Showing posts with label RoxburyPublicLibrary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RoxburyPublicLibrary. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

How State Library Associations Endanger Children; NJ Libraries and You: Not Perfect Together

Children throughout New Jersey are endangered by the New Jersey Library Association [NJLA] and the New Jersey State Library [NJSL].  NJSL provides training for all members of library boards of trustees.  NJLA delivers significant portions of that NJSL training.  NJLA teaches that NJ libraries are open public fora where anything goes so they may not block pornography as that would violate First Amendment freedoms.  That is 100% opposite of the law.  As a result, some boards of trustees oppose filtering out porn, thereby harming children statewide, let alone leaving librarians exposed to sexual harassment and municipalities exposed to such lawsuits.  NJ libraries and you: Not perfect together.

The New Jersey State Library history is interesting:

The New Jersey State Library dates its official inception to 1796 when, for the first time, the Legislature assigned responsibility for its collection of books to an individual, the Clerk of the House.  But the origin of the State Library is actually much earlier.  It began as a collection of books maintained by the New Jersey Assembly when New Jersey was an English colony.  Over time this collection of books grew until it became a reference collection used by members of both houses of the legislature. Eventually New Jersey became a state and the collection came to be called the State's library.   
Source: "The Origins and Early Years of the New Jersey State Library," by John Shaw, New Jersey State Library, 10 September 2010.
NJSL, a state entity since colonial times, now provides training to all NJ library trustees, likely using NJ tax revenue.  Here's one announcement:
That training includes misinformation about public library law that misleads trustees into acting against the interests of their own patrons and library employees.  Specifically, the training includes that public libraries are public fora for ideas.  For example, here is NJSL-provided training from NJLA Executive Director Pat Tumulty:



Source:  "New Jersey Public Libraries:  A Manual for Trustees, Revised Edition," NJ State Library, NJ State Library, October 2005.  I confirmed this training is current as shown above to the present date.

The training is now facilitated by the American Library Association [ALA] for NJSL, still using Pat Tumulty's false legal advice:
The problem is, the US Supreme Court shows what the NJSL is teaching to library trustees and what the ALA is facilitating is not true.  Rather, it is legally false.  And it's the key to any library's excuse for allowing porn despite the law, despite community standards, and despite common sense.  Combine that with people thinking librarians must know the law and it's easy to understand why communities are tricked into allowing porn in their libraries.  Library trustees are trained in something the opposite of the law.

It is not true that a "[p]ublic library is a public forum for ideas," as shown in the NJSL/NJLA/ALA training.  That is false.  The US Supreme Court found the exact opposite.  The Court specifically addressed that issue and decided one way, and the NJSL/NJLA/ALA is intentionally teaching the opposite.  We are all here discussing porn in public libraries because they intentionally teach the opposite of the law.

The US Supreme Court said, "Internet access in public libraries is neither a 'traditional' nor a 'designated' public forum."  "Internet terminals are not acquired by a library in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves."  See United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  In other words, a public library is NOT a public forum for ideas—and pornography is not "ideas" anyway.

And here's something ALA/NJSL/NJLA does not teach.  US v. ALA held, "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."  But they don't, so they don't teach that.

The key here is that if you claim despite the law that a public library is an open public forum where anything goes, then you may not block pornography since that is "constitutionally protected material" and anything goes.

So NJSL is teaching something completely the opposite of the law, and using our tax money to do it.  That thereby empowers library trustees to think pornography may not be blocked from public libraries.  Essentially, NJSL misleads library trustees into thinking the opposite of the law, then those library trustees mislead your community into allowing porn on computers in your public libraries.

NJSL accomplishes this by using Pat Tumulty, the Executive Director of the NJLA, to teach that false lesson shown above.  Pat Tumulty essentially says NJ libraries must carry porn.  Got that?  Let me show you a news broadcast about a child allegedly viewing porn in the Roxbury Public Library in Morris County, NJ.  You will see me and Pat Tumulty.  You'll also hear about library attorney Ann Grossi, but I'll get to her later.  For now, watch Pat Tumulty approve pornography in NJ public libraries, and remember, she's teaching library trustees for the NJSL and the ALA:

As Walt Kane said: "Pat Tumulty is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Library Association.  She says that towns and libraries simply cannot censor what people watch.  [Pat Tumulty:] 'It is a public place and I think people have to recognize that again, public dollars don't necessarily mean I can proscribe what you see and you can proscribe what I see.'"  Compare that to the training she provides for the NJSL saying, "Public library is a public forum for ideas."  Here she says, "It is a public place and I think people have to recognize that...."  It's essentially the same thing, only you can see her saying it in the context of enabling porn in NJ's public libraries.

And I responded to her publicly when a local radio host discussed the Roxbury matter.  Let's go back in time to hear what I said:
  • "The Joe Crummey Show," Joe Crummey, WABC 770AM, 27 June 2011.  [The full excerpt is 47:59-54:11 & 56:01-1:03:31.  I appear at 56:48-58:21.  Note frequent/popular caller "Greg from Chatham" calls Pat Tumulty a "liberal, progressive, socialist."]

That's Pat Tumulty, the Executive Director of NJLA, using her position to promote her law-defying ideas that result in more porn harming more people in our communities.  She even advises the NJ Office of Legislative Services on porn in NJ public libraries:
Pat T. reported that she had a call from the Office of Legislative Services regarding pornography in public libraries as a result of the News 12 NJ story involving a complaint by a patron that her child saw “pornography” at a local library.  Eileen P. has done some research and found that 25 states have legislation addressing access to content in libraries in some way. Pat commented that is a complicated issue, made especially difficult when the term “pornography” is used to frame the debate. (Pat prefers the term “adult content”.  Eileen P. suggested that Public Policy discuss the issue at an upcoming meeting.  The board agreed.  

And that's NJSL using our tax dollars to push porn in our communities.

Now let's look at Ann Grossi.  She's the library attorney in Roxbury and also Montville.  How does she fit into the picture?

Ann Grossi uses her position as library attorney to ensure Roxbury and Montville citizens comply with Pat Tumulty's law-defying diktat as promulgated by NJSL/ALA.  Both those communities asked me to assist them in removing porn from their public libraries.  I did, but in the end, they believed they were forced to listen to the attorney's advice because they paid for it.  And they paid for it alright.  Their community libraries remain infected with pornography.


Remember in the video when Ann Grossi was quoted as saying, "if the library attempts to restrict access, regardless of how offensive, it would be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States"?  Well that's false.  The US v. ALA case decided the exact opposite, in the very first sentence of the case so you can't miss it: "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  It's the exact opposite.  And Roxbury and Montville are following the exact opposite of the law.

