Showing posts with label S2421. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S2421. Show all posts

Friday, November 8, 2024

Freedom to Read Act: NJ Democrats Protect 'Freedom' to Give Obscene Material to Children, by Alex Newman

NJ Democrats Protect ‘Freedom’ to Give Obscene Material to Children,” by Alex Newman, Liberty Sentinel, October 30, 2024:

Democrat lawmakers in New Jersey just passed a bill granting government employees immunity from civil and criminal liability when giving children access to obscene materials at school or in libraries, sparking outrage among those seeking to protect minors. Predators, groomers, and perverts rejoiced at the news.

The so-called “Freedom to Read Act,” passed by the State Senate on Monday after it was approved in the House earlier this year, is being portrayed by Democrats and their far-left media allies as a measure aimed at limiting “book banning.” The lawmakers behind it also claimed it would protect librarians and teachers from alleged “threats.”  

Under current New Jersey law, giving “obscene material” to a minor is considered a felony of the third degree. Obscenity is described in the statute as any material that includes audio or visual picture or description of s[]xual intercourse, s[]x acts, and more. Numerous books being distributed to children in the state fit that description well.

An example of the books stirring controversy in New Jersey is “This Book is Gay.” It includes, among other outrages, tips on how children can meet up with adults for homos[]xual encounters without letting their parents find out. The book also features detailed and extremely graphic instructions for sodomy and various other s[]x acts.

Because of obscenity laws, which exist nationwide to protect the innocence of children, some librarians and teachers have hesitated before providing such material. Parents and concerned citizens have also warned librarians and “education” officials that they could be running afoul of obscenity laws by giving children access. 

But lawmakers in New Jersey think children need access to such material. “In recent years, public and school libraries have come under attack by a small number of individuals hoping to erase diverse materials from bookshelves, usually targeting works focused on race and LGBTQ+ themes,” argued bill sponsor NJ Senator Andrew Zwicker, a Democrat.

“A library is a place of voluntary inquiry and provides equitable access to learning resources,” continued the far-left senator without acknowledging concerns. “Through the ‘Freedom to Read Act,’ local school boards shall implement policies that ensure our libraries still have an array of content while including the public in that process.”

Ironically, protecting those seeking to corrupt minors with perversion and s[]xual fanaticism was portrayed by Senator Zwicker as a “defense of freedom.” Critics, however, warned that the legislation was an attack on constitutionally protected freedoms including parental rights and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One leading opponent of the bill was Victoria Jakelsky, director and founder of NJ Parental Rights. In her testimony before lawmakers against the legislation, Jakelsky read the legal definition of obscenity and warned that this “freedom” legislation was aimed at stripping parents, taxpayers, and the community of the right (and duty) to protect children.

“This bill is incorrectly named,” she continued. “The legislation is not advocating for any right, except the right of state employees to be exempt from the consequences of committing a crime — a crime that could have lifelong implications upon hundreds if not thousands of innocent children.”

Jakelsky, who has been battling the indoctrination and s[]xualization of New Jersey children in public schools for years, blasted the notion of giving state employees immunity from criminal liability for breaking the law. “Should employees of the NJ Department of Education not be held accountable if they commit this crime?” she asked rhetorically.

GOP lawmakers denounced the bill during debate, too. “How exactly does a person distribute obscene materials to a child in good faith?” asked Senator Michael Testa (Republican) on the floor of the Senate, a reference to protections in the bill for those acting in “good” faith. “I don’t want adults promoting explicit stuff to children.”

“I also think it’s incredibly telling that if some of these very same explicit materials were shown to a child by a neighbor, that individual would be charged with a Megan’s Law offense, and rightfully so,” continued Senator Testa, a reference to a law protecting children named after a 7-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by a predatory neighbor.

Of course, many Democrats claimed there was no obscene material being given to children in schools. Testa was not buying it: “To my colleagues across the aisle that are so adamant that there is no obscene material being pushed in our schools, and that there never will be under this bill, then why do you need an exemption from the obscenity law?”

While bill sponsors and supporters claimed it was the government officials corrupting minors who were being “harassed” and “threatened,” the reality is just the opposite. In fact, as The Newman Report documented last year, parents who advocate for their children have been targeted by law enforcement, lawfare, unions and even the military.

Under current state policy, children in New Jersey are s[]xualized and indoctrinated with LGBT ideology starting as soon as Kindergarten. From being encouraged to experiment with sodomy and other perversions to being taught that they can pick new “genders,” the abuse begins as soon as government gets its hands on the children. 

It appears giving children grotesque and obscene s[]x materials is now a higher priority than teaching basic academics in the Garden State. Just last year, Governor Phil Murphy signed a law eliminating a basic-skills test to ensure government-school teachers know how to read, write, and do basic math. He is expected to sign the new obscenity measure soon.

Civilized societies have always used the law to protect children and punish those who seek to corrupt them with obscene material. Unfortunately, the veneer of civilization is rapidly disappearing, especially in Democrat-controlled states. For the sake of children and society, it is imperative that these horrific trends be reversed — fast.  

For more great content like this, visit FreedomProject Media.


4 thoughts on “NJ Democrats Protect “Freedom” to Give Obscene Material to Children”

LIBERTY

Thank you very much for covering this. It truly is a fight of good against evil here in NJ, but we must not grow weary.
We were thankful for one no vote from one Democrat and that the Democrat from LD-15 Shirley Turner did not vote. The NJ Democrat leadership found a way to block many emails from getting to the legislators. If the democrats had even listened to 20% of those concerned and were willing to look at the facts and the pictures that are in many of the books currently in the school libraries, they would have voted no. The leadership blocked us for being able to tell the the truth.
Thank you for showing this and covering this. God help NJ.


LINDA GOUDSMIT

Always dressed up in positive sounding language, “Freedom to Read” is a license to legally s[]xualize children in schools, libraries, and predictably entertainment, as young as possible. Why? Because a basic tenet of liberal/leftist/Marxism is the deliberate destruction of childhood innocence. The best sentence in the entire article is this: “To my colleagues across the aisle that are so adamant that there is no obscene material being pushed in our schools, and that there never will be under this bill, then why do you need an exemption from the obscenity law?” The essential issue is one of language and definition. The liberal/leftist/Marxist Democrats do not consider any s[]xual act, no matter how perverse or age-inappropriate, to be obscene. Words matter.


TED WEILAND
....


FENICIA REDMAN
Happening next door in PA too. I’m done with legislative hearings. We now have a President who will prosecute these crimes and my Defendants should buckle up!



