No Right to Trans Propagandize Kids in Schools: Florida AG Amicus Brief on Pico and School Libraries

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

Case No. 3:23-cv-10385-TKW-ZCB

PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC., ET AL.,

          Plaintiffs,

                    v.

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

          Defendant.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST

     Plaintiffs challenge “the decisions of the Escambia County School Board (‘the School Board’) to remove and restrict” certain materials in “public school libraries within the Escambia County School District.” DE25-1 at 1–2. The restrictions, Plaintiffs say, violate the First Amendment because the government may not restrict access to materials “based on viewpoint” or “deny students access to ideas with which” the “school board disagrees.” DE25-1 ¶¶ 218, 225 (cleaned up). But public-school systems make value-based judgments like that every day. They exclude materials like Nazi propaganda because they disagree that Nazis were wonderful, regardless of any educational value the materials may have. Viewpoint-based educational choices are constitutionally permissible because public-school systems, including their libraries, convey the government’s message, and, when the government speaks, it may “regulate the content of . . . its own message,” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995), “including choosing not to speak and speaking through the removal of speech that the government disapproves,” Gundy v. City of Jacksonville, 50 F.4th 60, 71 (11th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs—who include the authors and publishers of certain books restricted by Defendant—are free to take their concerns to the ballot box. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 468–69 (2009). But they have no constitutional right to inculcate Florida’s schoolchildren with their preferred ideas through Florida’s school libraries. To vindicate that principle, the Attorney General respectfully submits this amicus brief in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

ARGUMENT

I.     PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM.

     1.  Plaintiffs contend that “[s]chool libraries are . . . of great importance to book authors and book publishers, especially with regard to books aimed at” their intended audience—“children and young adults.” DE25-1 ¶ 41. In their view, “[t]he libraries within the School District constitute, at a minimum, non-public forums,” and, “[b]ecause they are non-public forums, the School Board cannot” restrict access to materials “based on viewpoint.” Id. ¶ 218. That is wrong because Florida’s public-school libraries are a forum for government, not private, speech. And when the government speaks, it “can freely select the views that it wants to express, including choosing not to speak and speaking through the removal of speech that the government disapproves.” Gundy, 50 F.4th at 71(cleaned up).

     Although the Eleventh Circuit has not yet addressed whether the government’s “book collection (and book removal) decisions” for school libraries are “government speech,” ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1201 (11th Cir. 2009),[ 1 ] the Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit have repeatedly held that the government’s authority to “regulate the content of . . . its own message,” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833, includes the discretion to select materials and content for compilation and presentation to citizens, be it a government parade,[ 2 ] a broadcasted debate,[ 3 ] a state-university commencement,[ 4 ] or a state-sponsored art gallery.[ 5 ] In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, for example, the Supreme Court held that the selection of monuments for a public park was government speech, even when the monuments were funded or donated by private parties. 555 U.S. at 470–73. “Government decisionmakers select[ed] the monuments that portray[ed] what they view[ed] as appropriate for the place in question, taking into account such content-based factors as esthetics, history, and local culture.” Id. at 472. Accordingly, the “decision to accept certain privately donated monuments while rejecting respondent’s” was “government speech,” and the government was not required to “maintain viewpoint neutrality” in making that decision. Id. At 479, 481. 

     As the Supreme Court has explained, “forum analysis and heightened judicial scrutiny . . . are also incompatible with the discretion that [government-run] libraries must have to fulfill their traditional missions.” United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 205 (2003) (plurality op.). Like the monument park in Summum, a library’s purpose is “to provide its patrons with materials of requisite and appropriate quality, not to create a public forum for [private parties] to express themselves.” Id. at 209 n.4. “To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons,” and need not “provide universal coverage.” Id. at 201. Like the selection of monuments, “the government speaks through its selection of which books to put on the shelves and which books to exclude,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens, 414 F.3d 23, 28 (D.C. Cir. 2005), because that selection reflects the government’s view about what materials have the “requisite and appropriate quality,” Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. at 204, 206 (plurality op.) (citations omitted); see also Bryant v. Gates, 532 F.3d 888, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (the government speaks when it “compil[es]” the “speech of third parties” in a public library). And because the compilation of library materials is government speech, the First Amendment does not bar the government from making viewpoint-based choices about what to curate. See Gittens, 414 F.3d at 29; Am. Libr. Ass’n, 539 U.S. at 204–05 (plurality op.).

     That principle applies with even more force in public-school libraries, the purpose of which is to support the government’s educational mission by “providing materials that properly supplement the basic readings assigned through the standard curriculum.” Zykan v. Warsaw Cmty. Sch. Corp., 631 F.2d 1300, 1308 (7th Cir. 1980). By curating a school library, the government conveys its view on which books have the “requisite and appropriate quality” to bolster student development. Am. Libr. Ass’n, 539 U.S. at 204 (plurality op.) (citation omitted). “Absurd results would follow,” Dean v. Warren, 12 F.4th 1248, 1266 (11th Cir. 2021), if private parties were allowed to hijack the government’s message by forcing their preferred books onto school-library shelves, see Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 572–73 (1995) (parade organizers not required to include voices they wished to exclude); Leake, 14 F.4th at 1253 (same for government parade organizer). Forcing the government “to speak” in a school library “what [it] do[es] not believe on pain of” lawsuit, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 143 S. Ct. 2298, 2313–14 (2023), would put policy decisions about what to teach in schools in the hands of litigants rather than elected representatives. “Indeed, it is not easy to imagine how government could function if it lacked this freedom.” Summum, 555 U.S. at 468. “If every citizen were to have a right to insist” that his preferred books be included in a school’s library, “debate over issues of great concern to the public would be limited to those in the private sector.” Id. (citing Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U.S. 1, 12–13 (1990)). The government would not only have to curate those litigants’ preferred materials, but also reallocate resources and student attention away from those that advance the government’s selected educational mission. See Mayer v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479 (7th Cir. 2007).

     Plaintiffs make much of Defendant’s professed commitment in its policy manual to provide in school libraries “a wide range of materials of different difficulty levels, with diversity of appeal and representing different points of view.” DE25-1 ¶¶ 39–40 (citing DE25-1 Exh. 1 at 8–9). But the policy manual merely identifies that goal as one among many competing objectives for Defendant’s libraries—among them, “provid[ing] a broad background of information in all areas of knowledge,” “support[ing] the general educational goals of the District and the objectives of specific courses,” and “[s]upport[ing] the professional needs of teachers and administrators.” DE25-1 Exh. 1 at 7–8. If anything, the policy manual confirms that Defendant’s libraries are not a forum for free expression, warning that “[n]o parent, guardian or resident of the county has the right to determine the reading, viewing or listening resources for students other than their own children” and reserving to school officials—not authors, publishers, or students—the authority to “mak[e] the final selection for library-media.” Id. at 9, 12. Far from the blanket “accommodat[ion]” of “all applicants” that reflects a “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection” process and thus creates a forum for free expression, Defendant’s policies show that school officials “always select[]” their library materials and “maintain direct control” of them. Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 142 S. Ct. 1583, 1592–93 (2022) (citing Summum, 555 U.S. at 472–473, and Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200, 213 (2015)). State law indeed requires as much. See Fla. Stat. § 1006.28(2)(d)(1) (“Each book made available to students through a school district library . . . must be selected by a school district employee . . ., regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.”); see also id. § 1006.28(2)(d)(2) (requiring that “[e]ach district school board . . . adopt procedures for developing library . . . collections” to “support . . . state academic standards and aligned curriculum, and the academic needs of students and faculty.”).