Remember how she said she was reviewing the policy after it was challenged?  Remember how Walt Kane asked if I was satisfied with that?  I said, "well, if she's the one who's doing the review, then it won't make a difference."  And indeed, after the review, the policy is essentially the same and the library still allows porn despite the law.

Ann Grossi
I have filed an ethics complaint against Ann Grossi and the case is under review so I am not at liberty to discuss the details, but here is my initial filing:


What about NJ schools?  Any problems there?  Well, yes.  Get this.  The Rancocas Valley Regional High School had a book featuring two people having anal sex.  When an effort was made to review the book for compliance with school book selection policy, the school librarian went over the head of her principle and jumped straight up to the American Library Association.  ALA brought all guns to bear on the school, something it does in community after community nationwide.  Fortunately, this community did not buckle and the book was removed from the school:

Listen to this, because of my involvement in that matter, I attended an NJLA conference to hear the book's author speak about its having been "censored."  Coincidentally, the author had just been featured by the ALA on its annual list of the top ten most challenged books.  At the end of her talk I asked a softball question, how did she feel about being on the ALA's new list.  Well, the author gushed with enthusiasm and excitement as she explained how excited she was.  She said she asked the ALA how her book got to be in the top ten list.  She said the ALA responded that other books had in fact been challenged more than hers, but because hers dealt with homosexuality and was actually removed, ALA decided to push the book higher up the list.  In other words, the ALA faked the list!  And the author admitted essentially that in response to a question I asked.  And I recorded her response and placed it on my blog for all to hear.  No wonder the ALA lists me as its top opponent!  Have a listen:

The question is, given the ALA influence in our public schools and our public libraries, given NJSL and Pat Tumulty and Ann Grossi are all marching to the same porn-pushing tune, who is playing that tune?  It's the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union whose Illinois state board member joined the ALA and changed forever how librarians approached children:

That was over four decades ago but librarians are still talking about it to this very day:
  • "Sunday Meditation: Are We Still Endowed by Our Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights?," by Will Manley, Will Unwound, 11 August 2013, No.823, emphasis added:
    What I found was that up until the mid 1960s there was a clear consensus that one of the main objectives of the children's department was to provide wholesome materials that would build "character."  This goal was clearly rooted in the Judeo Christian principles upon which America was founded.  That all changed in the turmoil of the 60s when "intellectual freedom" now became the value the library profession was rooted upon.  My research revealed that with each passing decade the profession's definition of intellectual freedom became more and more of an "anything goes" proposition.

    By the turn of the century, librarians were even vehemently espousing their right to provide pornography on the internet to children.  At that time I was a lone wolf speaking out in favor of children's room filters.  I have been universally condemned in the profession for taking that position.

    I wonder if there are any limits to library intellectual freedom in libraries today.  Clearly the idea of the library as a place to build character by providing wholesome materials to children would be laughed at today.  But on the other extreme are there any boundaries to intellectual freedom in libraries?  Is the whole notion of morality obsolete and are our public institutions no longer rooted in the same religious principles that can be found in the Declaration of Independence?

Will Manley.  He's the same gent who revealed that "the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography":

But what is the ALA to which key people in NJ communities are so in thrall that entire communities are misled into thinking they must allow porn?


ALA allows itself to be used as the pretty face to cover up George Soros's getting access to American school children and his using American libraries as distribution points for his propaganda:

ALA even brags what it can do with Soros's Open Society Institute millions given there are more libraries than there are McDonald's Restaurants (and one of its speakers, Cory Doctorow, advises children to bypass parental Internet filters, jailbreak electronic locks on devices, etc., and says (14:35) "and frankly, you can't say bad things about a librarian without sounding like some kind of a jerk, so you folks are really well positioned to carry this banner"):

ALA, supposedly opposed to the "censorship" of keeping children from inappropriate material, itself uses censorship to promote radical Islam.  You have to read these to see how misguided is the American Library Association and keep it in mind when ALA comes to your town to promote its worldview about censorship:

ALA even works underhandedly in a number of ways, all with the intention of misleading local communities into thinking what the ALA wants them to think, much like the false training for the library trustees.  That way communities make decisions they think are their own but are really manufactured by the ALA; where the ALA has no power to force a community to do anything, if it can get the people to think the way the ALA thinks, the community will do what the ALA wants.  For example:
Letter from anti-filtering advocate to library director about $1,000 grant from ALA.
That sounds pretty underhanded to me.  But what else has ALA done that our leading librarian at NJLA, a library attorney running for Morris County Clerk, and our tax-support NJSL finds so alluring that they need to mislead people into following:
That's the ALA.  That's what NJSL, NJLA, and a politically-active library attorney push?  The underhanded ALA that anonymously edits Wikipedia, outs marital infidelities of baseball players, and slips walking around money quietly to its acolytes.  The ALA that misleads a third of American communities and is one of the nation's leading porn purveyors and contributors to the sexual exploitation of women.  One begins to understand why communities need to be misled into following ALA diktat.  One sees why outright lying is needed to mislead people into doing what the ALA/NJLA wants.

In reality, you can stop this.  You are now armed with information to counter the misinformation you will hear from the pro-porn, anti-filtering advocates.  You now see this is a battle with an underhanded organization that will stop at nothing to achieve its goals.  You now see how key people in key positions can mislead people by the hundreds, like with NJSL teaching all library trustees that libraries are open public fora where anything goes and porn may not be blocked.

It is up to you to go back to your communities and keep your newly trained ears open for people trying to push themselves on your children and your community.  As soon as you see it, find out what's going on.  If you determine a response is needed, get educated then take action.  For example, here's a protest by a Florida public school teacher who walked her third grade class across the street for a public library tour only to have her kids see xxx porn, and the library refused to stop it:

Basically, the key is to educate people about the issues so they can make informed decisions for themselves.  Show exactly where the pro-porn, anti-filtering advocates are misleading, and back up your statements with reliable sources, like the US Supreme Court, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, even your local library law.

As to NJSL using our taxpayer money to teach all library trustees something that's legally false so as to mislead them into excusing porn on the computers in our public libraries, that is something about which we should educate Governor Christie.  In a nutshell, NJSL teaches that libraries are open public places where anything goes, including Internet porn, but that has been shown to be legally false by the US Supreme Court that held that libraries are not and that governments may block out porn as they have since libraries started.  As a result, the very people in key positions to control local libraries have been indoctrinated to act against the law in a manner that seriously harms communities.  Is this insidious or what?

