Showing posts with label USConstitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USConstitution. Show all posts

Thursday, May 14, 2026

Seeing through the Smoke and Mirrors from the ALA

​

Adult books are available to children of all ages in public libraries

Abortion, alcohol/abuse, alternate gender/sexual ideologies, animal cruelty/neglect (severe), anxiety, assassinations, bestiality, BDSM, body horror, blackmail, cannibalism (themes/threats), controversial commentary, cults and ideological zealots, dark content, deception, derogatory terms, demonic content, depression, divination, drugs/drugging, erotica, explicit sexual activities/nudity,  fetishism, gore, inflammatory commentary,  incest (themes), mental illness, molestation, murder, necrophilia (themes), patently offensive content, paraphilias, pedophilia, Pervasively Vulgar content,  profanity (multiple languages), prurient content, prostitution, rape, Satan worship (themes), self-harm, sex trafficking, smoking, stalking, suicide ideation, theft, torture, violence and Voyeurism. (This is a topic summary in Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon). 

That's quite a list.  

And yet, thousands of public libraries can't find one single reason to keep a book with all of these adult topics out of the hands of children. There are tens of thousands of sexually explicit books and materials with no limits, restrictions, guidelines, or protections of any sort,  available to children all across the United States. The public library and school policy of open access to all materials to all ages has repeatedly exposed children to content that would be considered obscene and illegal in any other setting.  

Who came up with that policy?

The American Library Association has manufactured reasons to override parents and give kids of all ages access to adult books in any format, digital and hard copy. All children, all ages, all access, all the time…that’s the policy whether you like it or not.

To do anything else would be Censorship!                             Book Banning!

Okay, that's not true...

The Supreme Court weighed in with Ginsberg v. New York (1968) and decided that children are NOT entitled to view sexually explicit materials under the Constitution and that "obscenity is variable", which means the content doesn't have to be obscene for adults in order to be obscene for children. Kansas Law (21-6401 and 21-6402) states that adults are prohibited from exposing children to obscene materials, and that obscenity is to be determined at least in part by community standards (not library policies) because minors lack the maturity to process explicit sexual content responsibly (Miller v. California 1973).

Restricting a sexually explicit book based on age in the library or school is not censorship.  Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) decided that books can be removed from school library shelves without risk of censorship claims if the removal is due to vulgarity or unsuitability, and gives school boards broad discretion to do so with Constitutional protection. 

One more time for the people in the back...

The Supreme Court ruled that a book does not have to be obscene to an adult in order for it to be considered obscene for children. Schools and libraries cannot be forced to expose children to adult materials in the name of combating "censorship." The standards for children are, and should be different than the standards for adults. That's literally true in every other situation. Children are not adults, and should not be treated like they are. 

It is the duty of all adults in any setting to protect all children from exposure to anything that may harm them.

Even if the child is too young to read the words, they can look at the pictures of erect penises and teenaged boys in sexual positions. Kids who are little older, maybe by 3rd or 4th grade, can pick up on concepts like anal or oral sex.

Graphic illustrations placed where kids can see. Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe

Accidental and unsupervised exposure to mature content is much more dangerous than a controlled discussion with a parent. Many other librarians and schools refuse to protect children from that exposure. 

Thousands of libraries adhere to the American Library Association's policies that fight censorship where censorship does not exist at the expense of childhood innocence.   

Decades of research from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), the American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children (APSAC), the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), shows that early sexualization of children is very damaging and can lead to depression, anxiety, anger, confusion, aggressive sexual behaviors, desensitization, low self-esteem, increased mental health crisis and increased risk of exploitation by adults due to normalization of sexual concepts by children too young to understand the consequences.

That's also quite a list. 

Ignore all of that, though, the American Library Association says that your child can see or read whatever they want, whenever they want as long as it's at the library or on school property. That's not a law, it's a library policy suggestion from a NGO with no accountability to anyone involved, but that's the lead most schools and libraries are following. 

The Library Bill of Rights says that "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." Adults, who are not the parents, use this policy to defend and justify giving materials to children in the library or at school that would be illegal if given to them at a gas station. The "Rights" in this Library Bill are granted by no one, and are legally unenforceable. 

And yet, librarians defend it as if it's the law of the land


Parents have the right and responsibility to oversee their child's upbringing, education and moral development. 

