Showing posts with label RobertDoyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RobertDoyle. Show all posts

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Banned Books Week Excerpt: Anal Sex Book for 12 Year Old Girl in Rancho Cucamonga Middle School

In the latest demonstration of just what a hoax is Banned Books Week, a public school rightly removed a book containing inappropriate material including graphic anal sex from its middle school library and is now scouring for more such books.  No doubt they will be labeled as "censors":
RANCHO CUCAMONGA (CBSLA.com) — Parents were shocked when they discovered a novel with erotic dialogue was being checked out and read by their children in their middle school’s library. 
The popular novel from the 1980s, “Rabbit is Rich” by famed author John Updike, has a number of graphic sexual scenes many parents say are unacceptable for younger readers to have access to. 
“I wouldn’t even want my kids to read it in high school,” Rancho Cucamonga resident Monica Reyes said. 
Another mother says that her 12-year-old daughter came home from Rancho Cucamonga Middle School one day with the adult novel, which she had checked out from the school’s library. 
The mother took to social media to voice her concern, sharing an erotic excerpt from the book, stating, “My 12 year old daughter brought home this book ‘Rabbit is Rich’ from Rancho Cucamonga Middle School library last week. She started reading it Monday and came to me concerned with the contents that were in the book. As I read it for myself, I became appalled by what I was reading as you can see for yourself. 
“As a concerned parent as to why this book would be in a kids school in the first place, I went directly to the principal’s office the very next day and the district.”


That is the response most people would expect since most people oppose sexually explicit materials in public schools.  Banned Books Week, created by a member of the Board of Directors of the Illinois ACLU who then joined the American Library Association and created the hoax, claims removal of such books is "censorship," 100% of the people who do this are "censors," censors usually act alone or with the support of people such as myself, and no one supports the "censors."

Predictably, Joan Bertin, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, complains about the removal of "literary classics ... like ... John Updike" books from public schools and calls it "censorship."  She decries the "never-ending assault on books in school that contain anything that someone finds controversial, provocative, unpleasant, or offensive":

Could literary classics by Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winning authors like William Faulkner, Toni Morrison, Tony Kushner and John Updike be next on the chopping block? You bet, if we accept the idea that children should be protected from learning about life or fed only sanitized glimpses.

That's right, schools must not protect twelve year old girls from learning the exact details of one way to allow someone to sodomize them and urinate on them and ejaculate on their faces, which is what the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School girl read in the John Updike book, excerpt below.  After all, someone will eventually do this to them, so they might as well learn how to react while "at a safe distance" in public school, which is an actual ALA argument for allowing this.  This from the NCAC, a cosponsor of Banned Books Week.  Why not call it Misogyny and Pedophilia Week?

Part of the hoax of Banned Books Week is to not reveal what inappropriate material is actually being removed.  Even where the claim is made right in the title to reveal such material, it is not done.  It is not done because if people knew the truth, they would agree such material is not for public schools and would have it removed:
Another part of the hoax is to proclaim all the awards a book wins.  Indeed, the John Updike school book won the 1982 National Book Award.  Why are censors trying to keep kids from award winning books?  Who are they to tell others what children can and cannot read?


School Librarians Are Trained To Mislead

Here is an example of directions school librarians are given to mislead people about such materials.  Notice the directions, shown in the graphics below, are written to turn aside questions about the inappropriateness of school material and use them as another opportunity for propaganda, like how libraries may not limit access based on "age" when the US Supreme Court says the exact opposite: "There are substantial Government interests at stake here: The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."

Notice the cover of "Banned Books" by Robert P. Doyle shows harmless books, not those like the John Updike one in the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School.  Notice the diktat not to engage in discussion on an issue such as pornography in the public school, instead, "Beware of manipulation.  Some reporters may ask leading questions, something like, 'Isn't it true that...?'  Make your own statement":







Media Fears Publishing Excerpts So People Remain Uninformed; I'll Inform Them

I'm going to reveal the truth about this John Updike school book, despite its winning awards, despite the excerpt below being pure porn, a word the American Library Association trains librarians not to use.  It is so outrageously pure porn in this school book that media will not even speak of it.  ALA benefits when media cannot even speak of the matter.  That way people do not really know the depth of the problem.  The school children can read it but the adults cannot discuss it.

So let's all grit our teeth and grind through an actual excerpt from a school book a twelve year old girl was reading until her mom reported the book to the school and the school removed it.  Think of the effect reading such material has on the mind of a young girl.  See if you think keeping a preteen school kid from reading this is "censorship."  There's a lot excerpted because ALA always claims context is important, so I'm providing context, not a single paragraph or two.

I know I'll get criticism and ridicule for reprinting this, but you just don't see this in the main stream media and someone has to do it to explain what is going on in public schools.  This is the kind of material in school books that ALA, NCAC, and many more claim is censorship to remove—you have to read this to believe it—this was in a public school—children actually read this—and Banned Books Week is the hoax needed to drive the ALA/ACLU's agenda ensuring school children retain access to such material:


Except of School Book from Rancho Cucamonga Middle School

Thelma with what breaks upon him like the clatter of an earthquake has come out of the bathroom. She is holding her underclothes in front of her, and with her back to him she sorts the underpants into the dirty pile the Harrisons keep beside the bureau, behind the straw wastebasket, and the bra, clean enough, back into the drawer, folded. This is the second time in this trip, he thinks drowsily, that he has seen her ass. Her body as she turns eclipses the bureau lamp and the front of her gathers shadow to itself, she advances timidly, as if wading into water. Her breasts sway forward as she bends to turn the light he switched off back on. She sits down on the edge of the bed.

His prick is still sleepy. She takes it into her hand. "You're not circumcised."

"No, they somehow weren't doing it at the hospital that day. Or maybe my mother had a theory, I don't know. I never asked. Sorry."

"It's lovely. Like a little bonnet." Sitting on the edge of the bed, more supple naked than he remembers her seeming with clothes on, Thelma bends and takes his prick in her mouth. Her body in the lamplight is a pale patchwork of faint tan and peeling pink and the natural yellowy tint of her skin. Her belly puckers into flat folds like stacked newspapers and the back of her hand as it holds the base of his prick with two fingers shows a dim lightning of blue veins. But her breath is warm and wet and the way that in lamplight individual white hairs snake as if singed through the mass of dull brown makes him want to reach out and stroke her head, or touch the rhythmic hollow in her jaw. He fears, though, interrupting the sensations she is giving him. She lifts a hand quickly to tuck back a piece of her hair, as if to let him better see.

He murmurs, "Beautiful." He is growing thick and long but still she forces her lips each time down to her fingers as they encircle him at his base. To give herself ease she spreads her legs; between her legs, one of them lying aslant across the bed edge, he sees emerging from a pubic bush more delicate and reddish than he would have dreamed a short white string. Unlike Janice's or Cindy's as he imagined it, Thelma's pussy is not opaque; it is a fuzz transparent upon the bruise-colored labia that with their tongue of white string look so lacking and defenseless Harry could cry. She too is near tears, perhaps from the effort of not gagging. She backs off and stares at the staring eye of his glans, swollen free of his foreskin. She pulls up the bonnet again and says crooningly, teasingly, "Such a serious little face." She kisses it lightly, once, twice, flicking her tongue, then bobs again, until it seems she must come up for air. "God," she sighs. "I've wanted to do that for so long. Come. Come, Harry. Come in my mouth. Come in my mouth and all over my face." Her voice sounds husky and mad saying this and all through her words Thelma does not stop gazing at the little slit of his where a single cloudy tear has now appeared. She licks it off.

"Have you really," he asks timidly, "liked me for a while?"

"Years," she says. "Years. And you never noticed. You shit. Always under Janice's thumb and mooning after silly Cindy. Well you know where Cindy is now. She's being screwed by my husband. He didn't want to, he said he'd rather go to bed with me." She snorts, in some grief of self-disgust, and plunges her mouth down again, and in the pinchy rush of sensation as he feels forced against the opening of her throat he wonders if he should accept her invitation.

"Wait," Harry says. "Shouldn't I do something for you first? If I come, it's all over."

"If you come, then you come again."

"Not at my age. I don't think."

"Your age. Always talking about your age." Thelma rests her face on his belly and gazes up at him, for the first time playful, her eyes at right angles to his disconcertingly. He has never noticed their color before: that indeterminate color called hazel but in the strong light overhead, and brightened by all her deep-throating, given a tawny pallor, an unthinking animal translucence. "I'm too excited to come," she tells him. "Anyway, Harry, I'm having my period and they're really bloody, every other month. I'm scared to find out why. In the months in between, these terrible cramps and hardly any show."

"See a doctor," he suggests.

"I see doctors all the time, they're useless. I'm dying, you know that, don't you?"

"Dying?"

"Well, maybe that's too dramatic a way of putting it. Nobody knows how long it'll take, and a lot of it depends upon me. The one thing I'm absolutely supposed not to do is go out in the sun. I was crazy to come down here, Ronnie tried to talk me out of it."

"Why did you?"

"Guess. I tell you, I'm crazy, Harry. I got to get you out of my system." And it seems she might make that sob of disgusted grief again, but she has reared up her head to look at his prick. All this talk of death has put it half to sleep again.

"This is this lupus?" he asks.

"Mmm," Thelma says. "Look. See the rash?" She pulls back her hair on both sides. "Isn't it pretty? That's from being so stupid in the sun Friday. I just wanted so badly to be like the rest of you, not to be an invalid. It was terrible Saturday. Your joints ache, your insides don't work. Ronnie offered to take me home for a shot of cortisone."