As to the ALA teaching all library trustees library law it knows to be false, that's just another in a long line of reasons why it's time to stop thinking of ALA as authoritative on libraries and time to start restoring local control to our local libraries.



Note:  The above is approximately the text of a speech given to a New Jersey audience, however, library associations nationwide likely mislead similarly, particularly because ALA sets the tone.


Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 13, 2013

Ethics Complaint Against Library Attorney Ann Grossi for Misleading Roxbury and Montville, NJ

This is the substantive portion of an attorney ethics complaint being filed against Ann Grossi, Esq., Parsippany, NJ, via an Attorney Ethics Grievance Form; this is in response to "E. NATURE OF GRIEVANCE."  I am retired attorney Dan Kleinman, Esq., Chatham, NJ.  Under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), I am required by RPC 8.3(a) to report professional misconduct.  I confirmed with the Ethics Help Desk that I still have this duty despite being retired.  I am filing this ethics complaint in fulfillment of this duty.

This complaint is being filed soon after I learned that Ann Grossi is misleading a second community to allow pornography in its public library, among other things, and for that reason only.  It is mere coincidence that Ann Grossi is currently a Morris County Freeholder and that she is running in the 2013 Republican primary for Morris County Clerk.  As "SafeLibraries," I have been opposing those who mislead communities about Internet pornography in libraries for over a decade.  That activity should not be used as a defense by Ann Grossi to have my complaint dismissed.

Ann Grossi is or was the attorney for the Roxbury Public Library, Roxbury, NJ, and the Montville Public Library, Montville, NJ, at all times relevant to this complaint.  Over a long period of time, she has substantially mislead those communities by intentionally providing false legal advice, among other things.  The intention to provide false legal advice is revealed by her continuing to provide the same false advice to different clients even after being advised of the falsity of her legal argument, the maintenance of the same false library policy after she admitted the policy would be reviewed, and her repeated refusals to respond substantively to requests from the media or others regarding her false advice.  From at least 2011 to present, she advises that public libraries may not block Internet pornography as that would violate the First Amendment.  That is legally false, and it is a US Supreme Court case that says the exact opposite, as discussed below.  She is advising communities the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court says.  As a direct result of her misleading various communities in the course of her legal representation, library employees and patrons including children remain exposed to pornography and its harms and the effects upon people directly or indirectly via criminal activity of porn viewers in a manner that might not have occurred but for the false advice.  Also, municipalities are not properly advised of potential liability for failure to block pornography from libraries.

These communities want to exclude Internet pornography from their public libraries but, on advice of counsel, they do not.  I have been informed of this by people in both communities.  In one case a recording of a public meeting in which I appeared makes this evident.  Only Ann Grossi stands in the way of legally ridding these libraries of Internet pornography.  Ann Grossi accomplishes this by providing false legal opinions and by not providing accurate information that would support the libraries ability to block porn and keep it blocked even after a request to unblock and the municipalities ability to prepare for liability that sometimes results from Internet pornography in public libraries.  Libraries and municipalities have been successfully sued for sexual harassment arising out of the failure to filter out pornography, but Ann Grossi fails to advise of this.

Libraries and municipalities are mislead by Ann Grossi in the course of her work as library attorney into believing patrons have a First Amendment right to view pornography in public libraries.  Librarians who mislead their communities in this fashion suffer few if any consequences, but attorneys have ethical duties that must be followed.  As will be explained below, it is possible Ann Grossi has violated the various rules by clear and convincing evidence, including:  RPC 1.2(d): she knew she was advising the libraries to act in a fashion that exceeded the bounds of law, unless such law provides for Internet pornography, which it does not; RPC 4.1(a): she made a false statement of law to a third person, and RPC 8.4(c): she engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  Ann Grossi's violations of these rules raise a substantial question as to her honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.  Worse, the communities are still suffering from her actions and omissions as she remains active in both communities, to my knowledge and belief.

Turning now to the specifics, in 2000, the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] [FN 1] was enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.  CIPA required Internet filtering in public and school libraries under certain circumstances.  CIPA's constitutionality was challenged by the American Library Association [ALA] and the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], among others.  The United States Supreme Court [SCOTUS] ruled in US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) [FN 2] that filtering out pornography from public libraries is constitutionally sound since libraries are quasi public fora, not open public fora.  The Court determined that "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  Since that time, the ALA has worked actively to thwart the effect of CIPA, according to CIPA's author, Ernest Istook, who wrote in 2012, "Although many libraries now apply CIPA, others - encouraged by lawyers for the American Library Association - deliberately reject federal funds to avoid the requirement of filtering patrons' access to the Internet.  Unconfirmed reports claim a third of our public libraries are using this tactic. [FN 3]"  It is "a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment." [FN 3]  By the way, neither the Roxbury nor the Montville library obtain any CIPA funding [FN 4].

On 25 June 2011, News 12 NJ published "Access to Pornography at Libraries Raises Concerns" [FN 5] regarding children exposed to pornography on computers in the Roxbury Public Library, Roxbury, NJ.  The article states, in the context of viewing pornography, "Officials at the library say they ... cannot censor what people watch because it would be a violation of First Amendment rights."  That is false given US v. ALA.  I took action to advise the community that the library officials were wrong, including writing a letter advising about US v. ALA and appearing before the Roxbury Township Committee Meeting, 28 June 2011 [FN 6].  "We are waiting for our attorney on what can and what cannot be done," said one of the Committeemen.  Another said, "what I can tell you is that our attorney has looked at [the letter I wrote], we do have a separate library attorney.  She told us we are in compliance with the rules as they are written in New Jersey and we are, we should be fine with those rules at this point.  I'm not in favor of pornography in the library.  I reached out to our attorney and asked her what forum are we considered, whether it's quasi or open public, so I'll wait for her answer, and to let me know."  The Roxbury Public Library's attorney was Ann Grossi.

On 6 August 2011, News 12 NJ wrote a story entitled, "Morris Co. Man Wants to Make Library Computers Safe for Kids" [FN 7] wherein Ann Grossi is reported to have said she is reviewing Roxbury library policy.

Later, New 12 NJ attempted to set up a debate between myself and Ann Grossi but she refused to appear.  So only I was interviewed in a broadcast aired 5-6 November 2011 [FN 8].  Ann Grossi, the issue of public library pornography, and her legal advice for Roxbury is discussed.  She is quoted as saying in June 2011, well after US v. ALA from 2003, "if the library attempts to restrict access, regardless of how offensive, it would be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."  In August 2011, she is quoted as saying "the library is in the process of reviewing its policy and practices surrounding the use of the Internet."  News 12 NJ tried to get Ann Grossi to explain what she meant by that but was unsuccessful in that effort.