     2.  The Student Plaintiffs are just as wrong that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting library books “for the purpose of ‘deny[ing] students access to ideas with which’ the school district disagrees.” DE25-1 ¶ 225 (citing Pico, 457 U.S. at 870–71 (plurality op.). The government has no constitutional obligation to present educational material with which it disagrees. Because a “listener’s right to receive information is reciprocal to the speaker’s right to speak,” Doe ex rel. Doe v. Governor of N.J., 783 F.3d 150, 155 (3d Cir. 2015), that right cannot be deployed to interfere with the government’s own message. Students certainly have no more right to control what the government puts in its libraries than they do to control the content of a school cheer, see Dean, 12 F.4th at 1265–66 (cheerleading is government speech), or the message they communicate while participating in a training practicum, see Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865, 877 (11th Cir. 2011)(same for school practica).

     In arguing the contrary, Plaintiffs attach considerable significance to Board of  Education v. Pico, in which a plurality of the Supreme Court concluded that school library materials may not be selected “in a narrowly partisan or political manner.” 457 U.S. at 870. But the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that Pico was “a badly fractured decision” that is “of no precedential value as to the application of the First Amendment to these issues” and “establishes no standard.” Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d at 1199–1200 (quotations omitted). In addition, Pico predates the Supreme Court’s government-speech cases, which—as Justice Rehnquist foreshadowed—would have required a different result in that case. See 457 U.S. at 920 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Court will far better serve the cause of First Amendment jurisprudence by candidly recognizing that the role of government as sovereign is subject to [stricter] limitations than [its] role” as “educator.”).

II.     PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM.

     Plaintiffs also claim that “[m]any of these books have been targeted simply because they address themes relating to race, sexuality, or gender identity” and, from that they infer the “intent . . . to exclude speech by authors based on their race, sexuality, or gender identity.” DE25-1 ¶ 236. In other words, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s governmental message constitutes invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. That claim fails for the same reason as Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims: “[A] government entity is entitled to say what it wishes and to select the views it wants to express,” with a notable exception for the establishment of religion. Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 760 F.3d 227, 246 (2d Cir. 2014) (cleaned up) (rejecting equal protection claim alleging animus in the adoption of the September 11 Memorial at Ground Zero). Accordingly, “the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to government speech.” Fields v. Speaker of Penn. House of Representatives, 936 F.3d 142, 161 (3d Cir. 2019); see Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. City of Warren, 707 F.3d 686, 698 (6th Cir. 2013); Bloomberg v. Blocker, 586 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1258 (M.D. Fla. 2022). That makes sense because, when—as here—the government speaks for itself rather than creating a forum for private speech, it necessarily treats all citizens equally.

CONCLUSION

     For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court should dismiss all claims against Defendant.

[NOTES]

[ 1 ]  In Miami-Dade County School Board, the court had no occasion to decide that question because the plaintiffs lost even under the “standard . . . of their dreams”—“the standard that failed to attract a majority in the Pico case.” 557 F.3d at 1202 (citing Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982) (plurality op.)).

[ 2 ]  See Leake v. Drinkard, 14 F.4th 1242, 1253 (11th Cir. 2021).

[ 3 ]  Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 674 (1998).

[ 4 ]  Id.

[ 5 ]  Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 586 (1998).

                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                  ASHLEY MOODY

                                                    Attorney General

                                                  HENRY C. WHITAKER (FBN 1031175)

                                                    Solicitor General

                                                  /s/ Daniel W. Bell    

                                                  DANIEL W. BELL (FBN 1008587)

                                                    Chief Deputy Solicitor General

                                                  DAVID M. COSTELLO (FBN 1004952)

                                                    Deputy Solicitor General

                                                  Counsel for Amicus Curiae the State of Florida

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, PL-01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

(850) 414-3300

(850) 410-2672 (fax)

daniel.bell@myfloridalegal.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     On this 22nd day of August, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will provide service to all parties.

                                                  /s/ Daniel W. Bell      

                                                  Chief Deputy Solicitor General

COMMENTS BY SAFELIBRARIES:

Links to cases cited have been added by me for everyone's ease and understanding.

SafeLibraries has written about Miami-Dade County School Board previously, and what a coincidence, another American Library Association "partner" in "Unite Against Book Bans" is back again to gaslight America—meanwhile, notice it's perfectly legal to keep political propaganda out of schools, Cuba then, the "transgender" lies now:

• "Cert Denied: Vamos a Cuba; Cuban-Americans Lead Way for Districts to Back Parents Rights Against ALA/ACLU False Claims of Banning and Censorship," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 November 2009.
• "Humberto Fontova, the Media's 'Book Banning' Claims, and the ALA's Opposition to the 'Right to Apply Accuracy' in Public Schools," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 February 2009.

And I love the way Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody used the American Library Association's greatest loss, US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003), where ALA spent over a million and a half dollars on a massive loss for ALA and ACLU, against the librarians yet again.  It's the gift that keeps on giving—to parents.  And notice how ALA just keeps plowing ahead with false information that harms school kids.

Then she used the policies of the school itself to argue in favor of dismissal of the case.  Really, a devastating amicus curiae brief for those who want the school kids to keep reading pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material.

So all those books about pronouns and genders and trans rights?  All propaganda, all based on a fiction, also based on some people (especially ALA librarians themselves) trying to push things on kids in public schools using public funding to do so.  All illegal, despite state or federal laws requiring "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion."  All may be removed from public school libraries.  Immediately!  Buh bye!  The question is, will people continue to let ALA, NEA/AFT and ACLU bully them into allowing the harm to continue?

#AmWriting now how school boards may legally remove every single #trans and pronoun propaganda book from school #libraries.

All the hoaxes by @ALALibrary, like #UniteAgainstBookBans #BooksSaveLives #BannedBooksWeek, and calling parents “extremists” is all to hide that fact.… https://t.co/A7WscngvMm

— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) December 16, 2023

Lastly, for those who don't yet know, much local opposition to efforts by parents to protect children from harm caused by school librarians and school libraries is in reality artificially created with the time and platform and money of the American Library Association itself.  See:

• "Tennessee Walking Horses - TN Parents Astroturfed by ALA Use High Stepping Lies to Overwhelm Rutherford County Library Board; It's an ALA Pattern Nationwide," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 December 2023.