"He's very nice to you."

"He loves me."

His prick has stiffened again and she bends to it. "Thelma." He has not used her name before, this night. "Let me do something to you. I mean, equal rights and all that."

"You're not going down into all that blood."

"Let me suck these sweet things then." Her nipples are not bumply like Janice's but perfect as a baby's thumb-tips. Since it is his treat now he feels free to reach up and switch off the light over the bed. In the dark her rashes disappear and he can see her smile as she arranges herself to be served. She sits cross-legged, like Cindy did on the boat, women the flexible sex, and puts a pillow in her lap for his head. She puts a finger in his mouth and plays with her nipple and his tongue together. There is a tremble running through her like a radio not quite turned off. His hand finds her ass, its warm dents; there is a kind of glassy texture to Thelma's skin where Janice's has a touch of fine, fine sandpaper. His prick, lightly teased by her fingernails, has come back nicely. "Harry." Her voice presses into his ear. "I want to do something for you so you won't forget me, something you've never had with anybody else. I suppose other women have sucked you off?"

He shakes his head yes, which tugs the flesh of her breast.

"How many have you fucked up the ass?"

He lets her nipple slip from his mouth. "None. Never."

"You and Janice?"

"Oh God no. It never occurred to us."

"Harry. You're not fooling me?"

How dear that was, her old-fashioned "fooling." From talking to all those third-graders. "No, honestly. I thought only queers… Do you and Ronnie?"

"All the time. Well, a lot of the time. He loves it."

"And you?"

"It has its charms."

"Doesn't it hurt? I mean, he's big."

"At first. You use Vaseline. I'll get ours."

"Thelma, wait. Am I up to this?"

She laughs a syllable. "You're up." She slides away into the bathroom and while she is gone he stays enormous. She returns and anoints him thoroughly, with an icy expert touch. Harry shudders. Thelma lies down beside him with her back turned, curls forward as if to be shot from a cannon, and reaches behind to guide him. "Gently."

It seems it won't go, but suddenly it does. The medicinal odor of displaced Vaseline reaches his nostrils. The grip is tight at the base but beyond, where a cunt is all velvety suction and caress, there is no sensation: a void, a pure black box, a casket of perfect nothingness. He is in that void, past her tight ring of muscle. He asks, "May I come?"

"Please do." Her voice sounds faint and broken. Her spine and shoulder blades are taut.

It takes only a few thrusts, while he rubs her scalp with one hand and clamps her hip steady with the other. Where will his come go? Nowhere but mix with her shit. With sweet Thelma's sweet shit. They lie wordless and still together until his prick's slow shrivelling withdraws it. "O.K.," he says. "Thank you. That I won't forget."

"Promise?"

"I feel embarrassed. What does it do for you?"

"Makes me feel full of you. Makes me feel fucked up the ass. By lovely Harry Angstrom."

"Thelma," he admits, "I can't believe you're so fond of me. What have I done to deserve it?"

"Just existed. Just shed your light. Haven't you ever noticed, at parties or at the club, how I'm always at your side?"

"Well, not really. There aren't that many sides. I mean, we see you and Ronnie -"

"Janice and Cindy noticed. They knew you were who I'd want."

"Uh - not to, you know, milk this, but what is it about me that turns you on?"

"Oh darling. Everything. Your height and the way you move, as if you're still a skinny twenty-five. The way you never sit down anywhere without making sure there's a way out. Your little provisional smile, like a little boy at some party where the bullies might get him the next minute. Your good humor. You believe in people so - Webb, you hang on his words where nobody else pays 'any attention, and Janice, you're so proud of her it's pathetic. It's not as if she can do anything. Even her tennis, Doris Kaufmann was telling us, really -'

"Well it's nice to see her have fun at something, she's had a kind of dreary life."

"See? You're just terribly generous. You're so grateful to be anywhere, you think that tacky club and that hideous house of Cindy's are heaven. It's wonderful. You're so glad to be alive."

"Well, I mean, considering the alternative

"It kills me. I love you so much for it. And your hands. I've always loved your hands." Having sat up on the edge of the bed, she takes his left hand, lying idle, and kisses the big white moons of each fingernail. "And now your prick, with its little bonnet. Oh Harry I don't care if this kills me, coming down here, tonight is worth it."

That void, inside her. He can't take his mind from what he's discovered, that nothingness seen by his single eye. In the shadows, while humid blue moonlight and the rustle of palms seep through the louvers by the bed, he trusts himself to her as if speaking in prayer, talks to her about himself as he has talked to none other: about Nelson and the grudge he bears the kid and the grudge the boy bears him, and about his daughter, the daughter he thinks he has, grown and ignorant of him. He dares confide to Thelma, because she has let him fuck her up the ass in proof of love, his sense of miracle at being himself, himself instead of somebody else, and his old inkling, now fading in the energy crunch, that there was something that wanted him to find it, that he was here on earth on a kind of assignment.