The Roxbury Public Library last amended its Internet Use Policy on 29 August 2012 [FN 9].  It contains statements such as the library "cannot protect individuals from information and images which they might find offensive or disturbing," which is false as even the ALA now admits library filters work [FN 10].  In italics, it says, "Libraries and librarians should not deny or limit access to information available via electronic resources because of its controversial content or because of personal beliefs or fear of confrontation."  True, but pornography is not "information," neither is a library empowered to provide it, as shown below.  Again in italics, it says, "Information retrieved or utilized electronically should be considered constitutionally protected unless determined otherwise by a court with appropriate jurisdiction."  This is false and misleading.  It is false because pornography, though constitutionally protected in certain forms and fora, may be legally excluded from public libraries, as US v. ALA explained.  It is misleading because, thanks to cases like US v. ALA and Bradburn v. NCRL [FN 11], the library knows full it may block pornography without having to get judicial review of each of the millions of porn sites available.  And getting such a review is an impossibility anyway.

These statements and accompanying ones indicate that the library policy has not changed significantly regarding the issue of public library pornography despite Ann Grossi's presumably having reviewed the policy as she stated.  Instead, the policy continues to ignore US v. ALA, and the Roxbury community continues to be exposed to the harm it is legal to curtail.  So the community that praised my assistance and said, "I'm not in favor of pornography in the library," has ended up with substantially the same legally false policy as when the matter first arose, and Ann Grossi's misdirection is likely the main reason.

On 19 April 2013, the Montville Patch published a story about the Montville Public Library, Montville, NJ [FN 12], stating, "Mayor Tim Braden noted that ... the library cannot entirely restrict patrons from looking at pornography ... as it would be considered restricting their rights."  Seeking to learn who might have misled the Mayor, I learned that Ann Grossi, the Roxbury Public Library's attorney, was also the Montville Public Library's attorney.  I have asked Montville and the library what Ann Grossi advised [FN 13] [FN 14] but have gotten no substantive responses based on those requests.  I even asked Ann Grossi directly via email.  Her response was that I should "cease and desist" from emailing her Morris County Freeholder email address.

I have learned that Ann Grossi did indeed advise someone involved in the Montville matter that the First Amendment protects pornography in public libraries, but I am awaiting permission to make that conversation public.  As in Roxbury, I have been asked to help the community exclude Internet pornography from its public library.

In Roxbury, Ann Grossi waited for the media storm to blow over then left the library policy the way she wanted it.  In Montville, this being her second bite at the apple, I am reporting her actions for the determination of possible ethical violations.  If such violations are found, that may go a long way toward Roxbury and Montville restoring law, common sense, and community standards to their public libraries.

The law as presented in US v. ALA and Bradburn v. NCRL is one thing, but is there relevant New Jersey library law?  Yes.  Libraries are almost always created by some legal instrument.  They are granted powers and may act autonomously from local governments in accordance with those powers.  This is done to prevent political control.  If they exceed those powers, local governments are free to stop such ultra vires activity without fear of piercing the library's shield of autonomy.  For example, if a library set up a massage parlor, that business could be shut down by the municipality without piercing the veil of autonomy a library enjoys for carrying out the activities of the library.  In other words, simply because a library has a shield of autonomy to perform any action consistent with the legal instrument that created it, it does not enjoy that shield if it were to act outside the law.

Turning now to the actual law of libraries in New Jersey [FN 15], they are created under NJS 40:54-1 which states, "Any municipality may, in the manner hereinafter provided, establish a free public library within its corporate limits."  Also, such libraries "shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter."  When it comes to the powers of the library board of trustees, NJS 40:54-12 says they may do anything a library is expected to do, "and generally do all things necessary and proper for the establishment and maintenance of the free public library in the municipality."  A massage parlor is neither necessary nor proper for a library, so a library board may not provide for a massage parlor, and if it does, it is acting outside the law.  In such a case, the municipality has the right and duty to stop such ultra vires activity.  Indeed, if harm results from such activities and the municipality failed to take action to stop it, the municipality may become partially liable for the harm.

NJS 2A:53A-7.1 grants immunity from liability for library trustees who are acting within the law circumscribing their duties, it is specifically does not grant immunity to those acting outside the law.  "Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to grant immunity to any person causing damage by his willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission or omission."  Running a massage parlor, for example, would likely not protect trustees from liability resulting therefrom.

So libraries might act outside the law, and doing so may lead to legal liability for libraries and municipalities, let alone grave consequences for those harmed by any resulting damage.

Pornography is neither necessary nor proper for a public library, according to US v. ALA, common sense, community standards, etc.  The SCOTUS case reveals pornography has been consistently excluded from public libraries and for good reason.  This is an example of how US v. ALA applies to all libraries, not just those receiving federal funding.  Something that is consistently excluded from public libraries for centuries is neither necessary nor proper for public libraries, neither is it an essential public service.  Under NJS 40:54-12, a library is not empowered to provide pornography as it is neither necessary nor proper for a public library.  Library trustees who allow the library to act outside the law may be held liable for damages under NJS 2A:53A-7.1.  A municipality that does not stop a library from acting outside the law may also be liable, and if it forces a library to act within the law, it is not piercing the library's veil of autonomy to act within the law.

Indeed, despite library policy claiming the library must be held harmless for any damage, several libraries have been paying very large settlements as a result of sexual harassment cases filed by librarians harassed as a result of library policy allowing pornography for claimed First Amendment reasons despite the law [FN 16].  For example, one harassed librarian was told, "if you don't like it leave."  She received a $150,000 settlement a week before the beginning of her trial against Birmingham, AL.  Ann Grossi does not reveal this.  If library boards knew *not* filtering pornography was resulting in major litigation and big settlements for sexually harassed librarians, that might convince them to filter out porn.  Ann Grossi has a duty to reveal this.

By advising that libraries are open public fora that may be sued under the First Amendment for filtering out porn, something which has not happened (although a few libraries have been sued for filtering out other material such as information about Wicca) and *not* advising that libraries are sued successfully for sexual harassment as a result of *not* filtering out porn, Ann Grossi substantially misleads those communities into allowing the very thing they are seeking to curtail but are afraid to do so without attorney approval.  Librarians may do this with impunity but attorneys have ethical and professional obligations that must be met.