—

URL of this page:

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/12/no-right-to-trans-propagandize-kids.html

On Twitter:

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @SexHarassed Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Homophobia at American Library Association Again

Homophobia rears again at the American Library Association [ALA].  When one fakes claims of homophobia so as to promote oneself, that results in increased real discrimination against the LGBT community, real gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, really being harmed.  And ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF] is at it again, implying the crux of whistleblower action against a West Bend, WI, library was 80 LGBT books:

• "Your Library is Unclean!: An Interview with Kristin Pekoll, "by Valerie Nye, Intellectual Freedom Blog (The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association), 11 December 2017 (emphasis in original):

Valerie Nye: You experienced a challenge eight years ago, to a large number of books when you were working at the public library. Can you describe the challenge?

Kristin Pekoll: It was a six-month challenge that shoved me hard into the spotlight. The parent wanted over 80 LGBT books removed from the library. 

The truth is that claim about the 80 LGBT books was withdrawn, thus it was not the crux of the matter.  But ALA OIF is at it again with the false or misleading claims of discrimination, and resultant harm, against the LGBT community.

So I commented as follows, and the comment is currently "awaiting moderation":

"The parent wanted over 80 LGBT books removed from the library."  That is highly misleading and harms the LGBT community since fake claims of LGBT discrimination results in actual increased discrimination.  The complaint about the LGBT books was withdrawn because the claimant realized the request was inappropriate. So OIF saying that was the main issue means OIF is simply faking more discrimination against the LGBT community.  It follows a pattern of OIF faking claims about LGBT discrimination so as to raise its own profile for its own reasons.  I even recorded an author admitting ALA OIF fakes its annual lists, in this case 2010, to place LGBT books on the list of "banned books" even though other books had been challenged more often.  Indeed, after I exposed this, LGBT books fell off the annual hoax list for two years.  But the fakery started again and is continuing to this day with the resultant harm to the LGBT community.

"Organizations like this use superiority and self-righteousness to knock others down. Their goal is to convince librarians and teachers and parents and readers that there is something shameful in reading and learning about ideas that they consider wrong."  I did not do that (and we all know you are talking about SafeLibraries).  Point to a single instance where I did that, in West Bend or anywhere.  Reading is not the issue.  Writing is not the issue.  The issue is ALA OIF misleading communities to promote its own interests.  Faking claims about LGBT discrimination is just one of many examples of ALA faking claims to mislead communities, and people are being harmed as a result, especially in the LGBT community.  ALA even lost a major case in the US Supreme Court in 2003 but misleads people about the results of that case to this very day.

"My colleague, Deborah Caldwell Stone, has a great quote in her office that I have great fondness for: 'Dance like no one is watching. Email like it may one day be read aloud in a deposition.'"  This very same person used her personal email to order librarians to destroy evidence ALA OIF gave training featuring a trainer who asked why a women would let small children around a gay man, precisely to avoid FOIA disclosures.  ALA rehired that trainer who dropped out after being exposed--if I recall Deborah Caldwell Stone did the rehiring.  More homophobia at ALA.  It's like a group thing at ALA OIF.

So I'm saddened to see OIF continuing with the same false information that uses the LGBT community to give itself a bump. If ALA OIF were a private company, your group homophobia would have result[ed] in the lot of you being fired long ago.

There's so much more I could say about how ALA OIF's homophobia makes me angry because of the harm it likely causes.  But I might get sued again with another settlement offer that I delete this current reporting, like when I wrote Gay Hate @ Your Library.  It's still up, go read what ALA wanted censored, and it's staying up.

Librarians, this homophobia is never going to stop so long as ALA OIF continues on unabated, without even a single challenge, without even a single peep.

By the way,

• here's where Deborah Caldwell-Stone used her personal email to order librarians to destroy documents so FOIA requests could not reach them.  And 
• here's where a brave librarian reached out to disclose the gay hate at the ALA OIF training, the same training where ALA OIF wanted the notes to be destroyed .  See also:
• Gay Hate @ Your Library.

—

URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2017/12/homophobia-at-ALA-OIF.html

On Twitter:
@ALALibrary @jaslar @KPekoll @OIF

Follow @SafeLibraries

Librarian of Congress Nominee Carla Hayden Misleads Congress But Speaks Truth About Filtering

Librarian of Congress nominee Carla Hayden misleads Congress but also speaks the truth about Internet filtering.  On 20 April 2016, she appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.  She spoke with Chairman Senator Roy Blunt at the confirmation hearing about the American Library Association [ALA] on matters regarding child safety and the Internet.  She is the former ALA President who presided when the US Supreme Court decided United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  US v. ALA ruled there is no First Amendment right to Internet pornography in public libraries.

Below is a transcript of a portion of her testimony, followed by how she misled Congress and what she said that was right.  She should not be confirmed.

Here is video of the portion of the testimony transcribed below:

TRANSCRIPT OF DR. CARLA HAYDEN, 20 APRIL 2016

Senator Roy Blunt:
Got a couple of other questions. You know, being the President of the American Library Association is I'm sure a great honor, but maybe not an unmixed blessing because suddenly you’re responsible for everything that's being talked about as part of the Association. There a couple of, couple areas of criticism that you and I have talked about and I'd like to get your response to those on the record today. One was when the, when the Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, um, the, uh, American Library Association challenged the constitutionality of that arguing that it violated, uh, the First Amendment. And I know beginning then as a leader of the national organization through really, up till now you’ve, you’ve commented on this several times, but, you wanna talk about that whole issue of, uh, what kind of violation that would have been and then the issue of what kinds of things need to happen in a library to be sure the children don't have access to material that we wouldn't want children to have access to, and then how often you have to revisit that whole concept?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
I really appreciate, um, that question, Senator, because there's been quite a bit of just misinterpretation of the Library Association’s position during that time.  That was in 2003/2004, and at that time the filters that would have been required, um, for libraries to install were found to prohibit access to very important health information and the most notable at that time was breast cancer. And since that time, um, the technology has improved and the filters that are installed to receive federal funding in my, my library, The Pratt Library, and in its state role has installed filters, have improved, and the need to be vigilant is also something that libraries are doing in not only to the technological aspect but just plain physical arrangements of computers, making sure that there are face-out positioning of computer monitors, as well as very few, if any, cubicles that contain computers as well. And education and making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form.

Senator Roy Blunt:
So you don’t think, you don't think that pornography, illegal, as you described it, has a place in the library?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Not online, no.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And there are at the same time, things in lib-, in the library that aren't appropriate for everybody that visits the library to see.

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Right. And, Senator, the way you, um, described it is, is, is exactly the way that libraries even design their buildings and the furniture and making sure there’s even signage that, uh, unaccompanied adults in children sections are, um, are going to be questioned. There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And while your final degree was a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a very highly respected institution, your, a lot of your early work was as a children's librarian, a lot of early focus was that, so these are issues that you have always cared about?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Yes, and its been, um, interesting to see how, and I mentioned earlier, with the, uh, "C" for caution with copyright, that if you pay attention in the front end that it sometimes really helps in terms of later and working with young people and seeing what imagination can be sparked. 3D printers now are in libraries and that’s the perfect time to let young people know that all of this information that you can now get on your device is not free for you to use and just, uh, put your name on it. So, I've been very involved in youth issues for quite a while.