SOURCE OF ABOVE:


URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org





Monday, October 14, 2024

People Who Say 'No Books are Obscene' Think Parents are White Supremacists; It's Misdirection

People who say "no books are obscene" think parents are white supremacists. New Jersey Senator Andrew Zwicker in the hearing to pass the "Freedom to Read Act" (originally written by Chicago, Illinois's American Library Association, as Zwicker admitted to me when pushed, pictured top right) S2421 out of committee to the full senate said, "None of these books has been deemed obscene."  He's been subjected to American Library Association's "long-term inoculation," so of course he thinks what Chicago's ALA wants him to think instead of what New Jersey law requires and New Jersey citizens desire.

New Jersey's leading school librarian proponent of illegal obscenity (in NJ) for school children, the one who got ALA engaged in long-term inoculation of NJ legislators and in bullying school boards around the state to accept illegal obscenity in school libraries, including her own school's library, just announced publicly:
"Book banners," they invariably call anyone who questions any book.  Always using language to advance a political goal.  At least one New Jersey legislator answering to New Jersey citizens instead of Chicago's ALA, NJ Representative Dawn Fantasia, has responded to Martha Hickson's "there’s no p[]rn in school libraries" comment by saying:
Any adult who thinks "educational s[]x ed" includes instructing children to lubricate foreign objects and insert said items into their rectums for pleasure, or who encourages underage girls to take and distribute topless selfies, has lost their way.  Truly remarkable.

Lady, all of your screws are loose.

@Moms4Liberty @SexHarassed @CoboKristen @ChristinaMB122 @wakeupnj @fight4newjersey
Source: https://x.com/DawnFantasia_NJ/status/1841199775095673234 quote tweeting https://x.com/NHVfREADom/status/1841125020094857719 run by Martha Hickson in which she included: "A teen at yesterday’s hearing explains why: 'Educational content is not considered obscene; [that’s] why every s[]x ed & health teacher in the state of NJ has not been arrested.'"

What does this have to do with "white supremacy"?  It's because the people from Chicago promoting inappropriate material for children nationwide despite the law can and will say anything to deflect from the truth.  Like Kelly Jensen, pictured at right, who Martha Hickson promoted in her X post.

Quoting now from that BookRiot article by Kelly Jensen:
And, as always, we know this is not about materials in the public or school libraries. It’s about control, removal, and erasure of any and all materials outside of a singular white supremacist view of the world.

By the way, Kelly Jensen is so two faced that she trains librarians to block Christians from using public meeting rooms.  This is the expert Martha Hickson is promoting and Senator Answer Zwicker is repeating:
So the woman calling parents white supremacists for attempting to remove books from schools under the law is the same person telling librarians, "For libraries that are hosting the Kirk Cameron Brave Book events, it is time to have a plan to let staff bow out that day...."

ALA itself trains librarians to block Christians from reading books in library public meeting room.  Yes, the same ALA that drafted NJ's "Freedom to Read Act" that Andrew Zwicker "wrote":
Back to Kelly Jensen, now notice how the person decrying white supremacy also repeatedly states no school books are ever obscene.  That's because the opposite is true, but she thinks if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth:
Let’s say hypothetically that an agent sold an editor an obscene book.  First, that reflects on the agent and editor's inability to understand what the obscenity law is; but more realistically, it simply would not happen because the number of books acquired by agents and then editors is already minuscule and extremely curated.
Italics in original.  So no book is ever obscene because Jelly Kensen says so, and laws like NJS 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Person Under 18 don't matter to her.  "It simply would not happen."  Or as Andrew Zwicker put it, "None of these books has been deemed obscene."  Or as Martha Hickson put it, "there’s no p[]rn in school libraries."
Books cannot contain obscenity because it is against the law.  Obscenity has a standard, court-issued definition, by which agents and publishers (as well as their legal teams!) must abide.  It's the three-prong, 60-some-word Miller Test.  Even if one of those two books in our hypothetical situation were obscene, the legal department of the publisher would catch this before it ever went to press.
Italics and hyperlinks in original.  So again, "[b]ooks cannot obtain obscenity."  This time because the "Miller Test" applies, she says.  

I love how she links to Wikipedia and not a constitutional expert like Eugene Volokh: 

"Even if [the] books ... were obscene, the legal department of the publisher would catch this...."  Now that's just flat out lying, and she presents herself as an expert on publishing.  And there's more:
But there are not obscene books being acquired and published through traditional routes, and it's rare to find them in self-published material…because it is against the law to publish or distribute such material.
She completely and intentionally misses the point that books that are in schools that, yes, are not obscenity under the Miller case, may still be immediately removed under the Pico case, and in some jurisdictions may still be considered obscenity, such as under NJS 2C:34-3.  Her next statement goes for the throats of parents:
The obscenity arguments dramatically performed in board rooms would be better suited to thinking about what kind of obscene material is readily accessible on any teenager's internet-capable phone.
So parents are overdramatic when they oppose their children being harmed by school librarians to satisfy ALA's 60-year political goals.  Further, she adds, those are not the droids you are looking for.  Look at the iPhones and Androids your kids have, those are the 'Droids, it's way worse than what's in Pico, so just ignore Pico and gosh darn-it, do better parenting!  So publicly funded p[]rn is okay because parents punt on protection.

Parents are in for another spanking:
The rampant mis/dis/mal information about libraries and the materials in them coming from a small set of voices does not bestow those individuals any authority, experience, or knowledge of how to do the work of those trained professionals. Instead, they subvert the reality of the situation: it's their job to actually parent their children and not expect the library to do it for them.
There's another intentional lie buried in there so you don't see it.  See it?  "A small set of voices" versus "trained professionals."  First, librarianship is a job, not a profession.  Second, the "professional" training comes from the MLIS degree.  ALA accredits MLIS schools and has required for accreditation that library schools teach diversity, equity, and inclusion in every single class of the MLIS degree.  So essentially graduates are accredited Marxists.  

Further, diversity and inclusion are the very excuses ALA uses to "reframe" "s[]xually inappropriate material."  Librarians are to "reframe" "s[]xually inappropriate material" as diversity and inclusion.  So diverse and inclusive materials means to "trained professional" librarians materials that are "s[]xually inappropriate," they know it, but they are going to lie to parents and claim DEI.  

Listen to US Senator Mike Lee from Utah demonstrate and explain this in detail: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.  That's not a "professional," that's what Senator Mike Lee calls a "gr[]mer."  His words, a US Senator, during a US Senate hearing on "banned books."  Per the Senator, librarians are trained gr[]mers.  They are spreading this across America via state and federal "Right to Read" or "Freedom to Read" or "Libraries For All" legislation.