Her actions not only reveal conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, but also leave communities exposed to the very harm it is legal to prevent,  She does this in a substantially similar fashion to what the CIPA author said is happening in a third of American libraries.  As evidenced by the above, Roxbury and Montville will continue to be forced to allow pornography in their public libraries so long as Ann Grossi continues to act as library attorney.  In other words, Ann Grossi's misconduct not only occurred in the past, but it is a continuing and present danger to the Roxbury and Montville communities, particularly library employees, patrons, and their children, let alone the exposure to liability of the library and the municipalities themselves.

Librarians may be promoting "a strategy promoted by the American Library Association, which regards pornography as just a routine aspect of protecting the First Amendment," as the CIPA author said [FN 3], but that does not mean library attorneys who are held to a professional and ethical standard can follow that same strategy with impunity.  As the library attorney, Ann Grossi has the power to force her will on Roxbury and Montville, and, given her continuing actions and the essentially unchanged library policy in Roxbury that perpetuates her misinformation, it appears only her own Office of Attorney Ethics can act to stop her.


FOOTNOTES IN SUPPORT OF ETHICS COMPLAINT RE ANN GROSSI, ESQ.

FN 1  http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act
FN 2  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html
FN 3  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/cipa-author-exposes-ala-deception.html
FN 4  http://www.usac.org/sl/tools/commitments-search/default.aspx
FN 5  http://prod.news12.com/NJ/topstories/article?id=285187

An Internet cache of the site is available here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e1zbldFK8sUJ:prod.news12.com/NJ/topstories/article%3Fid%3D285187+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Under US Copyright Fair Use provisions, I provide the text but not the video:

(06/25/11) ROXBURY - Lori Bradley was at the Roxbury Library with her son when he pointed out someone viewing pornography on one of the public computers.
Bradley says she was shocked that someone could do that especially in such close proximity to children and have access to it through taxpayer dollars.
Officials at the library say they have a policy to ask people to stop if they are becoming disruptive, but cannot censor what people watch because it would be a violation of First Amendment rights.
Bradley hopes that this and other incidents will force the library to move computers away from the busier parts of the library to keep the inappropriate images away from children's eyes.

FN 6  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32156878/RoxburyNjTwpCouncil28June2011.mp3
FN 7  http://www.news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=288797&position=1&news_type=news

Under US Copyright Fair Use provisions, I provide the text but not the video:

(08/06/11) ROXBURY - After a woman complained about pornography being accessible through the computers at the Roxbury Public Library, a Morris County man has made it his mission to make libraries safe for children.
Dan Kleinman, the founder of the website safelibraries.org, says his goal is to protect children from pornography on library computers in New Jersey.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that a library using filtering software does not violate a patron's First Amendment rights.
Library officials say that they are reviewing their policies regarding patrons' use of the Internet.

FN 8  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32156878/DanKleinman-KaneInYourCorner-News12NJ-5Nov2011.wmv
FN 9  http://www.roxburylibrary.org/pdf/PolicyManual/Internet%20Use%20Policy%20-%2008292012.pdf obtained from http://www.roxburylibrary.org/policies.html
FN 10  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/ala-admits-library-filters-work-barbara.html
FN 11  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/04/HowToFilterLibraryComputers.html
FN 12  http://montville.patch.com/articles/porn-watching-at-library-may-prompt-policy-changes
FN 13  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/04/AnnGrossiOPRA.html
FN 14  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/05/AnnGrossiOPRA.html
FN 15  http://lss.njstatelib.org/library_law
FN 16  http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/08/SexuallyHarrassedLibrarianGets150K.html and see Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library as examples


NOTE ADDED 14 MAY 2013:

I mailed out the ethics complaint today.

The Star-Ledger has reported on this matter.  See how Ann Grossi makes false personal attacks, false legal statements (such as libraries must unblock anything), and even mocks the ethics procedure itself by claiming I'm attacking her ethics and that an ethics complaint "means you've done something wrong.  I haven't done anything wrong":

NOTE ADDED 15 MAY 2103:

And did you notice, "Grossi said there is no 'bright-line rule' in the law when it comes to pornography at libraries."  Grossi is quoted saying, "I find people using the library to view pornography as abhorrent as any other person.  ....  But there is no bright-line rule on this, despite what Mr. Kleinman says."  Has she read US v. ALA?

US v. ALA is chock full with the long standing exclusion of porn from public libraries.  For example, it says, "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."  And when it discusses if privacy screens or moving the furniture around will solve the porn problem, it says no, and further, they would make the porn problem worse.  Yes, worse.  If it's that much of a problem, do you really need a "bright-line rule"?  It is obvious you can block pornography from libraries, you don't need a "bright-line rule."  It's like saying there is no bright-line rule for keeping pornography books out of public libraries.  Ann Grossi, even in the face of this ethics complaint, is still clinging to her misleading ways.

By the way, I attending the Montville Public Library meeting Monday night.  So did Ann Grossi.  Board member Mr. King is in favor of removing the porn.  Yet at one point he suggested moving the furniture might solve the problem of children viewing porn.  Ann Grossi sat there silently.  It was I who stood up, when allowed, and advised about what US v. ALA said about moving the furniture and how it makes things worse, not Ann Grossi.  Various board members then discussed how moving furniture or having separate adult viewing areas would make the problem worse, and because of me, not because of Ann Grossi.  It's a microcosm of the problem.

This insistance on a "bright-line rule" is an example of how Ann Grossi misleads communities who, because they rely on the attorney say so, will not act to block porn.  Ann Grossi does not reveal the true nature of what US v. ALA says about porn, and on the other hand, as exemplified here, she says there is no "bright-line rule."  This might be ineffective assistance of counsel if it did not appear so intentional and so in your face, especially given her personal attacks on me ... and the media.

I have learned she has threatened litigation against some media for reporting on the existence of the ethics complaint!  So, to her, public libraries are required by the First Amendment to allow porn so as to protect free speech, but the media should not have the free speech to report on the filing of an ethics complaint that evidences how she is misleading people on free speech.

All this is my opinion, of course, but that's why I filed the ethics complaint, for an official decision to be made, so hopefully the communities will finally feel free to ignore her advice and to effectively block porn from their libraries and, importantly, keep it blocked even if someone requests an unblock for porn.  Sure Montville has filters, for example, but they do no good if you ask to have them disabled then you watch porn.  No one else or no other group is in a position to stop Ann Grossi from misleading and harming communities or to convince the communities to stop following her faulty advice.  I'm hoping the Office of Attorney Ethics will help to resolve this issue in some manner.