Senator Roy Blunt:
Well I thought, I thought, uh, just the example you gave of how you early on expressed to somebody the importance of their own creative work was an indication of the way you would approach a number of these issues. On another, uh, thing from the American Library Association, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, um, librarians objected to a particular part of that and, in fact fact, the law was changed I think for what's now called the Librarian's Provision. You wanna talk about that a little bit?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Yes, that was a, um, quite a time, that was also in 2003/2004, and the entire nation was concerned about security, and it was a time of great apprehension and people were going into libraries to find information about all of the different aspects of what was going on and the library community was just conc-, very concerned that in the quest for, um, security and making sure, uh, that we were all safe that the public's rights were also considered as well. And since that time there have been a number of reforms to the PATRIOT Act with the approval of Congress that have helped alleviate the library communities concerns and we are, and I think I can also, uh, say that the American Library Association is, um, very pleased at the progress that’s been made to balance security and personal rights.

Senator Roy Blunt:
And so would an example of that, Dr. Hayden, would an example of that be under that, uh, under that original discussion there was some thought that law enforcement might be able to come in and just say we'd like to look through your records and see who's been looking at certain books, certain, looking up certain things, or even we'd like to look at a certain person’s, uh library record, without a court saying that that was necessary, was that the concern?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
That was um the the basis of it, and especially the bulk collection of information about who was interested in a subject. What we were concerned about and especially at that time in 2003/2004, that interest in a subject would be or could be misinterpreted as intent to do something. So interest and intent were not equal, we were saying.

Senator Roy Blunt:
I think that's um, that’s a position I believe the country has generally come, come to, and I think your explanation of 2002 and 3 was also a good one that everybody’s trying to figure out what, what can we do to stop this from happening again and sometimes that requires a lengthy discussion as to the right way to do that. Any, uh, follow up questions, Senator Cochran, Senator Boozman? Well, we will, um, have the record open until the time I announced earlier for, uh, additional questions. Anything you want to add, Dr. Hayden, that you wished had been asked that wasn't, any topic, uh, you wanna cover?

Dr. Carla Hayden:
Well, I had a few. Uh, and I, I just wanted though to, to thank everyone, um, for their support and for your consideration, um, Mr. Chairman, and, um, I really appreciate this opportunity and to be nominated it as a librarian, a career, career librarian, I must tell you this one of the highest honors and I thank you for this opportunity.

Senator Roy Blunt:
Thank you. This hearing’s adjourned.

HOW DR. CARLA HAYDEN MISLED CONGRESS

Dr. Carla Hayden materially misled Congress by saying ALA is about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."  That is false.

ALA's position is not that pornography is illegal.  Rather, it is that pornography has no legal definition ("The word 'pornography' has no meaning in the law, and there is no agreed-upon definition for the term.").  As James LaRue, the Director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom wrote to me just yesterday, "you should know by now that THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY."  Emphasis his.  It's as if US v. ALA doesn't exist.

So for Carla Hayden to say the ALA is about making sure "people know that pornography is illegal" is simply false.  Had she told the truth of ALA's position, that pornography has no legal definition therefore librarians must not take action to block it, she would have portrayed ALA as the extremist organization it is with her as its former extremist leader.  This is why she lied.  She wants to get into the Librarian of Congress position, and from there she can force the ALA worldview on the entire nation, not just public and school libraries.

Even Senator Roy Blunt picked up on her claim ALA is concerned about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal" as he followed up saying, "So you don’t think, you don't think that pornography, illegal, as you described it, has a place in the library?"  Carla Hayden responded, "not online, no."

Also, librarians will not protect children from pornography, only parents ("What About Protecting Children From Pornography, Whether Or Not It Is Legally Obscene?  The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.")  Even ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights" makes it age discrimination for librarians to keep any material whatsoever from children.

ALA is so extreme that it trains librarians not to report child pornography!  The source comes directly from ALA:

• "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 26 March 2013, emphasis in original [note the policy has just been changed most likely yesterday to remove the following language in possible reaction to either 1) my corresponding yesterday with the Director of ALA's OIF about that very language and his defending it, 2) Megan Fox's forthcoming book on ALA's child porn facilitating policies that I offered to buy for the Director and he accepted, or 3) National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) listing ALA for the fourth year straight on the Dirty Dozen List as a leading nationwide facilitator of sexual exploitation]:

Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally. Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are obscenity, child pornography, or “harmful to minors.”
....
As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws.  Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts naturally directed toward the source, i.e., the publishers, of such material.

So, straight from ALA's "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," librarians are or have been trained they are in no position to decide what is child pornography.

Based on that (they are not judges) it tells them not to help the police. Still more policy (not shown above) tells them to delete public records such as browser histories precisely to thwart the police.

ALA plays a game. "Only courts have constitutional authority to determine, in accordance with due process, what materials are ... child pornography...."  That is an impossible standard.  Impossible.  Why?  Because the standard requires that a judge determine if a web site is child porn before a librarian may also determine whether it is child porn by following the judge's lead.  Sounds good, right?  It's not.  There are hundreds of thousands of child porn web sites.  There would have to be hundreds of thousands of completed cases to find them to be child porn.  That is an impossible standard.  It will never happen.  In the infinitely impossible chance that it would, perhaps via class action or mass tort liability, by that time another hundred thousand sites would replace those.

It is just ridiculous to demand that a librarian may only determine what is a child porn site if a court first makes that decision.  Yet Carla Hayden says ALA is about "making sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."  That is false and it is knowingly false given has was ALA's former leader and her statements were intended to mislead Congress about ALA so her nomination would be confirmed.  Then she would be in a position to apply ALA's extremist child pornography views to the nation as a whole.

To exemplify the seriousness of the matter, libraries are following ALA's guidance and covering up instances of child pornography.  One such library did that in Illinois.  Here is its legal council advising the library not to report child porn viewing and instead protect the patron privacy of the child porn viewers:

• https://www.webjunction.org/content/dam/WebJunction/Documents/illinois/Klein-Legal-Article-April-29-2011.pdf

Were Carla Hayden to have told Congress the truth, she would have said ALA advises librarians not to report child pornography, not to help the police, and protect the patron privacy rights of the child porn viewers.  Had she said that, the nation would have had an eye opening and shocking moment of truth, and she would never be confirmed for Librarian of Congress.  Instead, she lied, saying ALA wants to "mak[e] sure that people know that pornography is illegal and we do not support that in any shape or form."

So Carla Hayden successfully lied about ALA, saying what the public believes but not what she knows is happening since she once led the effort to mislead the public as ALA's president, thereby accomplishing two goals.  She ensured people will stay ignorant of the harm caused by the extremist ALA, and she is setting herself up to be confirmed as Librarian of Congress where she will spread ALA's pro-child porn policy nationwide and no one will lift a finger to stop her.