Children do not have the right to read and see whatever they want. 

Librarians do not have the right to expose children to potentially harmful materials under any circumstances. This practice is justified by policy, not law. 

If the Community Standards question the appropriateness of allowing a child to access any material, the librarian should err on the side of caution to protect the child. Librarians who expose children to potentially obscene materials are not constitutional champions even though the American Library Association directs them to "fight censorship." 

There are NO banned books in this country. 

Banning a book means that you can't legally get the book anywhere. If a book is banned, you can't buy it, borrow it, steal it, see it, possess it or read it. 

Book banning is not a thing in the United States.

Adults can get any book from a variety of sources any time. An adult can go into any library and get any book they want. Libraries cannot possibly be required to carry every title--if a book is not available in the library it does not mean it has been banned by any legal true definition.  

PEN America shows on its website that more than 23,000  "book bans" have been documented since 2021 in public schools across the country. The stats are misleading, however--"If the same book is banned in 10 school districts, that would count as 10 bans, but one unique title. A book ban is the removal or restriction of those materials, either permanently or under review (PEN.org). 

It is counted as a "book ban" if a sexually explicit book is moved out of the children's section to the adult section, even though adults are not restricted from access in any way.  The American Library Association and PEN America offers tools to librarians and library boards to fight "when the censors come." (PEN is referring to parents who object to adult materials being offered to their children.)  

What do you call the repeated and excessive use of words like "book banning" and labeling parents as "the censors" who are coming to violate the Constitution?  

Gaslighting. Fear mongering. Manipulation.

What's your problem? Are you a Nazi or something? 

Book banning is a phrase associated with Nazi Germany, and the fervent use of the phrase is intentional to evoke a connection between anyone who objects to childhood exposure to sexually explicit materials and that horrible time in world history. The claim of book banning insidiously weaponizes the fear of those events being repeated in order to get parents to give up their rights over their own children to avoid the comparison. 

Parents aren't Nazis just because they want to decide what their children see and read. Parents have the right to determine when their child is mature enough for the content, and the responsibility to protect their children as they see fit without interference from libraries and schools.  

The fact that the taxpayers buy the books, build the libraries, build the schools, pay the librarians, elect the boards, and fund the NGOs only to have those institutions and organizations band together to strip them of their rights and authority over their own children makes all of this truly insulting.  

Restricting children’s access to adult book titles doesn’t take anything away from parents who want their children to read sexually explicit books. A parent can go check out that book anytime they want to and let their children see it.

On the flipside of that, a parent who wants OTHER people’s children to be exposed to sexually explicit books has NO legal right or authority to do that. NONE. Libraries who fight to keep these policies that override parent rights ARE taking something away from parents—their rights to have knowledge of and to choose what their children are exposed to. 

Why do seemingly normal adults fight so hard to defend putting sexually graphic books in front of children?

Protests, parades, lawsuits, angry board meetings, hateful social media attacks, threats of violence, cancel culture, lectures and virtue signaling from board members and lawyers...WHY? 

Why do libraries CHOOSE to allow children to have access to adult materials when they don’t have to? What is the motivation behind overruling community objections to facilitate giving sexually explicit material to children that would be illegal in any other setting? It's regulatory displacement...materials that would violate regulatory guidelines and definitions outside of the building are protected inside the building based on location. 

It's still the same children inside and outside of the building.

NGOs like the American Library Association decide what hoops parents have to jump through to protect their own children while shielding the library from any responsibility to do so. Kansas law regarding definitions of obscenity are ignored because of location in the library. 

Library boards of directors choose (but are not required) to adhere to policies from the ALA, purporting that no materials are obscene and that children cannot be prevented (protected) from seeing any materials because it would violate their "Freedom to Read." The American Library Association developed a Freedom to Read policy which has no support from the law. It's a policy, suggested guidance, and means nothing in court. It's not enforceable. 


There is no Constitutional Freedom to Read for Children

The ALA Library Bill of Rights is not law. 

There are no banned books in the USA. 

Curation is not censorship. 

Adults have the right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Protecting children from sexually explicit materials does not infringe on any adult's First Amendment Rights in any way. 

Children's first amendment rights are limited and do not overrule the rights of their parents to exercise authority over their child's upbringing, moral development, and education.

Adults who are not the parents have no right to give a child sexually explicit materials using subjective decision making. 

