Avert Your Eyes Jane Light Got $220,983 to Sexualize San Jose Children for the American Library Association

San Jose City Librarian Jane Light is retiring from her $220,983/year job at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library:

• "Internal Affairs:  The Campaign Donation is Mightier Than the Sword," by the Mercury News, San Jose Mercury News, 31 March 2012.

The American Library Association [ALA] misleads a third of American communities into leaving their children exposed to the very harm the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] was designed to prevent. How do we know?  Ernest Istook, the CIPA author, said so a month ago.  And no library media has reported on this story, obviously having something to hide:

• "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.

Congressman Istook did not say, but he was likely referencing Judith Krug, the ALA's de facto leader, who was the ACLU's three year Illinois state ACLU leader who came to the ALA and created the change within librarianship that no longer would librarians keep children from inappropriate material.  (I'm gathering people together to reverse this.)

For example, Judith Krug said:  "I have a real problem when people say, 'Well I walked by and you should have seen what was on the computer screen.'  Well, don't look, sweetie.  It's none of your business.  Avert your eyes."

Avert your eyes, says the ALA.

For $220,983/year, Jane Light has allowed the San Jose community to be one of those under the ALA's sway that keeps children exposed to harm despite the availability of CIPA:

The SJPL and SJSU Libraries adopt as policy the following:  American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights .... V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of ... age ....

[T]he Library does not monitor and has no control over the information accessed through the Internet and assumes no responsibility for its content. 

What drew my attention to this particularly library is that Jane Light is unique.  She is unique because she is not unique.  When it comes to using Internet filters to protect children from harm, in addition to using ALA policy as shown above, she herself echoed the exact "avert your eyes" words of the ALA's ACLU leader:

[T]he Martin Luther King Library has a problem with pornography.  They have no rule against viewing photographs or full-screen sex videos from Internet sites, even with children nearby.  Chief librarian Jane Light says it's a matter of free speech.  ....  ABC7's Dan Noyes: "I've seen the [privacy] screens and I see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind.  You can see everything." Jane Light...: "So you can avert your eyes."  ....  San Jose's police blotter over the past year lists several arrests for child porn at the library, at least ten cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right at the terminal.  ....  Sgt. John Laws, San Jose library police: "It showed him sitting at the computer terminal and ... masturbating."  ....  Marcia Stacke, Child Quest International: "You know, sometimes I wonder if we're just too afraid to be, I don't know, sued in this country.  We've got to step out and protect our kids.  Enough is enough."

Source:  "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," by Dan Noyes, KGO-TV San Francisco, CA, 29 November 2006, emphasis mine.

Apparently "averting your eyes" did not work to protect the "ten cases of child molestation" from the harm CIPA compliance might have prevented.  Judith Krug, Jane Light, is there a difference to the library crime victims or the children sexualized by the $220,983/year Jane Light?  $220,983 to tell people to "avert your eyes," and the policy did not even work.

By the way, for following ALA policy and not using CIPA filters, $220,983/year Jane Light quietly forced the San Jose government to give up approximately $207,825.60 during her tenure.  In 2003, the library got $25,978.20 from the federal government under the CIPA program for "Internet access."  Then CIPA was found constitutional in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  (Imagine that, the ALA and the ACLU suing to stop CIPA, and losing big.)  As a result, CIPA funding for Internet access was lost since 2004.  2004 to 2011 at about $25,978.20/year comes to about $207,825.60.  So thanks to Jane Light, San Jose lost almost a quarter million dollars.  And I have concerns CIPA funding for "Telcomm" services may have been artificially inflated to make up the difference, but I am not looking into that Light-fingered aspect of the matter.  After all, numerous libraries commit CIPA fraud.

Do you want this ALA "avert your eyes" policy in your own community?  Will you avert your eyes from who's controlling your own local public library?  You better Know the ALA.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Flat Out Lying by Caroline Martin, San Jose Public Library Commissioner

San Jose Public Library's commissioner, Caroline Martin, is flat out lying to the public. 100% lying. She is saying, "The fact is, Internet filters are censorship." No. Internet filters are legal and pose no threat of censorship when used properly. See United States v. American Library Association [ALA].