Later she says, "There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent."  As explained above and supported with sources from ALA itself, that is just false.  ALA has no concern in the slightest for the safety of minors.  After ALA ensured a library in Illinois retained Playboy magazine despite an unanimous government asking the library to stop buying the magazine since it was making it available to children, ALA's de facto leader Judith Krug told the Chicago Tribune, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children."

That's the true ALA.  Not the false picture Carla Hayden portrayed to make ALA look good and to mislead Congress into confirming her nomination for Librarian of Congress.

And libraries are true to ALA.  One library in New Jersey had a complaint from a mother about her eleven-year-old boy seeing hardcore pornography in the children's section of the library.  The library reacted by blaming the boy and holding secret meetings in violation of state sunshine laws to insert ALA's pro child-porn policies into its own policy to ensure children could continue to access pornography on the computers in the children' section.  The library even destroyed public records in violation of yet another law to thwart the application of more state sunshine laws.  And the policy changes it made in secret where the exact recommendations of ALA, almost word for word.  I filed suit against this library, the case is still open, and the children still get access to hardcore porn in the children's section.

So when Carla Hayden says, "There are so many safety measures that are put in public libraries and even college and university libraries to make sure that, um, minors are safe and that they are not exposed to, um, objectionable material, as far as we can prevent," that is knowingly and purposefully false.

Again, had she said the truth, that ALA regards minors exactly as adults and allows them to access Internet pornography despite state laws that instantiate libraries preventing that, and despite the US Supreme Court and common sense, she would have shocked the nation and would never be confirmed.

WHAT DR. CARLA HAYDEN GOT RIGHT

Dr. Carla Hayden did get some things absolutely correct and in that regard she was honest.  However, she knows ALA's position is the exact opposite, knows she would look extremist if she stated ALA's true position, and she would never be confirmed as no one wants a Librarian of Congress who intentionally and secretively lowers the barriers between children and inappropriate material.

So Carla Hayden said, "right," when asked if "there are ... things ... in the library that aren't appropriate for everybody that visits the library to see."  Were she truthful, she would have expressed her adherence to the "Library Bill of Rights" and said librarians only provide material, they do not make age distinctions.

Here's what Dr. Hayden got right::

That was in 2003/2004, and at that time the filters that would have been required, um, for libraries to install were found to prohibit access to very important health information and the most notable at that time was breast cancer. And since that time, um, the technology has improved and the filters that are installed to receive federal funding in my, my library, The Pratt Library, and in its state role has installed filters, have improved....

That's right!  Internet filters have greatly improved in a dozen years.  They no longer block breast cancer research, for example.  Carla Hayden is right to say that.

But she is misleading in that she does not reveal ALA tells people the opposite, that filters do not work, and that libraries should not use them.

Here again is that Illinois library mentioned above telling the public that filters block breast cancer:

Bittman said filters would not only limit a patron’s rights, they could ban access to sites college students or people doing research might need to access. Being denied access to the word “breast” might prevent a person from looking up breast cancer, for example, she said.

And that statement was after ALA was forced to admit filters no longer block breast cancer research: "Ross Reynolds (9:05):  Back to you, uh, Barbara Jones, uh, Dean [Marney who won state and federal library filtering cases] says he's got filtering software there that just works perfectly.  Barbara Jones (9:12):  Um, I would like to say that, yeah, the breast cancer example probably is kinda old these days…."

Yet to this day ALA still says, "Filtering in Libraries Causes Patron Needs to Go Unmet."

Carla Hayden, while correctly saying Internet filters nowadays work well, completely ignores that ALA misleads people into thinking they do not.  A third of libraries across the nation follow ALA's erroneous advice and leave children exposed to harm, according to CIPA's author.

And ALA will not change its position on Internet filters even after Carla Hayden said the "technology has improved" and library filters no longer "prohibit access to very important health information [including] breast cancer."

What Carla Hayden said was just for public consumption; it will have no effect on ALA and Dr. Hayden knows that but chose to mislead Congress anyway.

CONCLUSION: SHE WOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED HAD SHE TOLD THE TRUTH

Carla Hayden made materially false statements to Congress to make her ALA look mainstream and herself look like a reasonable choice for Librarian of Congress as a result.  She should not be confirmed.  She would not be confirmed had she told the truth.

She made statements about Internet filtering and about concern for child safety that are truthful but that go directly counter to the misinformation ALA currently uses to mislead communities into facilitating child pornography nationwide.  Those statements should be used to counteract ALA's ability to mislead communities, to shine light on what libraries are supposed to be, not what they have become under ALA's worldview.

But Carla Hayden chose to mislead Congress as she did.  She should not be confirmed.  Another nominee should be found, one who is honest and who is not looking at the Librarian of Congress position as a means to further spread the extremist, pro-child porn policies of the American Library Association.


NOTE ADDED 28 MAY 2016:

Updated link to US v. ALA.


NOTE ADDED 30 MAY 2016:

As I noted in the story above, ALA changed its child porn facilitation policy online to no longer tell librarians they are not judges so they should ignore child pornography viewing.  I believe this was done as a result of my conversation with ALA's OIF leader just days ago who continued to defend the policy to me.  It could also be the result of pressure from other child porn whistleblowers, or a combination thereof.

I BELIEVE THIS WAS DONE TO SUPPORT THE CONFIRMATION OF CARLA HAYDEN.  I BELIEVE ALA IS HIDING ITS DECADES-LONG CHILD PORN FACILITATION POLICIES AND WILL RESTORE THEM AFTER CARLA HAYDEN IS CONFIRMED.  I BELIEVE CARLA HAYDEN HAS EVERY INTENTION OF MAINTAINING THE CHILD PORN FACILITATION POLICY, ONLY SHE WILL APPLY IT TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND ANYTHING ELSE OVER WHICH SHE CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE SHE HAS POWER TO CONTROL.

As I am obviously the leading critic of the confirmation of Carla Hayden, ALA has an interest in making people ignore what I say.  I have been talking about ALA's child porn facilitation for a long time, even right here in this post.  ALA has quietly changed the online policy to remove the offending language WHILE LEAVING IN THE OLD DATE OF LAST CHANGE so when people see the policy does not say what I said it says, and they see the old date of last change, they will disbelieve me.

And here is the effect of that effort to mislead the public about what I am saying about Carla Hayden right here in a story about me on Wonkette since the guy looks for what I quoted and instead finds the new, days-old ALA language, then I'm mocked -- and I cannot respond here as Wonkette blocked me from responding:

CONCLUSION:  ALA MAY HAVE WITHIN THE PAST FEW DAYS GIVEN THE APPEARANCE OF ENDING ITS CHILD PORN FACILITATION, BUT THAT AFFECTS THE CARLA HAYDEN CONFIRMATION IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER.  WHILE CARLA HAYDEN WAS ALA PRESIDENT RIGHT UP UNTIL HER NOMINATION BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, ALA HAS ALWAYS FACILITATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN LIBRARIES NATIONWIDE AND CARLA HAYDEN CHAMPIONED THOSE POLICES AS ALA's PRESIDENT.