Policy guidance from private non-governmental organizations cannot override state law. 

It requires the cooperation of complicit public institutions to undermine parents rights and sacrifice childhood innocence in the name of "fighting the good fight" against censorship. 

Ask your local librarian to defend sexually explicit materials in the children's section without using borrowed ALA policy language. 

I'll wait.












—
URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/05/seeing-through-smoke-and-mirrors-from.html



Follow Protect Salado Kids on X:

Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Monday, July 21, 2025

After Mahmoud, ALA Bluffs to Set ALA's Library Bill of Rights as State Law; Massachusetts H3591, H3594, H3598, and H2328

Regarding Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328
Submitted by Dan Kleinman, Executive Director, World Library Association

Dear Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development,

Why are we here?  We are here because the American Library Association [ALA] based in Chicago, Illinois, has been working for over half a century to s3xualize and indoctrinate America’s children via the medium of its so-called "Library Bill of Rights" that half a century ago made it "age" discrimination to keep anything from children. See, Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442 (archived: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing). This has driven the faster and faster pushing of inappropriate material into public libraries and school libraries, causing parents to challenge such material in greater numbers and frequency.  Then the librarians complain about all the parents complaining, after ALA first caused the problem.  

So in an effort to stop all parents anywhere from challenging materials, ALA had to come up with something.  ALA wants its "Library Bill of Rights" to be codified into state law nationwide, thereby effectively overruling the US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico ( https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/ ) and blocking parents from even filing complaints in the first place.  This Chicago organization called ALA has over a third of state legislatures considering whether to codify this "Library Bill of Rights" that one court ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).

Now such legislation to overrule the Pico case and the First Amendment comes to Massachusetts in the form of Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328.  So that’s why we are here.  The question is, will Massachusetts legislators pass into law what a private organization from Illinois has put forth to try to turn its nothing "Library Bill of Rights" into Massachusetts law?

ALA caused the problem and provides the solution: legislation to essentially codify its own "Library Bill of Rights" nationwide.  Such legislation has passed in a few states but ALA wants more.  Now it wants Massachusetts.  And in a big way.  American Library Association is to be the Massachusetts standard setter in Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328.

    Bill H.3591 requires: "E. Adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights ...."

    Bill H.3594 requires: "Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy...."  "The written policy shall be in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "The policy shall provide that if a material is the subject of a complaint or attempt to remove or restrict its use, it shall remain on the shelves pending a vote of the school committee during the process for responding to challenges...."  The latter is a direct violation of Board of Education v. Pico that allows for immediate removal.  The concept of ignoring Pico and leaving the book on the shelf until a long process has completed is the sole idea of Chicago's American Library Association.  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... : (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association...." "The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."

    Bill H.3598 requires: "Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy ... in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association...."  "The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."  "SECTION 12. Section 19B of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by ... inserting ... (8) adopt and make public a written policy for the selection and use of library materials and facilities in accordance with section 33; provided, that such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights...."

    Bill S.2328 requires: "SECTION 3. Said chapter 71 is hereby further amended by inserting ... Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy ... in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association and as required by section 19B.  The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."  "SECTION 12. Section 19B of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by ... inserting ... 8) adopt and make public a written policy ... that such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights...."  "SECTION 14. Said section 33 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word 'Association', in line 6, the following words:- including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights...." 

Can you all see how Chicago ALA's "Library Bill of Rights" aspirational creed is set to set the standard for Massachusetts law?

I’m Dan Kleinman, the Executive Director of the World Library Association [WLA] based in Bee Cave, Texas.  WLA is the new alternative to ALA.  For opposing a similar law in New Jersey, also promoted by that same Illinois private organization, NJ state senator Andrew Zwicker called me a "meddling minority."  So the World Library Association from Texas is a meddling minority, but the American Library Association from Illinois that essentially wrote the Massachusetts legislation and that of all other states is not.  The meddling being done is by the Illinois organization trying to mislead Massachusetts legislators into violating Pico with false claims of First Amendment rights, intellectual freedom, the "right to read," and the right for children to "see themselves" in the book they are reading.

This effort by ALA has encompassed about 22 states so far, almost half of the United States.  The details of exactly how and why it is so bad, along with what states are considering codifying the Illinois organization’s aspirational creed that means nothing, is written at the Right to Read Act page on World Library Association here: https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/  I feel there is no better guide on the topic from the point of view of parents.