"[A] small set of voices."  What does that mean?  It's a constant theme of ALA.  The theme is that a few vocal parents are in the vast minority, they are prudes, Christofascists, white supremacists, censors, and so on, so just ignore that small group.  They're crazy.  Even NJ Senator Vin Gopal called parents "extremists," something ALA people repeat repeatedly, "Extremists who continue to spread misinformation and want to ban books won’t win in New Jersey - just as they attempted against me last year and lost by 20+ points." 

The truth is the exact opposite.  The professional gr[]mers (remember, a US Senator exposed this) led by Chicago's ALA is the small set of loud voices.  Not the parents.  The vast majority are the parents who oppose explicit books in public schools.  Of sure ALA took a poll showing most oppose book banning, but that's not the issue.  A Harris and Rasmussen poll and others show the vast majority of the public opposes explicit books in public schools.  So "a small set of voices" is yet more gaslighting to get parents to feel alone and to back done and to let school children continue to be indoctrinated.

Here comes the DARVO, Divide, Attack, Reverse Victim and Oppressor:
And, as always, we know this is not about materials in the public or school libraries.  It's about control, removal, and erasure of any and all materials outside of a singular white supremacist view of the world.  See the latest attempts to get books pulled even in Little Free Libraries–the lies compound and the goalposts of the movement continue to move.
Hyperlink in original, though I used an archived link to avoid an email request block.  The division is those having a worldview of "control, removal, and erasure." Parents thus set up are then attacked as "singular white supremacists."  The reversing of victim and oppressor is the one case she found where two people merely expressed an interest in Little Free Libraries, so it's really a fake claim of attempted book banning, and just to reverse victim and oppressor, because a weak/fake case is all she's got.

So when people say no books are obscene, it is misdirection.  They also think parents are white supremacists so no books should ever be removed from any school despite the US Supreme Court, the law, common sense, and community standards.  They make parents the bad guys, the extremists.  Librarians and people they've successfully indoctrinated like Senator Andrew Zwicker want us all to ignore our local laws and customs and substitute instead the approximately 60-year goal of an organization from Chicago, Illinois, that now has three Marxist presidents, one even being "nonbinary."  

It's giant gaslighting.  It's misdirection.  Parents have every right to have cases and laws like Pico and 2C:34-3 applied in schools without "professional librarians" using their DEI training to saw anything goes and they know better.  Actually state residents know what's better for the state's children, way better than some Chicago, Illinois, organization that has been working for sixty years to harm as many children as possible.  I know, sounds shocking because we all think librarians are angels, but those days have been over for sixty years.


NOTE ADDED 15 OCTOBER 2024:

1)  In reaction to the above post, Kelly Jensen "Buttered Jorts (fka kelly jensen 🐱🐰)" has doubled down on her white supremacy claim, even shouting about it (by using all caps), proving I'm right over the target, and we all know by now "inclusive books" means ones ALA trains librarians are "s*xually inappropriate for minors" but are to be "reframed" as inclusive:
"You ARE a white supremacist when you ban inclusive books :)



So, to her, banning s*xually inappropriate materials for minors from schools makes you a white supremacist.  Why?  Because she is hiding that parents have every legal right to remove such books.  Only the shouting bullying of people who claim they are professionals using claimed professional sources are dissuading people from doing what's right and what's common sense to protect children from harm.  Are we going to let librarians bully us like this?

2)  And if you don't cower, you get personally attacked.  In reaction to the above post, Kelly Jensen directs her DARVO directly at me.  She apparently reads my blog despite blocking me on social media.  I've been at this for a quarter century so I suppose I have a following among librarians who block me.  One could say she's obsessed with me, I suppose.  After she divided and attacked parents again ("Kids are humans who have rights, too, and it's a parent's job to parent"), she then reversed victim and oppressor by making herself the victim—of me!  DARVO all over again.
"Dan's obsession with me is truly frightening. https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/10/people-who-say-no-books-are-obscene.html"



She's claiming no school books are ever obscene and parents who say otherwise are white supremacists, I report on that, then it's time to attack the messenger and claim he's obsessed and it's "truly frightening."  

What's "truly frightening" is the grip American Library Association has over American libraries and the public employees who serve those libraries so much so that children are regularly and gleefully indoctrinated nationwide while their parents and legislators are gaslit.  And that ALA obsession is six decades old and expanding exponentially.  That's what's frightening.

One final thought.  Kelly Jensen just made the claim that no schools have inappropriate material by praising the publishing industry.  She described in detail how wonderful and hard working they are, so no way illegal obscenity could slip through the cracks.  "If you’re counting, it's likely you have already lost how many guardrails are already in place and we haven't even gotten to the library shelf yet," she says.

Really?  Guardrails?  Okay, then explain how Kamala Harris's publisher, Chronicle Books, allowed SMART ON CRIME to bypass all the guardrails and be loaded with multiple major incidents of plagiarism, even stealing from substandard Wikipedia.


URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Friday, June 28, 2024

Freedom to Read Act Needs Legislators to Defy Ethics and Criminal Laws to Pass; Arrest the Legislators

Disorderly Persons Offense by NJ Legislators? Will A3446 Be Passed Despite Ethical Violations Amounting to a Failure of the Public Trust?

Author: Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, Chatham, NJ.
Date:  6/28/2024
To: NJ Legislators

Issue:

Has one or more members of the New Jersey Assembly and Senate promoted legislation and released confidential information to the drafters and proponents of A3446 S2421 2024, thereby committing a “disorderly person” offense under N.J.S.A. 52:13E-8?  Have they violated the Legislative Code of Ethics 2:1a and 2:11?  Have they violated the Conflicts of Interest Law 52:13D-12 and 52:13D-25?  Have they committed substantially the same violation as presented in the Ethics Tutorial, Question 24, meaning they know or should have known they committed a disorderly persons offense?  Does being a legislator exempt one from arrest and possible fine and jail time for having committed a disorderly persons offense?  Does the Assembly as a whole passing A3446 for the Governor’s signature mean the entire law is based on ethical and criminal violations of law?

Aggravating Factors:

Is it an aggravating factor that A3446 S2421 is written by a Chicago, Illinois, private entity, the very organization promoted and tipped off, to nullify Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) and leave school children exposed to pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material?  Is it an aggravating factor that A3446 S2421 is written to nullify N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18 and leave school children exposed to obscenity under New Jersey law?  Is it an aggravating factor that the very same private entity being promoted by the Assembly and tipped off by the Senate, in this case one of its subgroups called New Jersey School Library Association, is directly made by A3446 S2421 the very drafter of the proposed model school library book selection and book challenge policies, in other words, the lead benefactor of A3446 S2421?  Is it an aggravating factor that a member of those not privy to the inside information was labeled a “meddling minority” on the (A3446) S2421 issue by Senator Andrew Zwicker?  Is it an aggravating factor that the ultimate victims are children?  Is it an aggravating factor that the children have no representation except for a relatively few parents who speak up only to get ignored by legislators who post open support for a Chicago organization that wrote the legislation before hearing even one word of public testimony?