NOTE ADDED 23 JUN 2016:

See also:

• "Obama Wants 'Radical' Who Fought for PORN in Public Libraries to Run Library of Congress," by Hans A. von Spakovsky, PJ Media, 22 June 2016.
• "The Selling of the Librarian 2016," by The Scrapbook, The Weekly Standard, 11 April 2016.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/05/carla-hayden.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @LibraryCongress @RoyBlunt

Follow @SafeLibraries

Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights, by Colby Sheppard, Westfield Leader, 9 April 2015

Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights

Imagine the shock to learn the children’s computers in the Westfield Memorial Library have no pornography filters.  Upon speaking to other parents they had the same reaction, “I thought there were filters!”  No, not the case.

The Westfield Memorial Library is one of the only area libraries to not have filters on the computers with Internet access in the children’s department.

In February, the library begrudgingly agreed to put filters on only two of the four computers in the children’s section.  Allowing pornography on any public library computer is illegal in accordance to New Jersey state law.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court says blocking pornography from public libraries does not violate the First Amendment.  Why then should the citizens of Westfield settle for filtering only two of four children’s computers instead of filtering all computers in accordance with the law?

I learned the library eschews N.J. law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, by choosing to follow the “Library Bill of Rights” of the American Library Association.  (www.wmlnj.org/About/Internet%20Use%20Policy.asp)  Result?  Your child has access to hard-core pornography.

Westfield Memorial Library; Internet Use Policy
wmlnj.org/About/Internet%20Use%20Policy.asp

Is this what we want for the children of Westfield?  It should be Westfield’s duty to ensure the library complies with the law, not the American Library Association.  Is Westfield living up to that duty?

The library’s “mission statement” defines the library as “the community’s destination for discovery and ideas – engages minds, entertains spirits, and facilitates lifelong learning for people of all ages.”  What part of pornography does any of that?  What “ideas” should we be getting from watching sex trafficking victims having the worst days of their lives broadcast on library computers?  Pornography goes against the very mission of the library, it’s about time the library starts complying with its own mission statement.  It’s time we get involved and restore common sense and the law.

I’ll be attending city and library meetings to push for compliance with the law that makes pornography illegal in all N.J. libraries.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003)
laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html

I do not want any kid to see hard-core pornography in the library, and I’m asking those who agree to come out to the meetings as well and speak up.  Also, speak up by writing a letter to the library board and let them know your views.  The library should listen to the citizens of Westfield, N.J. law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, not to the American Library Association.  We just need to let our town and our library know we’re awake now and we’re going to speak up for our community.  It might take time, but we’ll get there.

Please join me in advocating for this positive change.

Colby Sheppard

Westfield

NJ law (NJS 40:54-12 [link]) permits library boards to
"do all things necessary and proper" to run libraries.
US v. ALA says, "public libraries have traditionally
excluded pornographic material...." Clearly, Internet
porn is not "necessary and proper." So allowing
Internet porn is acting outside the law. NJ library
boards have no power to exceed the law; municipal
bodies must act to stop the lawlessness.

Source:

• "Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights," by Colby Sheppard, Westfield Leader (NJ), 9 April 2015, hyperlink added.
• Reprinted with permission.  All graphics/captions were created by SafeLibraries and are not part of the original publication.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/04/library-bill-of-rights.html

On Social Media: @ALALibrary +TownOfWestfield @TownOfWestfield @wmlnj

Follow @SafeLibraries

Porn Facilitation in Public Libraries: ALA Guides Librarians to Defy SCOTUS

Source: "The Web is Facili-
tating an Upsurge in Female
Exploitation & Slavery" (link)

It is porn facilitation in public libraries if you are the leading expert in libraries with the power to guide librarians on how to write policy and you guide them to defy the US Supreme Court—the very case you lost.  The American Library Association [ALA] is that leading expert, perhaps the nation's sole expert and provider of model library policy.

US Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Rights Do Not Attach to Pornography in Public Libraries

ALA lost in the US Supreme Court on the issue of pornography in public libraries.  The case was United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (link).  The case ruled, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  In part, this is because: "The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."

So it is perfectly legal to block pornography from public libraries and also to keep it blocked even if a patron requests an unblock (link).  Indeed, no library has ever been sued for blocking pornography (link).

ALA Teaches the First Amendment PROTECTS Porn in Public Libraries

But ALA teaches librarians the exact opposite of the US Supreme Court.  It does this in specialized "guidelines" intended to help local libraries write Internet access policy.  The "guidelines" are the very vehicle designed to ensure maximum coverage in libraries nationwide of what is essentially the opposite of the law:

In the millions of Web sites available on the Internet, there are some—often loosely called “pornography”—that parents, or adults generally, do not want children to see.  A very small fraction of those sexually explicit materials is actual obscenity or child pornography, which are not constitutionally protected.  The rest, like the overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet , [sic] is protected by the First Amendment.

Source: "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 26 March 2013 (link).

So, according to ALA, pornography web sites that are not ruled to be obscenity or child pornography are "protected by the First Amendment."  Compare with the case it lost a decade earlier where the Court ruled, "Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."

It is inescapable that ALA guides librarians that blocking porn violates the First Amendment, the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court ruled in the case named for the ALA, namely, US v. ALA.  And the reliable sources above prove exactly that.

US Supreme Court ruled library filters do not
violate the First Amendment.

ALA not only guides librarians on what is 100% opposite of the law, but ALA teaches new library trustees 100% opposite of the law as well (link).  ALA even teaches this illegality in academic libraries (link)!  ALA is very thorough in ensuring everyone gets the message.

ALA teaches the exact opposite of the US Supreme Court.
Here's a library attorney siding with ALA over SCOTUS.

If you are the leading authority on library policy, and if you lost in the US Supreme Court on the issue of the alleged First Amendment right to pornography in public libraries, and you are teaching librarians and library trustees in public and academic libraries the exact opposite of the case you lost over a decade ago, you are facilitating porn in public libraries.

ALA has even been recognized two years straight for facilitating porn.  See: "ALA Listed As Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women" (link).

Conclusion: ALA Facilitates Porn in Public Libraries

The US Supreme Court says "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  Meanwhile ALA, being in a position of authority, teaches "'pornography'... is protected by the First Amendment."  That is 100% the polar opposite of the law.

So ALA is guiding librarians and library trustees in public and academic libraries to defy the US Supreme Court, it is in the very position of power to do so, and communities are being harmed as a direct result (link).  What part of that is NOT facilitating porn in public libraries?

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/01/porn-facilitation-in-public-libraries.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @OIF @Porn_Harms

Follow @SafeLibraries

Library Censorship to Defend Child Porn; Another Request for Review Filed With the Illinois Attorney General

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out
who you are not allowed to criticize."
Not Voltaire but it fits OPPL-BoT perfectly.