"How lovely to think that," Thelma says. "It makes you" - the word is hard for her to find - "radiant. And sad." She gives him advice on some points. She thinks he should seek out Ruth and ask her point-blank if that is his daughter, and if so is there anything he can do to help? On the subject of Nelson, she thinks the child's problem may be an extension of Harry's; if he himself did not feel guilty about Jill's death and before that Rebecca's, he would feel less threatened by Nelson and more comfortable and kindly with him. "Remember," she says, "he's just a young man like you once were, looking for his path."

"But he's not like me!" Harry protests, having come at last into a presence where the full horror of this truth, the great falling-off, will be understood. "He's a goddam little Springer, through and through."

Thelma thinks he's more like Harry than he knows. Wanting to learn to hang glide - didn't he recognize himself in that? And the thing with two girls at once. Wasn't he, possibly, a bit jealous of Nelson?

"But I never had the impulse to screw Melanie," he confesses. "Or Pru either, much. They're both out of this world, somehow."

Of course, Thelma says. "You shouldn't want to fuck them. They're your daughters. Or Cindy either. You should want to fuck me. I'm your generation, Harry. I can see you. To those girls you're just an empty heap of years and money."

And, as they drift in talk away from the constellations of his life, she describes her marriage with Ronnie, his insecurities and worries beneath that braggart manner that she knows annoys Harry. "He was never a star like you, he never had that for a moment." She met him fairly well along in her twenties, when she was wondering if she'd die a spinster schoolteacher. Being old as she was, with some experience of men, and with a certain gift for letting go, she was amused by the things he thought of. For their honeymoon breakfast he jerked off into the scrambled eggs and they ate his fried jism with the rest. If you go along with everything on that side of Ronnie, he's wonderfully loyal, and docile, you could say. He has no interest in other women, she knows this for a fact, a curious fact even, given the nature of men. He's been a perfect father. When he was lower down on the totem pole at Schuylkill Mutual, he lost twenty pounds, staying awake nights worrying. Only in these last few years has the weight come back. When the first diagnosis of her lupus came through, he took it worse than she did, in a way. "For a woman past forty, Harry, when you've had children … If some Nazi or somebody came to me and they'd take either me or little Georgie, say - he's the one that's needed most help, so he comes to mind - it wouldn't be a hard choice. For Ronnie I think it might be. To lose me. He thinks what I do for him not every woman would. I suspect he's wrong but there it is." And she admits she likes his cock. But what Harry might not appreciate, being a man, is that a big one like Ronnie's doesn't change size that much when it's hard, just the angle changes. It doesn't go from being a little bonneted sleeping baby to a tall fierce soldier like this. She has worked him up again, idly toying as she talks, while the night outside their louvered window has grown utterly still, the last drunken shout and snatch of music long died, nothing astir but the incessant sighing of the sea and the piping of some high-pitched cricket they have down here. Courteously he offers to fuck her through her blood, and she refuses with an almost virginal fright, so that he wonders if on the excuse of her flow she is not holding this part of herself back from him, aloof from her love and shamelessness, pure for her marriage. She has explained, "When I realized I was falling in love with you, I was so mad at myself, I mean it couldn't contribute to anything. But then I came to see that something must be missing between me and Ronnie, or maybe in any life, so I tried to accept it, and even quietly enjoy it, just watching you. My little hairshirt." He has not kissed her yet on the mouth, but now having guessed at her guilty withholding of herself from being simply fucked he does. Guilt he can relate to. Her lips feel cool and dry, considering. Since she will not admit him to her cunt, as compromise he masturbates her while sitting on her face, glad he thought of washing where he did. Her tongue probes there and her fingers, as cool on top of his as if still filmed with Vaseline, guide his own as they find and then lose and find again the hooded little center that is her. She comes with a smothered cry and arches her back so this darkness at the center of her pale and smooth and unfamiliar form rises hungrily under his eyes, a cloud with a mouth, a fish lunging upwards out of water. Getting her breath, she returns the kindness and with him watches the white liquid lift and collapse in glutinous strings across her hand. She rubs his jism on her face, where it shines like sun lotion. The stillness outside is beginning to brighten, each leaf sharp in the soft air. Drunk on fatigue and selfexposure, he begs her to tell him something that he can do to her that Ronnie has never done. She gets into the bathtub and has him urinate on her. "It's hot!" she exclaims, her sallow skin drummed upon in designs such as men and boys drill in the snow. They reverse the experience, Thelma awkwardly straddling, and having to laugh at her own impotence, looking for the right release in the maze of her womanly insides. Above him as he waits her bush has a masculine jut, but when her stream comes, it dribbles sideways; women cannot aim, he sees. And her claim of heat seems to him exaggerated; it is more like coffee or tea one lets cool too long at the edge of the desk and then must drink in a few gulps, this side of tepid. Having tried together to shower the ammoniac scent of urine off their skins, Thelma and Harry fall asleep among the stripes of dawn now welling through the louvers, they sleep as if not a few more stolen hours but an entire married life of sanctioned intimacy stretches unto death before them.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/09/bbw.html

On Twitter: @BannedBooksWeek @NCACensorship @OIF @VaselineBrand



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Chicago Public Library Openly Allows Porn Despite the Law and Chicago Sun-Times Gives One-Sided Report to Maintain Status Quo

Many libraries allow porn viewing despite the law, so many that the American Library Association has been called out for misleading a third of American communities by the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, and, as a result, ALA has been named as one of the nation's leading porn facilitators.

But it is not often that you see libraries just come out and say porn is just fine and dandy with them:
Ruth Lednicer, director of marketing and communications for Chicago Public Library, said this is why Chicago libraries don't use filters. 
"In terms of pornography, it is legal."
Source:


Contrast the Chicago Public Library's statement that porn in libraries is legal with the US Supreme Court in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003): "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights....  ....  Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason."

Now consider the Chicago Public Library is absolutely rife with porn viewing and the crimes that result therefrom, the patrons can't stand it, but the library forces it on them anyway.

See and sign related petition:
Before I discuss the precise propaganda from the American Library Association, the Illinois Library Association, the Chicago Public Library, and the Chicago Sun-Times, all designed to intentionally mislead people into maintaining the status quo of no filters and high crime in the libraries, let me first include some Chicago Public Library crime stories from the past.  This is important because the public is told and media prints unchallenged that such crimes rarely happen:
(CBS) NAPERVILLE, Ill. Most people view libraries as a safe place to study and spend time.  
But the CBS 2 Investigators obtained security tapes and official internal library files from more than a dozen libraries that show serious crimes and inappropriate behavior are happening across the city and suburbs.

As Dave Savini reports, more and more of these crimes are kept confidential and police are not being called.
....
Just how safe is your public library?  Our 2 Investigators obtained thousands of confidential files from a dozen libraries in the suburbs and Chicago and found cases of indecent acts, violent attacks and sex crimes, raising serious safety questions about libraries and your safety.

In addition to Naperville, some of the libraries which turned over their internal files included ... Chicago.  The investigation was launched after a series of complaints to CBS 2 from various library patrons about crime, pornography and library security.

Some library users feared crimes occurring at libraries were not being reported to police unless a patron called 911.
....
Bland, a former teacher, says she was at Chicago's Harold Washington Library when she saw men and children watching Internet pornography.  She says library staff refused to do anything.

"If someone says something you need to call police," Bland said.

At Harold Washington Library alone we found 138 cases of assault, battery and disorderly conduct; 127 thefts; and 32 sex crimes over the past 2 1/2 years.

"Oh my goodness, I didn't know it was all this," Bland said.
....
"You have to report this stuff," said Judith Krug with the American Library Association.

American Library Association officials say librarians must report crimes to police.  An internal report within the library is not enough.

"While the problems are few in number, when they occur they need to be dealt with and dealt with quickly," Krug said.
....
Police say to make matters worse if a suspect leaves the library before officers get there, a little known law called the Library Confidentiality Act goes into affect and libraries are not allowed to tell police the name of the suspect without a court order.
....
Chicago ... public library officials say they have private security guards and they help decide when to call police.  They ... say they are safe, considering the thousands of people who use them weekly.
....
(CBS) NAPERVILLE, Ill. A little-known law may be turning your local library into a safe haven for criminals.

Thursday night, CBS 2's Save Savini exposed serious crimes and inappropriate behavior going on at libraries in the city and suburbs, and being kept confidential.

Friday CBS 2 takes a look at why police say libraries are hindering their efforts to stop crime.

"I don't understand why the library would protect somebody like that," said Lauren Gauger.

She is talking about Richard Blaszak.

Thursday, CBS 2 Investigators reported the story of Richard Blaszak, who was seen touching himself at the Naperville library on two separate occasions. Police were called by upset patrons.

"When we arrived, we were not able to quickly identify that person," said Chief David Dial of the Naperville Police Department.

Police were not able to arrest Blaszak immediately because he had left before they arrived. That placed Blaszak under the protection of a little-known law called the Library Confidentiality Act.

"We have helped these laws be created and passed because they balance the right of the users of the libraries with the rights of law enforcement officer," said Judith Krug of the American Library Association.

The current law prohibits library staff from revealing the identity of a patron to police once they have left the library.
"I think it protects criminals unduly. We do not want to tread on anybody's rights to privacy or anything else but we do not believe libraries should be sanctuaries for criminals," said Dial.

A court order is needed before a library will release a patron's personal information, causing what police say are costly delays in catching suspects.

Police now want the current confidentiality laws amended to require only probable cause rather than a court order from police.