Really, read the case. Then read the propaganda below reprinted from BooksNotFilters.com, and remember this propaganda shows Caroline Martin and others are representing the interests of the ALA, those not of San Jose citizens or San Jose State University students.

Either Caroline Martin is completely incompetent or she is flat out lying to the public and the media.

I shall intercalate my comments below:

Books Not Filters Take Action to Stop Censorship in Your Library

"Libraries are community treasure chests, loaded with a wealth of information available to everyone equally, and the key to that treasure chest is the library card." – Former First Lady Laura Bush We agree with Mrs. Bush. [SafeLibraries: True, but the material specifically excludable under US v. ALA is not part of the subset of "information" that should be "available to everyone equally," else why would the US Supreme Court allow for excluding certain material.] Right now, the San Jose Public Library system is under attack. [SafeLibraries: False. The library used to comply with community interests. Now it complies with the interests of the ALA, a third party organization that believes it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep any material from children no matter what the US Supreme Court said about this. Community efforts to restore control of the library to local interests is not an "attack." If anything, it's a response to the setting aside of local interests by ALA acolytes following ALA directives.] In the coming weeks, the San Jose City Council will consider a proposal to impose Internet filters in public libraries called the "Internet Pornography Filter Policy." [SafeLibraries: False. To "impose" is to bring about as if by force. Actually, the ALA acolytes imposed the current system on the public, likely by using the same propaganda it's using now. A representative government acts on behalf of its citizens--it does not "impose" anything.] The proposal is an attack on civil liberties and masquerades as child protection. [SafeLibraries: False. I suppose by this reasoning the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA attacked civil liberties and masqueraded as child protection.] The fact is, Internet filters are censorship. [SafeLibraries: False. See US v. ALA. The ALA lost on this very issue. Caroline Martin knows or should know this.] Moreover, filters do not accomplish the job proponents would have us believe. [SafeLibraries: False. Even the ACLU now says filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related web sites. See ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007.] We are asking you to take action against this proposal. How big a problem is pornography in our public libraries? This proposal is a solution in search of problem. The advocates pushing the censorship proposal [SafeLibraries: False, it's not "censorship."] make the claim that our libraries are a dangerous place for kids because there is pornography coming out of every book and every computer screen. This could not be further from the truth. Last year, in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library there were only ten complaints among 700,000 Internet sessions – or roughly 0.001% of Internet sessions leading to complaints. And, last year, roughly 1,400,000 Internet sessions netted zero complaints in the branch libraries. In fact, over the past decade, the Library administration received an average of 3 complaints per year. [SafeLibraries: False in that it is misleading. Consider the following: San Francisco Bay Area, CA: "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," KGO, 29 Nov 2006, "[T]he Martin Luther King Library has a problem with pornography. They have no rule against viewing photographs or full-screen sex videos from Internet sites, even with children nearby. Chief librarian Jane Light says it's a matter of free speech. .... ABC7's Dan Noyes: 'I've seen the [privacy] screens and I see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind. You can see everything.' Jane Light...: 'So you can avert your eyes.' .... San Jose's police blotter over the past year lists several arrests for child porn at the library, at least ten cases of child molestation or other sex crimes involving kids and several cases of men viewing porn and performing a lewd act, right at the terminal. .... Sgt. John Laws, San Jose library police: 'It showed him sitting at the computer terminal and ... masturbating.' .... Marcia Stacke, Child Quest International: 'You know, sometimes I wonder if we're just too afraid to be, I don't know, sued in this country. We've got to step out and protect our kids. Enough is enough.'" Now reread what Caroline Martin said then decide if she is being intentionally misleading.] "Second-hand porn," as advocates like to call it, is not an issue at any of our libraries. [SafeLibraries: False, as the above news story proves. I really don't understand how she thinks she can get away with these flat out lies.] We have made it a point to visit our libraries dozens if not hundreds of times going out of our way to look for inappropriate content, and never once have we seen anything objectionable on others' screens. [SafeLibraries: Great, the "avert your eyes" people didn't see anything. They have no credibility in this case.] Let the City Council know that you don’t believe in solutions in search of problems. In the midst of the City’s budget crisis, is this the best way to spend limited resources? [SafeLibraries: Desparation is evident here where this red herring argument is raised, as the first argument to "let the City Council know," no less. Besides, is "limited resources" a reason to leave children exposed to what ABC7 Dan Noyes reported?] At a time when the City Council is considering cutting the most vital City services – this is not the time to waste money to buy expensive, ineffective computer software for the more than 800 library computers. Just this week, the City Council is considering whether to cut millions of dollars from health care education for kids or fund crossing guards. These things are vital for young people’s health and safety. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball and spend our valuable tax dollars where they make a difference. [SafeLibraries: So this entire paragraph of what to tell the City Council relates only to financial concerns.] Send a message to the City Council that you think there are other priorities for the City’s limited budget. Who is sponsoring the so-called "Internet Pornography Filter Policy"? The "Internet Pornography Filter Policy" is being sponsored by the Values Advocacy Council. [SafeLibraries: The second reason to "let the City Council know" is that the people seeking to protect children are from the Values Advocacy Council. In other words, attack the messenger. The messenger of the message is supposedly so far out that we are all supposed to ignore the message in the first place. The use of ad hominem argument is merely a further sign of desperation at not having a legitimate substantive claim to make.] The Values Advocacy Council is using their Council ally, Councilmember Pete Constant, to push this proposal. [SafeLibraries: What a joke. Here's an organization that works tirelessly to gain allies in the government. Entire sections of library associations are devoted to library advocacy. But let Values Advocacy Council get just one ally and that's supposedly another reason to leave children unprotecting by legally available and effective means.] To make their case, the Values Advocacy Council is making the outrageous claim that young people could turn into serial killers if Internet filters are not imposed on library computers. [SafeLibraries: VAC is closer to the truth here than is Caroline Martin who in the midst of another ad hominem argument.] This is a scare tactic plain and simple. [SafeLibraries: And lying to the public isn't?] The Values Advocacy Council and Councilmember Constant are giving the City Council a false choice between kids and pornography. Only you can give the City Council the courage to stand up for what is right. Tell the City Council that you believe censorship has no place in our libraries. [SafeLibraries: False, legal filters under US v. ALA are not "censorship," so Pete Constant is not seeking to censor anything. I'll say that again. Pete Constant is not seeking to censor anything.] The proponents of the “Internet Pornography Filtering Policy” are well-organized and highly motivated. [SafeLibraries: Perhaps, but so is the library. I learned about this from a very large email distribution list from the ALA itself. Hundreds of ALA members are being urged to respond, indeed anyone nationwide, perhaps thousands: "If you believe that filtering is not in our library's interests, please review the email below, take a look at the Books Not Filters website, and if you feel so inclined, email our council members. .... You can forward this message on to anyone else you know who might be against filters in the San Jose Public Library, or any library for that matter."] We need your help to stand up to this proposal and provide support for our brave City Councilmembers who may oppose this policy. Protect all our kids and grandkids today and tomorrow, let the council know censorship does not belong in our libraries. Send an email to the Mayor and City Council today. Have your voice heard. [Safelibraries: False. People are lied to then told to voice a concern, but that voice is really Caroline Martin's. When people learn the truth, like about US v. ALA, when they are truly informed instead of misinformed, then they would instead call to encourage Pete Constant.] Thank you for your time and for standing up for our libraries. [SafeLibraries: False. Acting out based on propaganda and flat out lies only means unwittingly standing up for ALA values, not local community interests purposefully left ignorant of US v. ALA.] Sincerely, Caroline Martin San Jose Library Commissioner* Catherine Graham San Jose Library Commissioner* Mike Hoa Nguyen San Jose Library Commissioner* *Titles listed for identification purposes only. The Commissioners are not speaking on behalf of the Library Commission. [SafeLibraries: Excuse me? Now you tell us? It's irrelevant anyway as this web site is being broadcast for action by librarians nationwide, and by people acting in their official capacities, like in the ALA.] Please, ask your friends to take action [SafeLibraries: This is from Caroline Martin to a prominent librarian in this area geographically and topically. Anything to spread the propaganda. One ALA member then retransmitted this to hundreds of ALA members. See how this works? The citizens of San Jose are not this well organized and are about to get crushed ... again.] This email was sent to librarianinblack@gmail.com by booksnotfilters@gmail.com. Email Marketing by Books Not Filters | 468 S Ninth St | San Jose | CA | 95112 booksnotfilters@gmail.com 408/688-1500