Relevant Law:

Legislative Code of Ethics - https://njleg.state.nj.us/code-of-ethics
2:1. a. No member of the Legislature shall … act in any way that impairs the objectivity or independence of judgment of the member of the Legislature in the exercise of his or her duties or is violative of the public trust by an elected official or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated (C.52:13D-12 and 52:13D-23).
2:11. No member of the Legislature shall willfully disclose to any person, whether or not for pecuniary gain, any information not generally available to members of the public which he receives or acquires in the course of and by reason of his official duties. … (C.52:13D-25).

52:13D-12. Legislative findings
The Legislature finds and declares:
(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials … shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.
52:13D-25. Disclosure or use for personal gain of information not available to public
No … member of the Legislature shall willfully disclose to any person, whether or not for pecuniary gain, any information not generally available to members of the public which he receives or acquires in the course of and by reason of his official duties. ….
L.1971, c. 182, s. 14, eff. Jan. 11, 1972.

Other Provisions – 
52:13E-8. Dissemination of evidence adduced at private hearing
Except in the course of subsequent hearing which is open to the public, no testimony or other evidence adduced at a private hearing or preliminary conference or interview conducted before a single-member agency in the course of its investigation shall be disseminated or made available to the public by said agency, its counsel or employees without the approval of the head of the agency. Except in the course of a subsequent hearing open to the public, no testimony or other evidence adduced at a private hearing or preliminary conference or interview before a committee or other multimember investigating agency shall be disseminated or made available to the public by any member of the agency, its counsel or employees, except with the approval of a majority of the members of such agency. Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be adjudged a disorderly person.
L.1968, c. 376, s. 8, eff. Dec. 27, 1968.

VI. Disclosure of Confidential Information
Relevant provisions of the Conflicts Law and the Code of Ethics: N.J.S.A. 52:13D-25; sections 2:11 and 3:13 of the Code of Ethics.
Summary: These provisions prohibit legislators and legislative employees from disclosing nonpublic information acquired in the course of official duties.

Question 24
Senator B serves on a special committee directed by resolution to conduct an investigation. As part of that investigation, preliminary sworn statements were taken at private hearings and the transcripts of those statements were given to the members of the special committee including Senator B. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13E-8, the transcripts are confidential unless a majority of the special committee votes to make them public. No such vote was taken. The transcripts concern activities affecting the Senator's district and he wants to share the information with local officials immediately. 

Can he give copies of the transcripts to the local officials and request that they not go public with the information?

You answered No which is correct.
The Senator may not release this information. Not only would the release of this confidential information violate N.J.S.A. 52:13D-25 and section 2:11 of the Code of Ethics, it would be a disorderly persons offense pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13E-8.

Relevant Facts:

On June 6, 2024, starting at 10 AM, the Assembly Education Committee heard public testimony for the first time on the so-called "Freedom to Read Act" A3446 that was written by the American Library Association (ALA) based in Chicago, Illinois, and promoted nationwide and federally with its organization called, "Unite Against Book Bans."  ALA promotes Unite Against Book Bans on X via use of the hashtag #UniteAgainstBookBans.  I testified at that hearing about the grip of the Unite Against Book Bans organization over New Jersey’s librarians.  To me it seems my testimony was ignored.

Seventeen minutes before the hearing began, then again during the meeting, the X account @NJAssemblyDems posted its support for ALA, first by posting the ALA’s hashtag, then by posting with a tag to ALA’s Unite Against Book Bans group on X called @UABookBans.  It later deleted that second tweet.  So, before even ever hearing from the public on the issue, the Assembly demonstrated it openly sided with the legislative efforts of the Chicago-based organization that drafted the legislation.  Even the Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly demonstrated his support for the Chicago organization’s legislation before any testimony was heard.  This has to violate at least some of the codes/laws cited above.  Passing A3446 now essentially rubber stamps ethical and possibly criminal violations made by those legislators who voted for A3446.

The "Freedom to Read Act" will defend our most basic freedoms and protect the rights of students, parents, and communities. 
@AswDrulis @njla @NJEA @GSEquality @NJASL #uniteagainstbookbans #nj
9:43 AM Jun 6, 2024

An hour or so later, I can’t be sure since the post has since been deleted but I have a screen grab of it showing it was sent an hour after the first post, @njassemblydems sent out a response to its own post discussed above saying only, "@PENamerica @sikh_coalition @UABookBans".



Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, posted on X from @SpeakerCoughlin by saying, "The Freedom to Read is fundamental to our democracy" and reposted the 9:43 AM Jun 6, 2024, prejudicial post.  He did this at 11:08 AM Jun 6, 2024, only an hour and eight minutes after the Assembly hearing started and hours before it concluded.

On or before June 12, at least one member of the NJ Senate Education Committee [SEC] provided New Jersey Association of School Librarians [NJASL], which is a Chapter of the American Library Association’s [ALA] American Association of School Librarians [AASL], with a June 20 date of the SEC hearing for S2421 “Freedom to Read Act.”  S2421 was never heard that day but still, the librarians were tipped off.  After that, on or before June 13, that information was placed on an ALA web site (via ALA crypto group EveryLibrary) with the call to “email or call” the legislators of the SEC. On June 14 at 6:18AM, an ALA astroturfed group in New Jersey started by North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School school librarian Martha Hickson using ALA resources posted on X from @NHVfREADom the link to that ALA/EveryLibrary web site and tagged @NJASL @AndrewZwicker @aswdrulis, so at least those people knew for certain of the ALA/EveryLibrary web site announcing the date of the S2421 hearing.  As of June 19, 12:26 PM, the SEC still doesn’t list S2421 as being heard on June 20 despite NJASL and ALA having known and having announced it since June 12.  Further, by June 14, two legislators knew or should have known of the release of the information via a third ALA source.  So seven days had gone by and the New Jersey public still didn’t know of the S2421 hearing on June 20, but ALA did, ALA’s EveryLibrary did, ALA’s AASL Chapter NJASL did, and ALA’s astroturfer Martha Hickson @NHVfREADom did.  The ALA and its supporters have been able to rally for a week before the June 20 hearing while New Jersey citizens had yet to have been informed of the June 20th hearing date, although again it didn’t happen that day.  Indeed some could not attend as a direct result of this lack of public notice.  It’s ALA that wrote the legislation and is pushing it in New Jersey, in states nationwide, and federally.  Somehow ALA knew of the SEC’s June 20th hearing on S2421 at least a week before the SEC ever made the New Jersey citizenry aware.  NJ legislators are the only possible source of this inside information.