To be very clear, ALA has worked for a very long time to mislead legislators nationwide into doing what the Illinois private organization wants, namely, ensure children get access to all materials at any age per the "Library Bill of Rights."  As you consider this legislation, ask yourselves if you wish to be misled and to discard US Supreme Court precedent designed to protect children from harm, and to discard the First Amendment and your own state constitution.  

And there it is, the Massachusetts Constitution, Article XIX (a real Article XIX, not the fake ones in the "Library Bill of Rights"), "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."  People have the right to seek redress of the government.  Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 basically remove that right.  No one will be able to seek redress of the government for inappropriate books because Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 enjoin that via the application of legislation written in Chicago, Illinois, by an organization tired of losing past efforts to keep kids reading inappropriate materials in school libraries. 

The right of redress is so important in Massachusetts that there is a second article in the constitution about it, and solely about the right of redress.  Article XXII: "The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new laws, as the common good may require."

Does a law making available to children books about butt plugs and how to upload pictures to Grindr to meet a man for a night and blocking people from seeking redress serve "the common good"?  How many legislators have even done either?  Why might they create that right for school children if Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 pass into law?

Will Massachusetts legislators toss away Article XIX and Article XXII of their own state's constitution so blithely just to pass a law written by a Chicago organization working for 60 years to harm school children with inappropriate material that a court has already ruled its "Library Bill of Rights" means "nothing" and is just an organizational creed?

So if the four pieces of legislation crowning American Library Association as king pass into law, they will immediately violate the Massachusetts Constitution because parents will lose the right to seek redress without new, stringent preconditions from school and library boards whose hands are now tied by the law.  This is why people don’t want a private organization from Illinois writing any laws for Massachusetts.  ALA simply doesn’t give a whit about the Massachusetts Constitution, nor anything or anyone else for that matter.

One way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is with "long-term inoculation."  This is in training from EveryLibrary, a crypto ALA affiliate.  As part of long-term inoculation, ALA (via EveryLibrary) specifically states, "Get to know your legislators and local leaders," in the context of "identifying and activating others who care."  Have any Massachusetts legislators been "identified and activated" to "care" about ensuring children have unlimited access to anything whatsoever?  Have any librarians or library associations gotten to "know their legislators"?  See this for yourselves here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. And the crypto nature of EveryLibrary being a part of American Library Association is detailed here, as well as details on its "long-term inoculation": https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html

A second way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is via training ALA’s top lawyer gave to librarians, that before legislation is written, because that’s the goal they are after, before legislation is written, there needs to be "sustained messaging" that takes away the idea that certain materials are s-xually inappropriate for children and "reframes" the issue as one of diversity, inclusion, and the right for kids to "see themselves" in the materials they are provided.  This statement was surfaced and reported by me, after which Utah Senator Mike Lee discussed it at a recent "Banned Books" hearing on Capitol Hill.  He played the recording, then afterwards said ALA’s lawyer was "saying the quiet part out loud," that ALA is gr—ming and s-xualizing children.  His words.  As Utah Senator Mike Lee put it, “the goal is to s-xualize children, to provide minors with s-xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.”  Watch Senate Mike Lee display then discuss this video World Library Association surfaced and listen to his discussion of the issues regarding the contents of supposed "banned books": https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments

And remember, the "book ban" hoax has been exposed by the United States Department of Education and it has dropped all of its actions against parents.  I proved years ago it was ALA that caused US Dept of Ed to promulgate the "book ban" hoax in the first place ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html ).  The hoax is over.  Now Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 is no longer needed.

So ALA has decades ago made it age discrimination to keep kids from materials.  The Pico case allows for the removal of inappropriate material; books like Gender Queer have been successfully removed from many schools under the Pico case, and ALA couldn’t stand for that.  Result?  It created "Unite Against Book Bans," one of the goals of which was to get legislation passed nationwide that would prevent parents from applying the Pico case and prevent parents from exercising their First Amendment and state constitutional rights to seek redress of the government from governmental actions.  And here you are in Massachusetts discussing this very legislation that has been the subject of "long-term inoculation" and "sustained messaging" that essentially "reframes" known inappropriate material as diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Along comes Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328. Compare them with the "Library Bill of Rights" that the Berry v. Yosemite Community College District court case ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).