Dear Illinois Attorney General,

I respectfully request a review of the actions of the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL] for violation of the Open Meetings Act [OMA] by denying me the right of public comment at its 19 May 2014 OPPL Board of Trustees [OPPL-BoT] meeting. This is the second time I have been denied that right despite OMA and library policy and the second time requested a review. The first Request for Review was for violating OMA during the 16 December 2014 OPPL-BoT meeting: “Open Meetings Act Violations by the Board of Library Trustees of the Orland Park Public Library.” ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/02/OPPL.html )

OPPL Censorship Policy Is Ultra Vires

After that first time I attempted to speak, was denied, and I filed a Request for Review, OPPL-BoT reacted by creating policy specifically designed to exclude me since I’m the only person who wants to speak electronically. I live in New Jersey so a personal visit just to speak for five minutes to a library board that repeatedly violates the law could be obviated by speaking electronically. OPPL policy in place at the time of both meetings and now is “Section 7. Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting.” I was going to participate via Skype or FaceTime provided by OPPL library patron Megan Fox, not by teleconferencing provided by OPPL. I was not restricted from speaking via policy, yet both times I was blocked from speaking by OPPL-BoT in violation of OMA. These are elected officials acting in their official capacity as a library board to refuse to follow the law that allows public comment. They also violate state and local law that created the library and does not permit the library board to act ultra vires or outside the law. These elected officials defend child pornography in the public library despite the law, as evidenced by their actions as opposed to their words, while practicing government censorship when it comes to someone seeking to illuminate the illegality of allowing porn in OPPL under Illinois state law, Orland Park local law, and OPPL policy–until they change it, that is, but even then it will violate the law.

OPPL-BoT Shows It Will Not Comply With Law Nor Attorney General Determinations

Worse than simply blocking me repeatedly, OPPL-BoT’s latest free speech denial comes at a time when the Attorney General has already warned the library, “This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules.” And worse than a mere warning, the Attorney General determined OPPL-BoT violated OMA by holding an illegal meeting on a legal holiday, and it was at this illegal meeting that OPPL-BoT approved the policy specifically designed to block me, and OPPL-BoT used that policy from that illegal meeting as the excuse to block me from speaking days ago. So in the face of the Attorney General ruling the meeting was illegal, OPPL-BoT just ignored the Attorney General and held up its illegal policy to block me. On advice of counsel, no less. When library patron Kevin DuJan specifically pointed out the library was refusing to allow me to speak in violation of the law and the Attorney General’s determination finding violations of the law, the library reacted by threatening to arrest Mr. DuJan. OPPL-BoT has shown a clear and convincing disdain for the law in general and the Attorney General’s determinations specifically.

What OPPL Sought to Block: My Advising State and Local Law Precludes Porn In Public Libraries Statewide

What is it that so motivates OPPL-BoT to defy the law and the Attorney General with cheerful briskness by repeatedly blocking me? What could I possible say in five minutes that they don’t want people to hear? This is relevant as it shows why OPPL-BoT is blocking me, specifically, I’m saying the exact opposite of what it says to mislead people at meetings and in the media, and I back up what I say with reliable sources, such as Supreme Court cases. If people knew the truth, they would know Internet porn in Illinois libraries is illegal, libraries that allow it are acting outside the law, and municipalities that allow libraries to act outside the law are exposing all citizens to the potential for serious liability, let alone the harm done to the victims of Internet pornography on both sides of the camera. In short, if people knew porn may be legally excluded from public libraries as the law requires, they would choose for themselves to block Internet pornography and would not be misled by anyone into keeping porn available despite the law.

Municipal Law Precludes Internet Porn in OPPL

OPPL was created by Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77 issued 14 July 1941 stating “That a free public library and reading room be established for the use and benefits of the inhabitants of the Village of Orland Park … in accordance with the provisions of the Libraries Act, Chapter 81, Illinois Revised Statutes….” ( http://www.orlandparklibrary.org/documents/policies/ord77.pdf ) We see the library has a limited purpose. It is for the “use and benefits” of the local population it supports. It is not established for any purpose whatsoever, rather, it has limitations. Internet pornography is effectively excluded by that “use and benefits” clause because it has neither use nor benefit. On the contrary, Internet porn harms people. It harms the viewers, it harms the people who interact with the viewers by accident or force including librarians and library employees, and it harms the people who are forced to create pornography, such as sex trafficked children and adults.

The word “benefit” is from the Latin bene factum. Bene meaning good. There is nothing bene about Internet pornography in a public library, let alone anywhere else. The display of Internet pornography in OPPL violates Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77. It is not for the “use and benefit” of anyone, as required by law. Rather, it does the opposite and causes harm. To any extent OPPL-BoT permits Internet pornography in OPPL, it is acting ultra vires and harming the community.

State Law Precludes Internet Porn in Illinois Libraries

The Illinois Local Library Act (75 ILCS 5) referenced by the municipal ordinance also limits what governments may provide in public libraries, only it applies across Illinois, not just in OPPL. Throughout the entire state of Illinois, the law states public libraries may be created “[t]o provide local public institutions of general education for citizens of Illinois” ( http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=990&ChapterID=16 ). “General education” does not mean Internet pornography. Also, “the library board may adopt [reasonable rules and regulations] in order to render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” So, similar to the “use and benefits” clause of the ordinance, the state law requires that the library’s use be “of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” Any library in the entire state of Illinois, not just OPPL, is violating state law if it allows Internet pornography. It would be acting ultra vires. For example, have you heard the news for many years about the constant crimes attributable to porn in the Chicago Public Library? Have you been there lately and seen the rows of unfettered porn with children walking about? Did you know the library’s director blamed the parents for letting their children walk about in the library? Now if Internet porn is so beneficial, why is she criticizing parents for letting children see such beneficial material?

The US Supreme Court Finds Pornography Is Traditionally Blocked From Libraries

And how do we know pornography neither educates nor benefits communities, from a legal basis, let alone common sense? We look at the United States Supreme Court case that the American Library Association [ALA] and the ACLU brought and lost big to try to stop the Children’s Internet Protection Act, the law requiring libraries to use porn filters if obtaining certain federal funding. US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) ( http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html ) made it clear that the purpose of public libraries does not include providing Internet pornography. Indeed, tame-in-comparison print pornography is excluded from most libraries:

Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. …. [P]ublic libraries seek to provide materials “that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community.” [NOTE: substantially similar to the language in 75 ILCS 5 and the municipal ordinance.] …. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have “requisite and appropriate quality.” …. A public library … provides Internet access … for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality. ….
….
A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source. Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason.
….
[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights….

Internet Pornography Has Neither Use Nor Benefit so US Supreme Court Ruled It May Be Blocked

So we learn from the US Supreme Court that Internet pornography may be legally blocked from public libraries precisely because it does not benefit communities. And since the state and local law requires libraries to act for the benefit of the people, Internet pornography is excluded. Libraries in Illinois providing Internet pornography are acting outside the law that restricts libraries in a way that precludes Internet porn.

Has OPPL-BoT Ever Explained Why Porn is Beneficial in Libraries Despite the Law?