Date/Time: 13 Jun 2024 19:43:45 UTC
Source: American Library Association (via EveryLibrary)
Quote:
Update June 12 from NJASL:
The companion bill, S2421, sponsored by Senators Zwicker and Ruiz will be heard by the Senate Education Committee on Thursday, June 20. Please email or call the following legislators and ask them to vote YES on S2421.
Senator Vin Gopal, Chair (LD11) Monmouth County
732-695-3371 sengopal@njleg.org
Senator Shirley Turner, Vice Chair (LD15) Hunterdon, Mercer County
609-323-7239 senturner@njleg.org
Senator Kristen M. Corrado (LD40) Bergen, Essex, Passaic County
973-237-1360 sencorrado@njleg.org
Senator Owen Henry (LD12) Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean County
732-607-7580 senhenry@njleg.org
Senator Angela McKnight (LD31) Hudson County
201-360-2502 senmcknight@njleg.org

Date/Time: 13 Jun 2024 19:49:03 UTC
Source: NJ Senate Education Committee
Quote:  Nothing to quote and no June 20 meeting is listed.

Date/Time: 13 Jun 2024 20:22:26 UTC
Source: NJ Senate Education Committee
Quote:  Now the June 20 meeting is listed, but S2421 is not.  Eight others are.

Date/Time: 14 Jun 2024 06:18 AM ET
Source: @nhvfREADom on X
Quote:
The NJ Freedom to Read Act is having a positive influence even before it’s passed by giving other states ideas for protecting the right to read. Let’s make sure we pass our bill @njasl @AndrewZwicker @aswdrulis https://www.saveschoollibrarians.org/njaslbookbans

Date/Time: 19 Jun 2024 04:13:58 UTC
Source: NJ Senate Education Committee
Quote:  Still S2421 is missing.

Senator Andrew Zwicker calls Dan Kleinman a “meddling minority”:

"One critic who told legislators he would testify against the bill is Dan Kleinman, a Texas-based blogger who last year launched the World Library Association as an alternative to the American Library Association, which has led the charge nationally against banning books. Zwicker said neutralizing that meddling minority of out-of-towners is one of his goals.

"'We already live in a system where a parent has the ability to limit what their child does or doesn’t read. But we should never live in a system where someone else gets to choose what your child gets to read. A small number of people, if they had their way, would dictate what the rest of us and our children could choose to read. And that’s un-American,’ he said."


Lastly, ALA’s Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and its Freedom to Read Foundation, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., trained librarians that before legislation gets promoted there needs to be sustained messaging that reframes known s*xually inappropriate material as diversity and inclusion.  That is apparently exactly what has happened in New Jersey, right down to the wording of the legislation, and why legislators willingly violate ethical codes leading to violations of obscenity statutes.  And children are the target.  If the legislators don’t stand up for New Jersey’s children, who will?  The parents will, but the legislation intentionally and severely limits their ability to act in such a manner.  Specifically, the ALA leader/attorney said:

"But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s*xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody's right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library."


And ALA has worked for over half a century to promote inappropriate material in public schools and libraries.  See: Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing. New Jersey parents don’t stand a chance against such sustained community organizing and really must rely on legislators to protect their rights, yet it appears those rights are being tossed aside for flowery "freedom to read" language that was made up by ALA in the 1960s precisely to take power away from parents and school boards and enrich authors like New Jersey’s own Judy Blume.  The New Jersey legislature is delivering the coup de grâce since ALA doesn’t have the power to do that by itself.

Conclusion:

From the above it is my opinion that at least one New Jersey legislator has violated ethical codes in a manner that may be considered a criminal offense subject to a possible fine, jail, and a criminal record.  Further, there are a number of aggravating factors that make this a serious offense, including that the will of the public will have been subverted so that school children may be s*xualized and indoctrinated in schools by school librarians ignoring the US Supreme Court and New Jersey criminal statutes on obscenity, let alone the will of the public, all to satisfy the interests of a private organization based in Chicago, Illinois, promoting “Freedom to Read” and “Right to Read” legislation nationwide and here in New Jersey that simply defies the law, community standards, common sense, and that directly harms children.  I’ve been called a “meddling minority” by one of the legislators, but it appears any meddling being done is by the legislators themselves violating ethical codes and possibly committing disorderly persons offenses.  This “Freedom to Read Act” is being forced on people like in New Jersey by legislators acting in collusion with ALA to s*xualize and indoctrinate school children. The legislators demonstrate they’ve already made up their minds and any input from citizens is merely to make a showing about caring for the people of the state; to check off a box before passage of legislation into law.  

These acts are fatally flawed from the start, they are being promoted with flagrant violations of ethical codes and criminal laws, they harm children and violate existing law like Board of Education v. Pico allowing immediate removal of pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material, and now they are about to be sent to the Governor for his signature.

I’ll be publishing this so the public knows what’s going on in legislatures and why their children are being harmed in public schools and libraries and how legislators are turning that harm into law by violating ethical codes. 

I call for the appropriate legal remedy to be launched against these legislators given the above, even if that includes their immediate arrest.  And certainly the "Freedom to Read Act" A3446 S2421 should not be advanced any further.

No one is above the law.




NOTE ADDED 6 JULY 2024:

The page discussed about on an ALA site has been changed to remove the evidence presented above, the exact reason the archived copies were provided.  So ALA is hiding the collusion this report revealed.  Here is an archive of the page as it appears as of today with the incriminating evidence removed:


Here is my five post thread discussing this:


Monday, April 15, 2024

Time to Charge NJ School Librarians Martha Hickson and Roxana Caivano With Obscenity Under 2C:34-3

School librarians in New Jersey may have committed indictable (felony) criminal offenses involving third degree crimes under NJ Rev Stat § 2C:34-3 (2013) Obscenity For Persons Under 18.  See:  https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-34-3/.  Third-degree crimes carry a sentence of five to ten years imprisonment.  A judge may look at aggravating or mitigating circumstances.  Status as a school librarian is not a mitigating circumstance.  It is known school librarians in New Jersey are subject to 2C:34-3 because proposed legislation Bill S2421 "Freedom to Read Act" specifically seeks to create an affirmative defense for "a teaching staff member, including a school library media specialist."  See: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/S2421/bill-text?f=S2500&n=2421_I1.

ISSUE: Do the actions of school librarians in New Jersey meet the elements of the offense of obscenity for persons under 18?


So the issue is, does 2C:34-3 apply to New Jersey school librarians and do the actions of school librarians meet the elements of the offense of obscenity for people under 18.  To answer that, we look at the rule (2C:34-3) to determine the elements of the offense, then we apply that rule to the facts.  After that we make a conclusion.

RULE:  NJ Rev Stat § 2C:34-3 (2013) Obscenity For Persons Under 18

2C:34-3. Obscenity For Persons Under 18. 


a. Definitions for purposes of this section:

(1) "Obscene material" means any description, narrative account, display, depiction of a specified anatomical area or specified sexual activity contained in, or consisting of, a picture or other representation, publication, …, which by means of posing, composition, format or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the area or activity.
(2) …
(3) "Specified anatomical area" means:
(a) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock or female breasts below a point immediately above the top of the areola; or
(b) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if covered.
(4) "Specified sexual activity" means:
(a) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; or
(b) Any act of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) Fondling or other erotic touching of covered or uncovered human genitals, pubic region, buttock or female breast.
(5) "Knowingly" means:
(a) Having knowledge of the character and content of the material … described herein; …
(b) …
(6) …
(7) "Show" means cause or allow to be seen.


b. Promoting obscene material.
(1) A person who knowingly …, distributes, … to a person under 18 years of age obscene material is guilty of a crime of the third degree.
(2) A person who knowingly shows obscene material to a person under 18 years of age with the knowledge or purpose to arouse, gratify or stimulate himself or another is guilty of a crime of the third degree if the person showing the obscene material is at least four years older than the person under 18 years of age viewing the material.

c. …

d. Presumption of knowledge and age.
The requisite knowledge with regard to the character and content of the … material and of the age of the person is presumed in the case of an actor who …, distributes, … or shows obscene material to a person under 18 years of age ….

e. Defenses.
(1) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subsections b. and c. which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(a) The person under age 18 falsely represented in or by writing that he was age 18 or over;
(b) The person's appearance was such that an individual of ordinary prudence would believe him to be age 18 or over; and
(c) The …, distribution, …, [or] showing … was made in good faith relying upon such written representation and appearance and in the reasonable belief that he was actually age 18 or over.
(2) …


APPLICATION:  Have the elements of the offense been satisfied by the actions of school librarians?


Here’s where we compare the elements of the offense to the facts.  The crime is defined in 2C:34-3(b)(1): "A person who knowingly …, distributes, … to a person under 18 years of age obscene material is guilty of a crime of the third degree."  The elements of the offense are 1) a person, 2) knowingly, 3) distributes, 4) to a person under 18, 5) obscene material.  All elements of an offense must be met to make a finding of a crime under a criminal statute.

Element 1: A person.  


A school librarian is a person.  

Element 1 of 2C:34-3 has been met.

Element 2: Knowingly.  


2C:34-3(a)(5) defines knowingly as having knowledge of the character and content of the material.  So do school librarians have knowledge of the character and content of the material?  Yes.  The aforementioned "Freedom to Read Act" requires a school board to "acknowledge that a school library specialist is professionally trained to curate and develop the school library collection."  If anyone has knowledge of the character and content of the material, it’s the school librarian.  They are professionally trained to curate and develop the school library collection.  The "Freedom to Read Act" was written by the American Library Association then shaped by New Jersey legislators for application to New Jersey students.  So essentially the American Library Association is saying school librarians are professionally trained to curate and develop school library collections.  As a result, it is clear school librarians are in the highest position of knowing the character and content of the material.  

Furthermore, American Library Association has a site for book resumes as it copies the idea of book reviews from sites put together by moms and dads.  While BookLooks gives "Let’s Talk About It" a severe rating of 4/5, see: https://booklooks.org/data/files/Book%20Looks%20Reports/L/Lets%20Talk%20About%20It.pdf, the ALA site gives it a glowing review, see: https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/wp-content/uploads/moen_letsTalkAboutIt_20240215-pdf.pdf.  ALA is not only fully knowledgable about the book’s content, but it is actively seeking to give it a glowing review to attract more children to read it or more librarians and parents to recommend it to more children.

School librarian Martha Hickson discusses Let’s Talk About It and it is 100% obvious she fully understands the material is as obscene as the Internet can be, only accurately depicted and discussed.  See at 4:22: https://www.pbs.org/video/martha-hickson-intv-1706645841/.  So she knows the character and content of that material.

Element 2 of 2C:34-3 has been met.

Element 3: Distributes.  


2C:34-3 does not define distribution.  Merriam-Webster defines it as the act or process of distributing, that it further defines as dividing among several or many, spreading out so as to cover, giving out or delivering especially to members of a group.  It is a school librarian’s job to curate and develop school library collections and thereafter distribute the collected materials to school students, faculty, and administration.  Distribution is specifically the job of a school librarian.  She’s not an academic conducting research and collecting works for herself.  They are called media specialists for a reason.  They are specialists.  They acquire books then make displays with them and place them on lists and place them on library shelves precisely with the idea of distributing the books to anyone and everyone interested, and in school libraries, the primary audience is children.  Indeed, everyone expects school librarians to open the world of reading to school children.  They just don’t expect that obscenity as defined in 2C:34-3 is part of that world of reading. 

There may have been an argument in the past that 2C:34-3 doesn’t apply to librarians because the librarians do not actively place the books into the hands of the children.  They simply put the books on the shelves and it is the children themselves who select them.  This is a false argument.  First, it’s like saying a bar tender didn’t make children drink, he merely selected the alcoholic beverages in the bar and the children themselves selected them.  A tattoo artist didn’t force a child to get a Sponge Bob tattoo, it was the child who selected that tattoo from those listed.  It wasn’t the librarian who put the book in the child’s hands, the child simply selected the book off the shelf.  Well the book would not have been on the shelf in the first place had the librarian not selected the book to be placed on the shelf.  

And we know from S2421 that librarians are professionals at curating book collections.  So how else did the child get the obscene material from the shelves but for a librarian’s actions?  Did no one distribute the book to the child?  Did it just appear out of thin air?  Further, librarians make Banned Books Week displays to lure children into libraries to select inappropriate material.  The Roxbury librarian sued the parents in part for making that very statement, but it is American Library Association itself that talks about luring kids with attractive Banned Books Week displays.  The point here is 2C:34-3 involves 2C:34-3(b) that involves promoting obscene material by either knowingly (1) distributing material to a minor or (2) showing obscene material to minor.  True, librarians aren’t showing material to a minor or it would be very hard to prove.  But the law uses the word "or."  The librarians are indeed distributing the material to the school children by virtue of their selecting the materials and placing them on library shelves to be picked up by children.  That distribution is enough for this element of the offense to be met.  It is not required that a librarian place a book into a children’s hand.  Besides, why is S2421 seeking an exemption for librarians if they were not tacitly admitting librarians are indeed liable under 2C:34-3.

Then there is the question of why do school librarians hide the distribution of obscene material to school children.  They know they are distributing it and they don’t want the parents to know.  "Per the ALA, best practice is to simply not keep checkout records, so that parents can be told that you do not have access to that information.  Informing parents of checkouts is a massive violation of the principles of free-inquiry that constitute the ALA's Library Bill of Rights, something your school librarian should be keen on upholding."  See: https://www.weareteachers.com/struggling-with-book-bans-reddit/.

So not only is distribution occurring, but some librarians are actively seeking to hide that information from parents.

As a result, Element 3 of 2C:34-3 has been met.

Element 4:  To a person under 18.  


In a non collegiate, public school setting, the majority of the people to whom a school librarian distributes material are under 18.  Schools are designed to meet the needs of children, the majority of whom are under 18.   

Element 4 of 2C:34-3 has been met.

Element 5:  Obscene material.


2C:34-3(a)(1) defines obscenity as any description, narrative account, display, depiction of a specified anatomical area or specified sexual activity contained in, or consisting of, a picture or other representation, publication, …, which by means of posing, composition, format or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the area or activity.  

This definition of obscenity is the key to finding New Jersey school librarians in violation of 2C:34-3, not only because it is a required element of the offense, but also because it is not the usual definition of obscenity.  The usual definition is the one from Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the one with the three prong Miller test, and one prong requiring the work to be considered obscene "as a whole."  That "as a whole" standard essentially makes obscenity prosecutions under the Miller standard unsuccessful.  "As a whole" as a standard means no school books are ever obscene because "as a whole" they just aren’t.  No school librarians ever buy obscenity for school libraries as defined by the Miller test.  The book Let’s Talk About It, for example, is not obscenity per the Miller test.  But 2C:34-3 does not have that "as a whole" standard.  So, in New Jersey at least, it is possible school librarians are knowingly distributing obscene material to people under 18.  Let’s Talk About It, for example, may be obscenity under 2C:34-3.  To understand if it is, a deeper look at 2C:34-3 is needed.

2C:34-3(a)(1) references terms that further drill down on what is obscenity, namely, "specified anatomical areas" and "specified sexual activity."  

Per 2C:34-3(a)(3) "Specified anatomical area" means: "(a) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock or female breasts below a point immediately above the top of the areola; or (b) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if covered."  

Per 2C:34-3(a)(4) "Specified sexual activity" means: "(a) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; or (b) Any act of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse; or (c) Fondling or other erotic touching of covered or uncovered human genitals, pubic region, buttock or female breast."

Let’s Talk About It does indeed contain "specified sexual activity" regarding "specified anatomical areas."  Let’s Talk About It has graphics that show everything listed in both 2C:34-3(a)(3) and 2C:34-3(a)(4).  

For example, one graphic shows a sort of x-ray view of a man’s penis fully inserted into the vagina of a woman with the words, "Shloop!" and "WHOA, that’s NOT safe for work."  "Reproduction aside, your genitals exist to let you feel pleasure with yourself or others (no matter which genitals they may have).  Sexual intimacy is a powerful way to feel good and bond with another person, whether it’s for a night or a lifetime.  Ahhhh.  I can’t handle any more.  Our bodies are so incredible!! …Makes me wanna have some alone time with my bits.  Get outta here, Suri!"  On another page graphics of how a female masturbates are shown repeatedly.  Accompany words say, "Things to Try!  Trail your finder around and over your vulva.  Flutter your fingers lightly from place to place.  Tug, pull, and rub your labia.  Circle your fingers around and over your clit.  Give it a couple quick pats!  Press and pull on the skin around your vulva to make it taut.  Try slipping a finger or two inside your vagina.  Later on, try adding a sex toy to your masturbation!  They can bring a completely new sensation that you can’t experience with just your hands."  

Another page turns to male genitalia.  The largest word on the page is "FWAP!"  "Things to Try!  Stroke the shaft of your penis with different pressures and speeds.  Try mixing up your grip or switch hands.  Whack it against your palm or give it some gentle bending pressure.  Tug or squeeze on your balls.  If you have a foreskin, play with it! Slip a wet finger between it and the glans.  Switch things up and avoid constantly masturbating with a tight hand grip, as it can make it harder to climax in the future."  Try a sex toy for bonus fun.  Vibes and strokers are awesome!"

Let’s Talk About It then turns to anal sex, with multiple full close up graphics, and these words: "Apply broad pressure to the outside of the entrance.  Circle your butthole with your finger, pausing any time a spot feels extra good.  Dip just the tip of your finger inside. Let your anus pull it in when it's ready, instead of forcing it.  Dive deeper with your finger or a butt plug!  Just make sure any objects you put up there have a flared base; otherwise, your hungry heinie can gobble it up and the only way to get it back out is a trip to the hospital.  Make sure to wash your hands before touching any of your other body parts, especially the vulva.  Or wear latex gloves and toss them…"

There’s "prurient interest" galore there.  Shloop!  FWAP!  Sex toys for bonus fun.  Dive deeper with your finger or a butt plug!  That’s not sex education.  No adult here was ever trained in public school how to use a butt plug for bonus fun.  

See also: "Dems, Don’t Tell Us We Need to ‘Shhh!’; Our Kids’ School Libraries are Full of Guides on Sex Acts and Gender Confusion," by Karol Markowicz, The New York Post, 9 March 2023, https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/our-kids-school-libraries-are-full-of-guides-on-sex-acts-and-gender-confusion/.

Given the above, Let’s Talk About It is a book loaded with material 2C:34-3 defines as obscene.  Many other books have similar content, such as Gender Queer.  

Element 5 of 2C:34-3 has been met.

So all five elements of the offense have been met.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors


At this point, all five elements of the offense proscribed by 2C:34-3 have been met.  School librarians purchase and distribute obscene material in schools.  They are subject to 2C:34-3, and the legislative effort to pass S2421 shows librarians know they are subject to 2C:34-3.

Let’s look at mitigating and aggravating factors.

The only mitigating factor is that we are talking about librarians.  They have some of the highest good will ratings of any job.  So there is a tendency to assume a librarian always acts for the good of children.  That’s not a mitigating factor, but it is something that may weigh in on whether to find a librarian guilty of 2C:34-3, and it shouldn’t.  Actually, they should know better, and they do, they simply want to keep children reading such material, even calling a "right to read", a "freedom to read," or "intellectual freedom."  No child has the right to read illegal material in public schools simply because a school librarian claims a First Amendment right to distribute such material.  The New Jersey Legislature trumps librarians.  Police must enforce the law and put aside the librarian spin about kid’s rights to see themselves in the books they read in schools.  Mirrors, windows, and doors are not an excuse to violate 2C:34-3.