American Library Association diktat has a trail of child victims, like Maia Poet who exposed how she was directly harmed by a school librarian predator.  Watch: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606?s=61


Not only does Bill H.3591 eliminate the US Supreme Court Pico case, it also eliminates the First Amendment’s and Massachusetts Constitution’s grant of the right of redress.  If the school board is constrained by law from removing Gender Queer and similar books, then parents' rights to seek redress of the government are eliminated, gone, or an unconstitutionally huge burden is placed on them and no book will ever be removed, no matter how inappropriate.  This is the goal of ALA.  Under the new legislation, there is no longer a right to ask a school board to remove a book from the school, or the right is so limited that nothing will ever be removed.  Never.  So those rights are gone.  The new legislation takes those rights away.  Under the wording of Bill H.3591, there is not a single book in the library now or ever that may be challenged by a parent and removed by a school board.  This is the goal of the Illinois-based private organization called ALA.

ALA recently lost a big case in Mahmoud v. Taylor.  Parents can now opt out of what ALA is pushing.  The US Supreme Court allows parents to opt out, but Massachusetts legislators want to make ALA legislation into law via Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328?

Look at the Massachusetts Association of School Committees [MASC] in what it said about the Mahmoud case.  https://www.masc.org/scotus-decision-in-mahmoud-v-taylor-considerations-for-district-policy/  It says:

"This case has been viewed as an attack on the LGBTQ+ community and a direct challenge to the fundamental responsibilities of local school committees and their districts. MASC will be examining to what extent this decision requires revisions to our current policy recommendations. Crafting an appropriate policy that will protect districts, and avoid unwelcomed results when applied, is challenging given that these cases are so fact specific and the latest decision provides minimal guidance." 

Look how hard MASC will be working to craft a proper policy in light of the Mahmoud decision to "protect districts, and avoid unwelcomed results when applied."  One policy "is challenging" and "these cases are so fact specific and the latest decision provides minimal guidance."   Yet Massachusetts legislators are ready to pass  Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 just on the trust of the American Library Association and its claimed and assumed adherence to and trend setting on "intellectual freedom"?

Let's be very clear, ALA being the trusted expert on intellectual freedom is illusory.  It doesn't even hold its own organization to the same standard.  See, "ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values," by Trevor A. Dawes, Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums and May Morris University Librarian at the University of Delaware, https://trevordawes.wordpress.com/2025/07/19/ala-closed-door-meetings/

Quoting from Mr. Dawes: 

“The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship and for intellectual freedom is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes. When librarians advocate for open government meetings in their communities and resist attempts to conduct public business behind closed doors, how can their professional association justify adopting the very practices they oppose?”

“The library profession has long served as a bulwark against information gatekeeping. Librarians regularly advocate for government transparency, fight against secret deliberations by public bodies, and champion the public’s right to know. When ALA adopts the very practices its members oppose in other contexts, it undermines the moral authority of the profession’s advocacy efforts.”

“ALA’s credibility as an advocate for transparency and intellectual freedom depends partly on its willingness to embody these values in its own operations.”

“When librarians testify before city councils about the importance of open meetings or when they argue against secret deliberations in school board decisions, they draw moral authority from their profession’s commitment to these principles.”

“By retreating to closed-door deliberations without adequate justification or member input, ALA risks undermining not just its own democratic processes but the broader advocacy efforts of the library profession.”

“President Helmick and the ALA Executive Board have positioned this change as a technical adjustment to improve governance efficiency. However, the decision represents something far more significant: a choice between convenience and values, between operational ease and organizational integrity.”

“The question isn’t whether ALA can afford to maintain transparent governance practices. The question is whether it can afford not to.”

So, will Massachusetts constituents want their legislators to pass laws written by an outside organization that doesn't even live up to its own standards?  Won't enforce intellectual freedom within its own ranks?  This is the model to follow for Massachusetts?

I feel certain no parent wants any of this legislation to pass into law in Massachusetts, except those few who support that Illinois organization more than they support the law, community standards, and common sense, and except those few legislators who have been successfully co-opted by the "long-term inoculation" and the "sustained messaging" from the Illinois based private association of librarians and members of the local Massachusetts Library Association and the like.  To me, any legislator passing anything from American Library Association into law knowing the history of ALA and how it doesn't even stand up to its own standards will be complicit in the harm done by this legislation.  Any lawsuits brought under any of these laws if passed should include the legislators who knew ahead of time the harm being done but who chose to let the harm be done.