"We would certainly look at it to see if it is something that we could use," Krug said.

Blaszak pled guilty and state's attorney's say he was in violation of his parole when 2 Investigators found him.

Police are working with State Repesentative Joe Dunn on legislation that would give police access to library records immediately in cases of imminent danger.

They say waiting for a court order in the case of child abduction would be impractical.
See also the following story on a registered sex offender viewing child porn in a Chicago public library and what happened when the news crew filmed from outside the library when first setting up their cameras to get some background shots for the news package (which I know from a personal conversation with the reporter at that time):
As the CBS Channel 2 cameraman prepared to film Hanson standing on the sidewalk out in front of the Mt. Greenwood library, he zoomed in through the front window to the bank of Internet computers only to catch another middle-aged man in the midst of a porn-viewing session!

So an investigative media report shows rampant crimes in the Chicago Public Library and area libraries, efforts to cover up these crimes, a call by the then de facto leader of the ALA saying the crimes should have been reported immediately, a law that hinders the police in apprehending criminals, and porn so bad that even when a news crew takes some background shots for a news package, he first focuses in from outside the library on ... a guy viewing porn on a computer near the window.  Keep all this in mind as we read the story the Chicago Sun-Times "reported," but actually merely repeated.

Remarkably, as a result of the CBS 2 investigative reporting exposing rampant crime in Chicago and area libraries, the Illinois Library Association's leader Bob Doyle wrote a report advising libraries exactly how to thwart police and media investigations as much as legally possible and how to propagandize the issue:
Just to show how Bob Doyle's report was absolutely useless for protecting library patrons from harm but outstanding as to misleading people and the media, here we see media saying that porn may be a First Amendment right in libraries, which it is not, but at least she exposes the supersaturation of porn in the Harold Washington Library in Chicago.  See for yourself as a little girl gets exposed to a massive dose of hardcore porn, and the library director blames the parent:



Indeed, as a result of that story, one family started an entire blog about the porn at the Harold Washington Library.  See:
The Chicago Public Library protects the open and rampant use of Internet pornography by library patrons. This blog is an attempt to bring awareness to this issue and enact change.
And here is Inside Edition on the Harold Washington Library:
Notice: "The Chicago Public Library Director of Marketing Ruth Lednicer gave this statement: ... each Adult Computer in the library has been installed with a privacy screen, which prevents patrons from seeing what the person next to them is viewing."  No, it does not prevent others from seeing porn, and Lednicer knows it.  How do I know she knows it?  Because about nine years earlier the US Supreme Court said Internet filters work best, not privacy screens, and not moving the deck chairs on the Titanic; they even make things worse:
Moving terminals to places where their displays cannot easily be seen by other patrons, or installing privacy screens or recessed monitors, would not address a library's interest in preventing patrons from deliberately using its computers to view online pornography.  To the contrary, these alternatives would make it easier for patrons to do so.
So privacy screens do not do what Lednicer claims.  Rather, they make it easier for patrons to view pornography.  So Lednicer's propaganda is likely part of the reason pornography in Chicago libraries is so rampant.  Watch as she repeats this false statement in the Chicago Sun-Times story, as we will see below.

Now I am going to spell out the propaganda contained in the Chicago Sun-Times story that is simply flat out false and/or misleading, and notice the similarity to past propaganda that only enables the long term porn crimes to keep rolling in.  I will intercalate my comments within the story in bold.  Keep in mind the small sample of past massive problems in Chicago libraries reported and unreported that I presented above.  (By the way, the Chicago Sun-Times censored out my comment I tried to leave on its site because I provided a sentence or two of balance, such as advising it was perfectly legal to remove porn from public libraries):


by Anna Heling 
Chicago Sun-Times 
14 April 2013

After one River North mom saw a library patron using one of the free computers to watch porn, it took but a day before a fellow mom drafted a petition to block porn at public libraries.

Tamara Maple, 45, posted the petition on Change.org shortly after reading the fellow mom’s story on an online parenting forum they both frequent.

“Once I saw it, I just felt compelled to take action,” Maple said. “I certainly don’t support censorship, but at the same time I think there’s a time and a place for things like that. It’s important for people to feel safe and comfortable in a public place like a library.”  (Blocking porn from public libraries is perfectly legal and it is not censorship.  The purpose of constantly and falsely claiming porn must be allowed is to fool people into thinking it is censorship to block porn from libraries.  As shown here, even a parent who is complaining about porn in the library feels she has to point out she "certainly don't support censorship."  Folks, it is NEVER censorship to legally block legal porn from public libraries.  You NEVER need to worry about censorship.)