Aggravating factors are aplenty.  One school librarian, upon hearing of a book challenge, jumped over the heads of her own reporting structure and "notified her union and groups like ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC).  She also reactivated a network of community supporters that she built in 2015, when Fun Home was first challenged.”  See page 28: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1123-al.pdf.  She trains other librarians to do the same.  "Reach out for support to the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the National Council of Teachers of English, EveryLibrary.org, and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, all of which have online forms to make it easy to report your case.  Also get in touch with your local library organizations at the county and state level.  For me that was the Hunterdon County Library Association, the NJ Library Association, and the NJ Association of School Librarians.  And don’t forget school and community partners, including your union, your colleagues, parents, clubs, organizations, and most importantly students.  People will want to help; you just need to tell them what you need.  See: https://comminfo.rutgers.edu/news/standing-strong-against-censorship.

Further aggravating the situation, that school librarian has a web page on the school’s web site where that web page calls parents—in her own school—"censors" who "strike," and she guides librarians to go over the heads of their own employers and to do so secretly.  See: Hickson, Martha. “Challenge of Challenges: Challenge Emergency Kit.” North Hunterdon High School Library Media Center, November 27, 2023. https://libguides.nhvweb.net/c.php?g=1035323&p=7505173.  Again, this attack on parents and this guidance for librarians nationwide is on the school’s own web site.

See the librarian herself describe the "vicious" parents, her reaching out to the library community generally to pressure school boards, and especially noteworthy in the context of a 2C:34-3 conviction is her description of "Let’s Talk About It."  She says, "Well my understanding of, um, the objection, although it hasn’t been formally articulated, there was a uh reading of of the book at the November board meeting, um, a reading of passages of the book I should say, those passages had to do with ah masturbation um.  My understanding of the concern is that uh some observers of selected passages and pages of the book believe it is too explicit for teenagers.  Um, it contains cartoon nudity, it is a book about sexual health, uh, and it does take it from the perspective of the twenty first century teenager, a twenty first century teenager who lives in an environment that is saturated with sexual content by virtual of the device that they hold in their hand.  Um.  And the material they access through the device that they hold in their hand is not curated, it is not high quality information, it may not even be accurate information.  A book like Let’s Talk About It, on the other hand, is exactly that.  Um, it’s highly praised by professional review sources, it contains accurate information about uh teenager sexual health and behavior."  See at 4:22: https://www.pbs.org/video/martha-hickson-intv-1706645841/.

Notice she talks about "select passages" being read.  She is referring to the "as a whole" standard of the Miller Test for obscenity that doesn’t apply to schools generally and that isn’t a part of New Jersey’s 2C:34-3.  She talks about terrific professional reviews.  That’s irrelevant to 2C:34-3.  She talks about the book allegedly being about sexual health.  That’s irrelevant to 2C:34-3 but also false, as discussed above.  She talks about kids seeing inappropriate material on their cell phones anyway so they might as well get "high quality information" from books like Let’s Talk About It.  That’s not only irrelevant to 2C:34-3 but it may demonstrate an intention to provide school children with a "high quality" source of the very information 2C:34-3 seeks to proscribe from children.  It’s almost as if she has an intention to violate 2C:34-3.

This is why NJ Bill S2421, the "Freedom to Read Act," seeks to add an exemption for librarians to 2C:34-3, precisely because school librarians in New Jersey are likely violating the obscenity law vis-a-vis children.  That librarian Martha Hickson knows this because she works directly with NJ Senator Andrew Zwicker and US Representative Andy Kim to get S2421 passed into law.  See: https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2024/01/sen-andrew-zwicker-book-bans-librarian-harassment-north-hunterdon-high-school-martha-hickson/

Roxana Caivano, picture above right, is another school librarian who may be violating 2C:34-3.  In her case, the aggravating factors are that she has sued the parents who complained about obscenity in school books—in a school board meeting.  That defamation suit is so broad it even includes me.  It is an effort to intimidate parents into silence.  The intimidation tactic works so well that it is embedded in S2421.  7(b)(1): a librarian “shall have a civil cause of action for emotional distress, defamation, libel, slander, damage to reputation, or any other relevant tort, against any person who harasses” her.  Harassment now includes calling out violations of 2C:34-3 at school board meetings, as the Caivano case demonstrates.  If this isn’t an aggravating factor in 2C:34-3 prosecutions, that even raising 2C:34-3 violations in school board meetings could be considered harassment and subject people to lawsuit, I don’t know what is.  American Library Association even trains librarians to file false defamation suits against parents to drain them of time and money, up to $500K, and to intimidate them into silence.  Roxana Caivano has done that.  All because some parents complained about what amounts to violations of 2C:34-3.

CONCLUSION:  


In conclusion, looking at all the elements of the offense of NJ Rev Stat § 2C:34-3 (2013) Obscenity For Persons Under 18 and applying them to the facts of cases regarding New Jersey school librarians, it appears possible such librarians may be found guilty of having violated the law.  Indeed they may have violated the law multiple times, once for each obscene book under NJ law.  Such librarians should suffer the full consequences of the law and must not be allowed to get away with it by claiming they are only school librarians doing their jobs and are upstanding citizens of the community.  People giving obscenity to children despite the law are not upstanding citizens of the community.  Violating obscenity laws is not doing their jobs.  Other states may have built in exemptions from obscenity prosecutions for librarians but New Jersey does not.  Indeed librarians are now seeking to add that exemption per S2421 angelically named the "Freedom to Read Act."  But S2421 is not law yet and never should be.  The very people distributing obscenity to children should not be exempted from the law against doing so, especially where it is ALA itself writing that legislation and trying to get similar legislation passed nationwide.

And the "as a whole" defense to obscenity is a Miller case standard that doesn't apply in schools and that is not part of 2C:34-3.  If you hear anyone say "as a whole" Let's Talk About It and the like are good books for children so children can see themselves, they are intentionally applying a false standard to mislead you.

The question is, will someone finally bring obscenity charges against NJ school librarians like Martha Hickson and Roxana Caivano, or will they be allowed to continue to use taxpayer funding to continue to violate 2C:34-3 and continue to harm school children.  Shall we wait until American Library Association gets S2421 passed in New Jersey that exempts librarians from being charged with obscenity crimes so that nothing will ever be done, or should we go ahead now and file charges under the current law that hopefully will not be changed by the very people promoting obscenity for children?

Lastly, how long have New Jersey librarians been getting away with violating 2C:34-3 Obscenity For Persons Under 18?  Forever.  It was American Library Association itself that raised the issue by attempting to get the "Freedom to Read Act" passed in New Jersey that specifically exempted librarians from that law.  They raised the issue.  They know it’s a problem.  Now that parents are aware, now is the time to hold New Jersey’s school librarians to the law.  Now is the time to prosecute Martha Hickson and Roxana Caivano for obscenity for persons under 18.

URL of this page: 


Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org