I further feel certain that should any of Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, or Bill H.2328 pass into law, it will be challenged in court for First Amendment violations, among other things, then eventually struck down.  Will that out-of-state private organization fund all that legal footwork to protect Massachusetts's children?  Of course not.  You'll all be on your own.

Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 should never become law in the first place, and it should never be reworded because it is fatally flawed.  It comes from an out-of-state organization as part of an over half-century effort to "long-term inoculate" adults, especially legislators, so they drop their guard and allow children to be s3xualized and indoctrinated in schools and public libraries despite that being against the law, community standards, and common sense.  When the ALA lawyer says to "reframe" inappropriate material as DEI so kids can "see themselves," anyone can see for him or herself what’s going on, and Senator Lee’s words make it crystal clear.  And ALA won't even follow its own policies it expects you to pass into law.

Do not pass Chicago ALA’s Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, or Bill H.2328 into law, else Massachusetts children will be directly harmed, and legislators could possibly be complicit in harming them.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Dan Kleinman, Executive Director
World Library Association

—
URL of this page: 


Sunday, September 8, 2013

Violating Constitutional Separation of Powers is American Library Association's Latest Move for Net Neutrality

Violating constitutional separation of powers appears to be the American Library Association's latest move for net neutrality.  Quoting ALA:
Some have suggested that the FCC is overstepping its bounds by taking any action at all without waiting for Congress to legislate.  We respect the Congressional prerogative to legislate on these matters.  It is not clear, however, that there is a consensus on legislation, and the legislative process often takes time.  There are a host of competing priorities that will keep Congress busy in the near term and a thorough re-write of Internet-related provisions will have to compete with these priorities.  Even though some are advocating a "rifle shot" legislative strategy, it is more likely that Congress will take a comprehensive look at broadband issues, which makes it unlikely that legislative reform could move quickly.

FCC action in the near-term will act as a "spare tire" to ensure that consumers are protected and to implement the Goals of the National Broadband Plan while Congress decides upon its course of action.  Preserving the open Internet and implementing the NBP are high-priority issues that deserve to be addressed as soon as possible.  Meanwhile, action in the near-term by the FCC will give powerful interests who oppose net neutrality and aspects of the broadband plan an incentive to deal in good faith with Congress.
Source:  "In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service," Comments of the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE, Federal Communications Commission, GN Docket No. 10-127 (circa September 2003).  See also, "Comments of the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE in the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service," by Association of Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, circa September 2013.

Did you understand that?  We respect that Congress has the exclusive right ("prerogative") to legislate but it will take too long because there isn't "consensus" so the Executive Branch's FCC should simply make up the law?  That's what ALA just said as shown above.  Is ALA not advocating for a violation of the constitutional separation of powers?  Isn't this an ALA ethics violation, at a minimum?

"Spare tire."  That is a cute way to make violating the US Constitution palatable.  Why the rush?  Oh, to thwart the "powerful interests who oppose net neutrality."  And ALA astroturfing for Free Press is not a powerful interest?  Very powerful if it convinces people to violate the Constitution.

And of course ALA knows what "good faith" is when it hails violating the Constitution as an "incentive to deal in good faith with Congress."  Recall that ALA promoted net neutrality anonymously in possible violation of the law—and not in good faith—by engaging in political activity and propagandization under dozens of anonymous names on Wikipedia:


It is not good faith for ALA to teach the opposite of the law in a case it lost in the US Supreme Court to mislead library trustees nationwide into leaving communities exposed to the harms of pornography.  This is also with respect to matters of concern to the FCC to which ALA now complains about the good faith of "powerful interests":



For more detail on the complete lack of good faith at ALA in matters of relevance to the FCC, see what the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act had to say about ALA—and me:



So, comment below, is this or is this not a call for unconstitutional action to usurp power from the people?  From a library association, no less, that wants us to believe it is all concerned about the First Amendment, public libraries, school libraries, and access of children to inappropriate material.


NOTE ADDED 10 SEPTEMBER 2013:

This post has been cited in an article saying, "The ALA, like a lot of reflexive leftist organizations, is wrong."  See: