eventualities into the defining cultural dramas of adolescence."
9
"Only once YA books had popularized this cultural script as the healthy way to grow up and made the case for the necessity of openness and publicity around these issues could parental reticence around them be questioned and overruled on the grounds that it impeded healthy development."
10
YA book authors were averse to "moralizing." Parents who didn't want to "reveal 'adult secrets'" were now "downright negligent." "Refusing to moralize allowed YA writers to overcome their distance from readers and claim to relate to them better than their parents." "Indeed, it was not unusual for journalists to describe YA writers as children."
11
"But writers could not triumph over parental objections to their work on the authority of their kinship with children alone. They required the affirmation and assistance of another set of authoritative adults—the experts in education and development. Because the primary buyers of YA books were schools and libraries, 'youth novelists and librarians therefore have a common cause. We want the attention of the newest generation,' Peck proclaimed (1973, 205)."
12
x NOTE: BECAUSE I AM PREPARING THIS FOR A ZOOM MEETING TONIGHT, I DON'T HAVE TIME TO FINISH THE TEXT AND WILL GET TO IT IN THE FUTURE. I WAS BASICALLY SUMMARIZING THE GRAPHICS, AND THEY ARE ALL PRESENT. SO I WILL PUBLISH THIS NOW IN THIS INCOMPLETE STATE. FORGIVE ME!
[NOTE ADDED 7 MAY 2023: Here is a link to the YouTube video of the Zoom meeting referenced in the above paragraph wherein I discuss the contents of this post—and more:
BEEN WARNING PEOPLE LIBRARIANS WANT LEGISLATION TO S3XUALIZE SCHOOL KIDS + STOP PARENTS FROM RAISING THE ALARM. THIS STORY SHOWS @ALALibrary STARTING IN ITS HOME STATE TO PASS JUST SUCH LEGISLATION. #UniteAgainstBookBans
— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® 🟧 (@SexHarassed) April 10, 2023
NOTE ADDED 11 APRIL 2023:
Another problem with the "Library Bill of Rights" is that librarians themselves intentionally mock it and ignore it when authors try to stop the s3xualizing of children, so why should it be codified if librarians themselves will toss it aside to meet their Marxist purposes? It's already provably arbitrarily applied. We can't have arbitrary legislation.