NOTE ADDED 16 MAY 2013:

Further regarding Ann Grossi's claim that there is no "bright-line rule," she has one.  She gives legal advice with this rule and it is 100% false and it is the reason the Roxbury and Montville communities are afraid to act.  Her bright-line rule is, "if the library attempts to restrict access, regardless of how offensive, it would be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."  The US v. ALA case, on the other hand, says, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."

So when media reports, "Grossi said there is no 'bright-line rule' in the law when it comes to pornography at libraries," that is showing Grossi maintaining the same false front that misleads the communities and that led to the filing of the ethics complaint in the first place.  And she displays this after she is aware of the filing of the ethics complaint, making it even more egregious.

And when Grossi threatens litigation against the media to suppress its message about the filing of an ethics complaint, that may result in even further ethics violations that I have not reported due to their arising out of the filing of my complaint.  To my knowledge, that media source has not yet published anything about the ethics complaint.


SECOND NOTE ADDED 16 MAY 2013:

The Montville Patch now features a second story on the issue:


Regarding the article, yes, Montville has filters, but they need not be turned off to view porn, and Grossi does not advise of that.  Neither must they be left off after a person is found to be viewing porn, even if he bypassed the filter.  Actually, Grossi advises it is a First Amendment violation to block porn, and that is the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court said.

As to the risk of litigation for blocking pornography, it has never happened since the 2003 US v. ALA case issued.  Not once, never.  Other cases such as blocking Wicca, yes, but not pornography.  But library after library is sued for the failure to filter out porn, sometimes repeatedly.  The ALA's claim that libraries might be sued for blocking porn has never been borne out.  On the other hand, the ALA fails to disclose that not filtering computers rings up big sums for sexually harassed librarians.  It's the exact same false tactic Ann Grossi uses.  The ALA has no duty to Montville.  Ann Grossi does, and she may have failed in that duty.  We'll see what the Office of Attorney Ethics says.

If anyone is willing to watch me and Ann Grossi debate and can arrange to set it up in an appropriate public forum for possible rebroadcast, I'm game.


NOTE ADDED 18 MAY 2003:

A third article features this case.  Let's be clear my filing of this ethics complaint has absolutely nothing to do with Ann Grossi's political activity despite her protestations.  Ann Grossi's own actions and omissions have led to the filing of this complaint.  Had Ann Grossi acted in the past to stop misrepresenting the law, and she was given numerous opportunities including those outlined and referenced in the body of the ethics complaint, the complaint would never have materialized:
"Grossi advises that the filter be turned off if requested…," reports the Parsippany Patch article.  She advises more than that.  She advises the First Amendment protects porn viewing in public libraries, as illustrated in the News 12 NJ stories I included in the ethics complaint.  That goes 100% counter to the US Supreme Court.  That she is crafting her words carefully now when speaking with the media does not make her possible failure to meet her ethical obligations go away.  Besides, Bradburn v. NCRL shows filters need not be turned off until after compliance with library policy is reviewed.

"'There is no fundamental difference between us on pornography,' Grossi told Patch.  'It is just issues of law that are different, and I am following the letter of the law.'"  No, Ann Grossi, there's a big difference, and no, Ann Grossi, advising 100% opposite of the US Supreme Court and failing to advise of Bradburn v. NCRL, New Jersey library law, etc., is not following the letter of the law.


NOTE ADDED 22 MAY 2013:

Yesterday I learned from the recipient of my ethics complaint that it indeed had been received.

For those interested, the following may be of interest:

NOTE ADDED 5 JUNE 2013:

The porn pusher prevails in the primary.  In Morris County, that likely means she will be the next County Clerk, and this despite the current County Clerk endorsing another candidate:




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Township of Montville: Public Library, 90 Horseneck Road, Montville, NJ 07045, USA

Monday, April 22, 2013

OPRA Request for Montville Public Library Records to Determine Possible Ethical Violations and Malpractice by Ann Grossi, Library Attorney and Morris County Freeholder

Ann Grossi, Esq.
Dear Montville Township Committee (via Township Clerk Trudy Atkinson),

I am Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries, Chatham, NJ.  I will soon write to you about the Montville Patch story containing misinformation that the Montville Public Library must allow porn viewing:

But first, with this letter I am hereby filing a FOIA/OPRA request for records relating to the Montville Public Library that could be in the possession of the library or the Montville government or its contractees generally, specifically any material, including publicly available legal advice, regarding public library Internet filtering, the First Amendment related to the library, the Children's Internet Protection Act, E-Rate funding, or reported instances of pornography or inappropriate material viewing in the Montville Public Library within the past two years and any official action taken in response, whether received formally or informally, from Morris County Freeholder Ann Grossi who is also the library's attorney, or from any other person who made records of the substance of their communications with Ann Grossi on said subjects, such as the Mayor, limiting records from said persons other than Ann Grossi to only those records regarding Ann Grossi that are related to said issues.

In short, I'm looking to see if Ann Grossi has advised the library on library computer filtering, pornography, the First Amendment, etc., and what are the contents of that advice, limited to about the last two years to the present.