The Lincoln Park resident plans to take it to her alderman, Scott Waguespack (32nd), whether her petition garners a flurry of signatures or not.  (The ALA and the Illinois Library Association anticipate people will complain to politicians so they advise librarians to regularly mislead the government officials with false library censorship concerns so when parents finally do show up, the government official will have already been converted to the ALA/ILA's way of thinking that is unmoored from any law, common sense, or community standards.  An example is what I mentioned above, namely, "Libraries as Sanctuaries for Criminals?," by Robert P. Doyle, Illinois Library Association, circa late 2006 - early 2007.)

Maple, mother to 5-year-old Zach, is especially concerned that kids could easily be exposed to the explicit content.  (Could be?  Here the media falls down on the job as this library is absolutely rife with regular porn viewing and resultant harms including criminal activity.  I showed many examples above.  Some having videos, where you can watch library patrons so disgusted they refuse to even touch the keyboards.  By leaving out the constant problems resulting from the constant porn viewing over the years, the Chicago Sun-Times casts the story as only this one mother who is needlessly shielding her child from some imagined harm that rarely happens anyway.)

“How do they know that the child isn’t going to press the back space and end up viewing pornographic images?” she asked.  (Well as the news videos show, they don't even have to do that.  They simply need to walk around in the libraries to get all the eyeful they'll ever need.  And, as Dr. Mary Anne Layden explains in the video immediately below, porn viewing permanently harms children, and library policy is "a national scandal" that is directly at fault.  "Libraries have become the new red light district.")

The library's open-floor layout worries the River North mom who saw the incident, and who spoke on condition of anonymity.  She noted that the content was easily viewable from the check-out desk.  (Again, the Chicago Sun-Times casts this story as if only this one mother has a problem with the way the furniture is arranged.  No mention of how the US Supreme Court revealed furniture arrangements only exacerbate the porn viewing problems.)

She’s thankful her 6-month-old wasn't older when they saw it: “I was imagining standing there with my 10-year-old son and him saying, 'Mommy, what's that?’”

But blocking porn, libraries say, may do more harm than good.  (At least the media adds "libraries say," but the entire remainder of the article is only what libraries say.  There is absolutely no balance whatsoever.  None.  Zero.  I'll provide in comments below some balance the media completely missed.  And really, does anyone here thing blocking porn does more harm than good?  This library is actually saying blocking porn is harmful!?!  To the policies of the ALA and the ILA and the ACLU, maybe, but not the patrons.  Rather, as I have shown above, porn is harming people in libraries.)

“Even if you do have filters on computers, they provide that false sense of security,” said Bob Doyle, executive director of the Illinois Library Association.  (That is flat out false.  This is the guy who responded to the undercover media investigations by writing a report on how best to thwart police investigations of library crime.  In reality, filters work.  Even the ALA's top leader on library filters admitted this.  So, since filters work, they provide actual security, not a "false sense of security."  Bob Doyle is an expert in this area so he knows filters work, he knows the ALA said they work, he simply wants to continue to mislead the people of Illinois.) “There is some material that some people would consider to be inappropriate that still can be accessed, and at the same time, they can block access to constitutionally protected speech.”  (This is correct, but misleading.  Worse, the Chicago Sun-Times lets it stand.  In reality, this concern has already been asked and answered by the US Supreme Court almost ten years ago.  You simply ask the librarian to temporarily lift the filter.  Easy as pie.  Did Robert Doyle advise about that?  No.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times disclose that?  No.  So readers are left thinking filters might block things and you're stuck.  No mention that the US Supreme Court allowed for unblocks.  No mention that the libraries themselves block 7/8ths of the Internet by not making available the Deep Web.  So if anything's blocking access, it's the libraries, not the filters.)

Doyle said that the decision whether or not content should be blocked is left up to the local libraries. (This is not only deceptive but devious in its deceptiveness.  Robert Doyle knows he does not want local libraries having local control.  When state legislation to allow local libraries to filter the Internet was raised in Illinois, Robert Doyle lead the effort to kill it and its allowance for local library control by convincing many Illinois libraries to either cut off Internet access or purposefully crank up all filters to the highest level just to make it impossible for patrons to access the Internet.  He had no right to take away services from the various communities, but it shows his attitude as to who controls public libraries.  Then, with filters now at max or computers turned off thanks to Robert Doyle and the ILA, patrons were given a sheet of paper to contact their legislators to stop the law that would have given filtering control to local public libraries.  Robert Doyle did this.  It was pure propaganda, pure fakery, but he did this.  He stopped local control of libraries just as he led libraries to cut off services to their own citizens.  Yet here he is making a show of saying "the decision whether or not content should be blocked is left up to the local libraries." It most certainly is not.  Doyle knows it.  I'm in New Jersey and I know it.  So why didn't the Chicago Sun-Times know it and wrote about it?) Ruth Lednicer, director of marketing and communications for Chicago Public Library, said this is why Chicago libraries don’t use filters.