Library Violates Rights of Chinese American; Women Beaten, Warned Not to Call Police Without Permission, and Banned for Using Husband's Library Card

A library may have violated the rights of a Chinese American, according to Chin-Li Mou v. City of San Jose and San Jose Public Library Education Park Branch. Chin-Li Mou was banned for six months for using her husband's library card to obtain access to the Internet. She asked some children to simmer down given library policy on that issue. The library ordered her not to disturb the children despite their violating library policy. One of the children causing the disturbance followed her outside after the library kicked her out for trying to get the library to follow its own policy. Then the child beat her mercilessly. Unbelievably, when police arrived at the woman's call to 911, the assailant's school security intervened and prevented the police from speaking with the woman!

When the woman called the police another day after seeing the assailant in the library, this time the library staff intervened. Likely as a result of that intervention, the police were "rude and disrespectful" toward her. The police said the children "were born in this country and since [she] was not fortunate enough to be born here [her] rights were subordinated to their rights." She became an American eleven years ago. The police then warned her she would be arrested if she "so much as talked to the Independent high school students."

Did the library defend her freedom of speech? No. Did the library decry the police's unequal treatment based on her national origin? No. Has the American Library Association [ALA] taken any action? No. Instead, the library warned her to get permission before calling the police. Imagine--this is the same library that opposes asking librarians for permission to disable Internet filters and is recommending no filters at all.

Calling the police to prevent assault and battery? Get permission. Viewing child p()rn? No permission is needed. Freedom of speech for Chinese Americans? No. Freedom of speech for child p()rnographers? What do you think--has the Lindsay, CA, library employee fired for calling police on someone viewing child p()rn been rehired yet? No, and don't hold your breath.

This is in the same library that is misleading the public regarding San Jose Councilman Pete Constant's efforts to rid the library of the ALA's influence. See "Demonstration Proves Library Filters Work; San Jose Councilman Pete Constant Counters Library Director's False Claims."

This is the same library where the chief librarian, Jane Light, was caught by the media flat out lying. See "P()rn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," KGO, 29 Nov 2006.

You have to read the complaint itself to believe this. Here's the complaint, and I found it easiest to click the "Download PDF" link at the bottom:

Demonstration Proves Library Filters Work; San Jose Councilman Pete Constant Counters Library Director's False Claims

San Jose (CA) Councilman Pete Constant, aware that San Jose Public Library Director Jane Light is propagandizing to try to prevent using legal Internet filtering software when she says filters do not work, decided to demonstrate publicly that library filters work and do not block health-related web sites. This is exactly as the ACLU expert testified in ACLU v. Gonzales. (Here are more stories on this San Jose matter.)

Sure enough, the demonstration of Websense Internet filtering software worked perfectly.

SafeLibraries.org credits Councilman Pete Constant for refusing to be taken in by propaganda and for acting to demonstrate exactly how false are the claims of filtering opponents. Further, SafeLibraries.org credits the media similarly, for seeing through the propaganda, as can be seen clearly in this story, such as when Library Director Jane Light says "so ... avert your eyes" when the vaunted "privacy screens" are proven to be a total failure: "Porn, Sex Crimes At Libraries; I-Team Investigation," KGO, 29 Nov 2006. Let this serve as an example to other governmental leaders and the media not to take what library directors say against filtering at face value.

Here is the news report on the filter demonstration:

"SJ: City Councilman Demonstration Proposed internet Filtering Software for Libraries," AP, 31 May 2008.

• Sat, 31 May 2008 06:10:01 GMT

SJ: CITY COUNCILMAN DEMONSTRATES PROPOSED INTERNET FILTERING SOFTWARE FOR LIBRARIES

SAN JOSE (BCN)

San Jose City Councilman Pete Constant gave a presentation today about a brand of Internet filtering software that he believes will effectively filter pornography and other obscene materials at computers in the city's libraries without blocking legitimate uses.

More than a dozen people showed up at a San Jose City Hall conference room to watch Constant use a laptop computer with the Websense filtering software installed successfully to access a number of health and research-related Web sites that he claims filtering opponents have said the software would block. He used the Web site for Planned Parenthood as an example.

"There's a section of the Web site that's about sex education and it's accessible,'' Constant said.

The Websense software is currently being used successfully by the Phoenix, Ariz., public library system and it is also used by the city of San Jose to block pornographic and other obscene Web sites on the computers used by city employees, according to Constant.

San Jose Public Library Director Jane Light has told the City Council that installing filtering software would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that the library system cannot afford given the city's tight budget situation.

Constant told the audience this afternoon that the City Council is scheduled to discuss the issue on June 17.

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. In the interest of timeliness, this story is fed directly from the Associated Press newswire and may contain occasional typographical errors. )

ACLU Propaganda and Library Filters - Case Study in How Governments Are Misled

The ACLU propagandizes local governments on library Internet computer filters. The latest victims are San Jose, CA and Sacramento, CA. Below is my response to this blog entry from the ACLU of Sacramento County: Library Censorship - Same Old Issue, New Medium:

Looking to Understand Why ACLU v. Gonzales is Not Mentioned

Having read the entire blog that was linked, I'd like to ask a question.

Why was ACLU v. Gonzales not mentioned? Not in the blog, and not in the letter(s?) sent to local governments. Another ACLU case is mentioned, the one in Washington, but not ACLU v. Gonzales, so you are aware of other related ACLU cases and you include them in your letters.

ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Pa., March 2007 [ACLU expert and court agrees Internet filters are about 95% effective and no longer block out breast cancer and other health-related information—so effective that another law, COPA [Children's Online Protection Act], was found unconstitutional].

ACLU v. Gonzales is totally 180 degrees opposed to your claims here in this blog and in the letters you send to governments. An ACLU expert testified filters work really well and no longer block out material that used to be wrongly blocked. Yet here in this blog and in letters to local governments absolutely no mention is made of ACLU v. Gonzales or any of its underlying facts or its legal conclusions.

I find this to be a serious omission bordering on flat out propagandization. For example, you say, "Some local legislators are citing minuscule problems with library users accessing sexually explicit internet sites as an excuse to impose internet filtering and restrictive use policies that will keep essential health, LGBT information, and political information out of reach for many." Not according to your own ACLU expert in ACLU v. Gonzales, but you make no mention of that. Instead you say the opposite.

But I could be mistaken. Perhaps you have a good reason for completely failing to disclose what the ACLU expert argued and the Court found in ACLU v. Gonzales, something that seems to me to reveal an intentional misleading of local governments, particularly where you include other ACLU cases. Therefore, please answer why was ACLU v. Gonzales not mentioned?

"If the issue of library internet access comes to your neighborhood, please help maintain open access. Contact us for more information about how to fight library censorship." Information or misinformation?

And why do you even call it "censorship" when a case the ACLU itself lost in the US Supreme Court, US v. American Library Association, found Internet filters do not constitute censorship?

I wish you would raise legitimate factual or legal concerns instead of making arguments based on making believe ACLU v. Gonzales and US v. ALA do not exist. And I just disclosed the tip of the iceberg. How do you expect to be considered authoritative when you appear to be outright propagandizing?

Please answer substantively. Ad hominem argument is not acceptable and will only show you have no real answer.

Thank you.