I base this request on a number of factors:
  1. Ann Grossi has in the past misled another Morris County, NJ, community regarding pornography in its public library, and she did that as the Roxbury Public Library's attorney and Morris County Freeholder.  See, for the reliable sources contained therein:  "Turning the Tide on Library Porn; Predicted Excuses for Not Filtering All Library Computers," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 7 August 2011.
  2. It appears Ann Grossi may be misleading another Morris County community, yours, again as the library's attorney and Morris County Freeholder.  The Montville Patch story reports,  "Mayor Tim Braden noted that ... the library cannot entirely restrict patrons from looking at pornography ... as it would be considered restricting their rights."  That is false.  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."  It is possible that Mayor Braden has been misled by library attorney Ann Grossi, just as she misled others in the past.  People do not naturally assume the First Amendment requires public libraries to allow porn on their computers—just the opposite.  It is possible that false and/or misleading legal advice caused Mayor Braden to set aside the obvious assumption and believe instead that the library may not stop patrons from viewing porn.  Ann Grossi is in a position to provide Mayor Braden with the misinformation needed for him to set aside the law, common sense, and community standards to condone porn in the public library.
  3. As a NJ attorney, I have an ethical obligation to report possible legal malpractice or ethical violations under RPC 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct: "(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other res
    Ann Grossi's erroneous advice that blocking porn in
    a public library is a First Amendment violation,
    as displayed on News 12 New Jersey.
    pects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority."  Regarding Ann Grossi's erroneous advice to the Roxbury library that goes against the US Supreme Court holding, that was about two years ago and may have been simple error.  If, however, after two years has passed and after Ann Grossi said the Roxbury library was reviewing its policies and practices in response to News 12 New Jersey's inquiries, if Ann Grossi has provided Montville with substantially the same false legal advice as she provided to Roxbury, then any honest mistake in the past has been converted into an intentional effort to mislead.  I may be under an ethical obligation to report Ann Grossi's actions to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.  This FOIA/OPRA request is intended to obtain the best information possible so any filing with the NJ OAE I may make is as accurate and reliably sourced as possible.
  4. This matter may be in the public interest as Ann Grossi is currently a Morris County Freeholder who is now seeking office as Morris County Clerk and has said, "My legal background would be a benefit."  If her legal background includes unethical activity or legal malpractice, that is entirely relevant to all Morris County citizens who may vote for her and her "legal background."  See: "Grossi Running for County Clerk: 'I'm Taking a Risk'; Montville Library Board Attorney Steps Away From County Freeholder Board to Make a Bid for Clerk's Position," by Natalie Davis, Montville Patch, 7 January 2013.  
  5. The harm done, if any, extends to a number of Morris County communities and negatively impacts the children the most.  Those children have no advocates who speak for them.  If false information that prevents children from being protected in public libraries is exposed to the light and removed, suddenly the entire community will become advocates for the children, and public libraries in Morris County will see a big reduction in the number of incidents related to the viewing of pornography.  On the chance there is any question that people are being misled into leaving their children exposed to harm in public libraries as a result of unfiltered pornography that could be legally curtailed, please read what the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act said:  "CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 February 2012.
Supplying said records as PDF attachments to an email addressed to SafeLibraries@gmail.com will be adequate, as well as photocopies sent to SafeLibraries, 641 Shunpike Rd #123, Chatham NJ 07928, 973-610-8296, $50 maximum automatic authorization.  Please advise what additional requirements I must fulfill to receive a substantive response to this FOIA/OPRA request.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham NJ 07928
http://tinyurl.com/AboutDan


NOTE ADDED 25 APRIL 2013:

Here is the response to the OPRA request received 24 April, so I am evaluating if this means I can go ahead with filing the ethics complaint:
I am in receipt of your e-mail dated April 22, 2013 and note the OPRA request contained within your message (the OPRA form is blank).  I am the records custodian for the Township of Montville.  The Montville Township Public Library is an autonomous body and not a department of the Township.  I am not the records custodian for the Montville Township Public Library.  Your request seeks documents related to the library, and your request would perhaps be better directed to the Montville Township Public Library.  I can advise you that the records you seek, specifically a legal opinion issued by Counsel for the Montville Township Public Library on the issue of pornography in the Library, is not a record maintained by the Township of Montville.
In a related matter, I have published the following:


NOTE ADDED 1 MAY 2013:

As a result of the above OPRA response from Montville, I sent a letter directly to the library.  See:




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Township of Montville: Public Library, 90 Horseneck Road, Montville, NJ 07045, USA

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Turning the Tide on Library Porn; Predicted Excuses for Not Filtering All Library Computers

US v. ALA: library filters okay
It appears, at least in Roxbury, NJ, the tide is about to turn on a public library misleading its community by claiming the First Amendment requires public libraries to allow Internet pornography.  You see, a mother whose child saw the porn an adult was viewing on the library computer complained to the library, but it refused to help since it was following American Library Association guidance.  So she went to the media.  That was when the tide started turning.  Thank you, Lori Bradley.


News 12 New Jersey's Matt Murphy Gets the Ball Rolling

Ann Grossi's misleading statement
News 12 New Jersey produced an excellent report that caught my attention and I got directly and immediately involved in the Roxbury matter since I am in the same NJ county.  I provide details here: "Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same," including a link to Matt Murphy's original story on this issue.

Basically, I pointed out to the media and the local government exactly how the community was being misled, such as with the library attorney's claim of First Amendment protection for anything at all in a public library, whereas the US Supreme Court says, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  Compare that to the graphic at right which is Ann Grossi, Esq.'s, misleading statement that basically says the exact opposite.  Personally, I find the US Supreme Court is more credible than Ann Grossi and more reflects common sense and community standards, and I'm in the same county as that community.


Tables Turning Against Public Library Porn

Now I learn my intervention may have turned the tide on library porn in Roxbury.  Be sure I'll be taking this message nationwide, that accurate information can enable communities to use legal means to protect citizens from harm, and that library misinformation will no longer be enough to lull people into obeisance.  And it is misinformation to advise a community the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court says.


Library Attorney Singing Different Tune Thanks to SafeLibraries 

Ann Grossi sings a different tune
You see, the library's attorney is now singing a different tune.  See the video for yourself in yesterday's News 12 New Jersey report on the issue, namely:

Matt Murphy reports:
The 2003 US Supreme Court decision in the case of United States versus the American Library Association states, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  In June, Roxbury Public Library board attorney Ann Grossi insisted restricting access would be in violation of the First Amendment.  But since my June story aired, she now says the library is in the process of reviewing its policy and practices surrounding the use of the Internet.

And what was the difference between June and now?  I appeared in a Roxbury Township Committee and told them that they were being misled on that very point and that they have the legal authority needed to require compliance with the law.  And one of the Committeemen is also on the library's board of trustees, and he clearly heard the other Committeemen favorably receiving what I was saying.


SafeLibraries Quotes From the Story

FYI, here is the totality of my quotes from yesterday's story:
  • "When the public's being told that libraries are open public forums where anything goes, including pornography, they are being misled."
  • "That's correct, you can't censor what people watch.  However, it's not censorship to keep pornography out of a public library."
  • "The Supreme Court says you can apply the book selection policy which keeps out pornography from the books over the Internet with the use of filters."
  • Dan Kleinman adds that many public libraries choose not to restrict adult content fearing a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.


Major Success for SafeLibraries

I view this turnabout as a major success for SafeLibraries, with the potential that the ideas I present may grow nationwide.  The emperor has no clothes.

Here again are those ideas written up as talking points:  "Public Library Law Allows Porn Exclusion and Allows Governments to Ensure Same."


List of Predicted Excuses for Not Filtering All Library Computers

There will be major obstacles in the way of a library such as Roxbury deciding to filter all computers.  But those major obstacles will simply consist of more propaganda and misdirection from the very people so successful at it previously.