“In terms of pornography, it is legal.  (Absolutely false.  100% flat out false.  US v. ALA shows there is no First Amendment right to porn in public libraries.  But does the Chicago Sun-Times challenge her on this or provide balance?  No.  Does it reveal she's telling the same lies in the Inside Edition report from 2012?  No.  And I called the Chicago Sun-Times.  Has it returned my call?  No.  It even censored out my comment from its web site.)  If someone complains, we will ask someone to go to a more appropriate site,” she said. (And, because it's so rampant, few complain.  They simply stop going to that library.  The porn viewers have more rights than the non-porn viewers.) “We don’t use filters because filters filter out things you legitimately want to see, but then don’t filter out other things that you would want to block. (Absolutely false.  100% flat out false.  Even the ALA now admits filters work and blocking out breast cancer is an old excuse.  And has the Chicago Sun-Times provided accurate information to indicate this?  No.  Has it provided any balance whatsoever?  No.) That’s the stance we take at this time.”

Lednicer said libraries have separate computers for children and adults. The computers for adults have privacy screens that block content from other patrons unless they’re standing directly behind the computer.  She said the screen “looks like a shade of some type.”  (Such screens are completely useless. Anyone can see past them.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times mention this?  No.  Did it show Lednicer making the same false statements on the 2012 Inside Edition report?  No.  Did it reveal the US Supreme Court said such privacy screens not only fail to block porn but the actually exacerbate the problem as I mentioned above?  No.  No balance.  No truth.  Neither from the library spokeswoman, nor from the media.)

If there was supposed to be a shade on this computer, it wasn't there Wednesday, the River North mom said.  (Or maybe there was, but since they don't work, you'd think it was missing.)

The mom took her baby to the library, at 310 W. Division, about 3 p.m. on April 3.  She said a man was watching the explicit material on a computer 10 feet in front of the circulation desk and was grunting and making other "really inappropriate noises.”"

She told a librarian, whose reaction wasn't what she predicted.

“She didn’t seem taken back by it at all,” she said. “She said nonchalantly that (libraries) can't censor legal material. It’s certainly not something I ever would’ve imagined would be legal. It was just a really vulgar thing. . . . It wasn’t some mild pornography.”  (Yes, libraries can block porn, and it is not censorship, so this patron was lied to, and Bob Doyle of the ILA wrote a guide falsely implying porn was protected by the First Amendment in libraries that the library obviously followed to the tee.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times disclose any of this?  No.)

Lednicer said the woman's complaint about porn wasn't the library's first.

“It's not common, but it happens from time to time,” Lednicer said.  (Not common?  Did you see how common it was in the reports I provided above?  Did you see all the crime *not* reported to the police, so much that the de facto ALA leader (and former Illinois state ACLU director) had to remind librarians to call the police?  Chicago Sun-Times, are you going to let this lie go unchallenged?  Obviously yes.  So the librarian is lying, and the media is letting the lie go unchallenged.  Not a single person can make an informed decision on library Internet filtering with this type of propaganda.) “The proper response of the librarian should have been to say, ‘Someone has complained. We ask you to go to another site.’ ”  (No, not according to Bob Doyle's report.  Besides, the proper response would be to say porn viewing is not allowed in the library and you must stop viewing porn immediately or the library will take appropriate action.  Did the Chicago Sun-Times give any balance? Any analysis?  Or is it just repeating the library's propaganda that defies the law, common sense, and community standards.  

 So long as the Chicago media continues to allow itself to be Bob Doyle's or Ruth Lednicer's microphone, the people will continue to suffer the harms of porn that it is perfectly legal to curtail, but they've been misled into thinking otherwise.  

 I am hoping my writing here at least begins the process of lifting the curtain of propaganda from the eyes of the public and the politicians who apparently have been under a full frontal false campaign designed to convince people there's nothing that can be done to curtail the supposed First Amendment right to porn in public libraries.  

 And this library being centered in the very town where the ALA practices its library porn facilitation likely makes it even harder to restore the libraries to local control based on informed consent, not misinformed conversion.  "In terms of pornography, it is legal."  No, not in public libraries.

 And maybe it is time to take on that library confidentiality law that is really a sexual crime freedom law, no?)


NOTE ADDED 29 JULY 2013:

I have learned this post has become part of a library school student's course work:
  • "Pressure Groups and Library Collection Development: Attempts to Influence Library Collections, and Best Practices for Library Response," by Christy L. Davis, Emporia State University, April 2013, 855 Collection Development for Dr. Donna Reed:
    ABSTRACT: An examination of various United States pressure groups' messages regarding how to influence or censor library collection content.  Looks at the beliefs and goals of several different groups that have web presences and who wish to challenge and change the material holdings, collection development and Internet policies of school and public libraries.  Describes what libraries can do to resist attempts of control and censorship by these groups and how libraries can maintain intellectual freedom standards and First Amendment rights for their library patrons.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Harold Washington Library Center, 400 South State Street, Chicago, IL 60605, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)