Here is my list of predicted excuses and suggested responses:
  • There are so many other concerns that face libraries, such as funding, that something that occurs so few times is really not our focus now.  That's the "Oh look, there's a squirrel over there" defense, anything to take focus away from the issue.
  • US v. ALA only applies to libraries that accept federal funding.  That's the "We know better than you" defense.  In reality, the Court discussed the library issues first, then applied them to the federal funding issue.  Just because a library does not accept federal funding does not mean the case is otherwise of little value.  For example, is this of no value if a library accepts no federal funding for Internet access:
    "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."
  • Who's to decide what is and what isn't pornography?  That's the "Let's make believe US v. ALA doesn't exist" defense.  You see, 1) the Court addressed that issue and 2) if no one can decide what is pornography, then the entire case of US v. ALA is entirely without value, but that cannot be since US Supreme Court decisions are never to be interpreted in a way that makes them useless.
  • Filters don't work well, and privacy screens and acceptable use policies are much better.  That's the "Let's hope the people don't read US v. ALA" defense.  The Court said it is filters that work, not shoulder tap policies, not privacy screens, not recessed computers, and not moving computers. Further, extensive evidence shows nothings works as well as filters.  Media reports are even catching on and showing, for example, just how useless are "privacy screens."  And acceptable use policies?  Their self-policing, voluntary nature makes them essentially worthless.
  • Filters block "breast cancer" web sites and that's censorship.  That's the "Go for the emotional message so we can keep pushing our agenda" approach.  While overblocking breast cancer sites used to be true, it is no longer the case.  Quality filters properly maintained no longer filter out health-related information.
  • So few children are raped or molested in libraries, why don't you direct your legitimate interest to a place where more children are being hurt in that fashion and work there.  That's the "Compliment the person then misdirect them anywhere else" defense.  Lovely idea, but no dice, especially where the harm being done might be a result of the library's own failure to comply with library law by allowing an anything-goes attitude.
  • Libraries are protected by a shield of autonomy from governmental control.  That's the "Let's avoid the real issue" defense.  The real issue is not that the government seeks to invade the shield of autonomy.  It doesn't.  Rather, where the library has acted outside that shield, the government may require it to comply with the law.  And US v. ALA is right there with support for that.
  • Requiring filtering might cause people embarrassment and that would violate the First Amendment.  That's the "Don't look behind the curtain" defense.  US v. ALA addressed that issue and it is simply of no consequence.  Any library expert supporting any issue already asked and answered in the negative by US v. ALA as if it were never previously addressed is misleading you.
  • The library is in the process of reviewing its policy and practices surrounding the use of the Internet.  That's the "Go away" defense, depending on the circumstances.  They want you to allow time to pass and forget about the issue.  Of course libraries legitimately review policies all the time.  But sometimes it is just a means to delay things and only cosmetic changes will occur, if any, or useless alternatives will be proposed, like improved acceptable use policies, moving computers, or using privacy screens.  I suspect the Roxbury situation will be the latter and the government will need to intervene if filters are not proposed for every computer.  No way will Ann Grossi advise that it is perfectly legal to filter all computers and that all computers should be filtered, I predict.
  • SafeLibraries cannot be trusted because Dan Kleinman opposes pornography and is otherwise unfit or untrustworthy.  That's the "Saul Alinsky was here" defense.  Setting aside that not being true, the argument over the issue should not become ad hominem.  And I am not imposing my will on anyone.  Rather, I am suggesting people become educated, I am guiding people to that education, and US v. ALA is the bright line to follow, not SafeLibraries.  Leave me out of the story.  Local libraries laws may also come into play.  They trump American Library Association policy embedded in local policy any day of the week.
  • Censorship is a slippery slope.  That the "Let's make up a legitimate-sounding non-issue/strawman defense."  Simply put, no censorship is involved where, as the US Supreme Court said, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  Further, to the extent some librarian might take too long to unblock a site, US v. ALA has already made provision for that.  It is called an "as applied" challenge.  In all the years since the case was decided in 2003, there has never yet been an "as applied" challenge, to the best of my knowledge.
  • Handling ACLU lawsuits will be too costly for the government.  That's the "Deer Hunter" defense where they hold a gun to your head.  You'll never, ever hear them worry about lawsuits brought by victims of library harms and how such suits have a greater potential for monetary damages, like the near half million dollar Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library case where library management allowed porn and the librarians suffered as a result.  If you follow the law, the ACLU will have no basis for bringing suit.  Like in Burlington County, NJ, the ACLU threatened suit over a book showing two boys watching two men having anal sex.  But the library merely applied the selection policy to the book, found it wanting, and removed it.  No ACLU suit occurred because the library followed the law and the ACLU did not bluff, in this case.  Consider also the possibility for treble damages against the ACLU for vexatious litigation where it bluffs.  Where the ACLU threatens suit based on legal theories it itself lost in US v. ALA, that is dirty pool.  But if such a suit gets filed with the court, that might be grounds for vexatious litigation.  Example.  Nampa, ID.  The library, after three years effort, put four books inappropriate for children in a location that required only adults to ask for them.  The ACLU sent a threatening letter and the ACLU attorney said the issue was embarrassment.  Embarrassment to ask for one of the books would violate the First Amendment, supposedly.  Within one week the city caved to the ACLU.  Three years effort down the drain.  For what?  For embarrassment.  For an issue the ACLU itself raised in US v. ALA and lost on years previously.  Sounds like dirty pool to me.  So do not be frozen by fear of the ACLU.  If you get such a letter, let me identify all the propaganda in it for you so you won't cave.
  • State law requires one terminal be left unfiltered.  This is a legitimate reason for not filtering all computers.  So long as you are not claiming certain federal funding, you should be okay.  Take a gander at this: "Michigan Libraries at Risk of Massive E-Rate Fraud; Michigan Library Privacy Act May Need Amending."


SafeLibraries Is Offering Assistance and Seeking Donations

Edison Public Library
Should anyone face these issues and suspect they are being misled, please contact me for guidance.  Basically, you have the legal right to choose to filter 100% of library computers, and government can require libraries to do so if they only realize their own power.  Leave one computer unfiltered and that will not solve the problem.

Should anyone wish to help fund my efforts, like paying for the gas to travel to the interview in Edison, NJ, yesterday morning or to investigate the Nyack Public Library, Nyack, NY, yesterday afternoon, please use the donate button on the bottom right of this blog post, and thank you so much.  It'll give me gas to go elsewhere.  And I hope to have my report on the Nyack library available soon.

Finally, here's that story I'm in again:

NOTE ADDED 7 November 2011:

I was on television:

Note: I am requesting permission to republish the broadcast as it shows an example of major library leaders intentionally misleading the public about Internet filters on public library computers then blaming whistleblowers for why they need not explain themselves.

While I am adding this note let me add the following:

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