Has ALA or OPPL-BoT ever once explained why people are supposed to think Internet pornography is beneficial in public libraries and should be allowed despite the law saying it shouldn’t? I understand both groups have been for months attacking Megan Fox, Kevin DuJan, and me to avoid substantive issues. Have they explained how Internet pornography benefits the community? Of course not. They can’t. There is no benefit. Having no benefit, and indeed being harmful, Internet pornography allowed by an Illinois library violates Illinois law. And OPPL is an Illinois library. And ALA and OPPL and their attorneys attack or silence people who expose their misinformation as their means of pushing ahead with the porn agenda–by not addressing substantive issues. It is a tactic that often works. Just look at how long child porn has gone unreported in OPPL–years. Right now OPPL-BoT is ignoring the Attorney General. I predict if the Attorney General continues to find violations of the law, at some point OPPL-BoT and/or ALA will begin attacking the Attorney General instead of just ignoring her.

This is Why OPPL-BoT Bullies and Will Continue to Violate OMA

I suspect my saying the above in a five minute public comment combined with OPPL-BoT not wanting people to hear that message is why OPPL-BoT repeatedly violates OMA to censor my free speech and the speech of others. I also suspect OPPL-BoT knows it is breaking state and local law by making Internet pornography available, thereby acting ultra vires. I suspect its repeatedly silencing its critics and violating OMA is a bullying effort to impose its harmful lawlessness on the community by freezing people into inaction or by running out the clock. Fortunately for Orland Park, neither Megan Fox nor Kevin DuJan are intimidated or are giving up. Sadly, the illegality in OPPL continues on. For over eight months now OPPL-BoT has successfully defended its illegal actions with threats, intimidation, false calls to the police, illegal meetings on a legal holiday passing policy to allow porn despite the law and silence critics despite the law, violation of Illinois library law, repeated violations of OMA, etc., and never once an explanation of how providing Internet pornography benefits the community and complies with the law. They have turned the tables on innocent victims forcing them to suffer from porn, all while attacking them for complaining and not explaining why Internet porn is supposedly legal in libraries. I am hoping the Attorney General will see the open defiance in OPPL-BoT’s actions and being to restore law and order in this local library and perhaps statewide.

Local Police Are Stymied by Lawbreaking Library

Recent investigations by Megan Fox reveal the Orland Park police have been stymied by OPPL in efforts to stop a registered sex offender from viewing pornography ( http://www.facebook.com/MeganFoxWriter/posts/809933065685247 ):

Meet David Varlotta. He likes Orland Park Library a lot. An informed source told me this man has been seen by police on a regular basis on the computers at OPPL. He is unemployed and goes to OPPL “nearly every day.” Mary Weimar has been informed by police that he is not legally allowed to use the internet. The Library claims they disconnect the device he is on from the internet but they do not ask him to leave. Let me ask you a question. What might a sex offender be doing on a computer for hours on end without access to the internet? Knowing the Library lies about pretty much everything (and I have proof of that from the Illinois Attorney General) do we believe that they actually do cut off internet access to this man on a daily basis and yet he continues to return? What is he doing? Writing his memoirs in a Word doc? Why does Mary Weimar continue to allow a sex offender who committed aggravated sexual abuse against a minor child sit for hours in her building full of children? This is like putting a shark in a kiddie pool. We have FOIAd his record and will have his complete story soon. Stay tuned.

Post by Fans of Megan Fox.

Back to the Policy OPPL-BoT Wrote to Block Me Personally

The policy OPPL created to block me was supposedly effectuated during the OPPL-BoT meeting on the 12 February 2014 holiday. It has been effectively ruled void ab initio by the Attorney General. It is not in effect. The policy in effect before the illegal meeting remains in effect.

The updated policy sought to be implemented at the illegal meeting was designed to block me and me alone since I was the only person seeking to speak electronically. Current policy prohibits merely teleconferencing provided by the library. The updated policy seeks to include other means of communication, including Skype or FaceTime, provided by anyone. The policy used to exclude me states, “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.”

OPPL-BoT, in its meeting after the illegal 12 February meeting, claims to have affirmed the policy it supposedly effectuated, but such policy is not yet in effect because legally it is impossible to affirm something found to be void ab initio. But OPPL-BoT wants people to think the policy is in effect, despite the law, despite how it discriminates against the disabled since they must only participate in person, so it just acts like the policy is in place.

Again, OPPL-BoT Ignores the Illinois Attorney General

Worse, OPPL-BoT is again ignoring the Attorney General. It used its policy from the illegal meeting and revoted on at the next meeting to block my speaking. The attorney did this. Remember, this is the attorney whose firm represents possibly hundreds of library clients, who wrote the book on Sunshine Laws that is sold throughout the state by the Illinois Municipal League, and who trains librarians on FOIA and OMA laws at the Illinois Library Association. This is no inexperienced attorney. This is no rookie mistake. This is an intentional abuse of authority to bully people into silence in the face of the law and of Attorney General determinations. This is the attorney telling the Attorney General her determinations don’t matter one whit.

The Lack of Public Recital Tossed Aside While Kevin DuJan Gets Threatened with Arrest

To remind everyone, OMA has certain requirements intended to ensure the public’s rights are protected from the very kind of illegal activity OPPL-BoT does repeatedly. Those requirements are not met when a library passes policy at an illegal meeting then claims the next meeting validated what was done at the illegal meeting with a mere quick vote. Public Access Opinion 14-001 dated 10 April 2014 ( http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2014/14-001.pdf ) makes it evident that the mere quick vote to reaffirm action at an illegal meeting does not supply a public recital sufficient to comply with the law, namely, section 2(e) of OMA: “(e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted.” That was simply not done by OPPL-BoT, the attorney knows it given his expertise and experience, and the Attorney General warned against further restricting public comment, but the library went ahead, ignored the Attorney General, and threatened Kevin DuJan with arrest if he did not stop trying to point out is was illegal to block my public comment.

Library Silences Critics with Illegal Policy

So OPPL-BoT is attempting to silence critics with policy not legally in effect and that violates OMA and the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. “Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting” has supposedly been changed to “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.” So not only are additional and modern means of communicating ruled off policy, but also the library reveals no one may participate remotely, whether or not the library provides the services. I am hoping the Attorney General will address this.

Setting aside that the library is supporting Internet pornography as free speech when that is not true in libraries, and stifling free speech when anyone reveals the library is acting outside the law by allowing pornography including child pornography, the new policy language OPPL wants people to think is in place appears to represent a clear violation of OMA and ADA. If that policy ever does get properly adopted by OPPL-BoT, it will represent a codification of a violation of OMA, and I or others will seek another Request for Review from the Attorney General. I am certain you cannot simply write library policy that abrogates state law such as OMA.

The Specific Instance That Violates OMA

At the 19 May OPPL-BoT meeting, Kevin DuJan points out I am next to speak on the list but the library denies the request, and that is the action I am asking the Attorney General to review. Exactly how it happened was recorded and placed online. As part of the evidence for this Request for Review, please view the recordings of the meeting, particularly at the end of Kevin DuJan’s public comment. Kevin DuJan says, after he completed his own comment, “Actually, Dan Kleinman is the next person that’s on the list.” Megan Fox then says, “He’s here,” referring to the FaceTime connection. The library then blocks my speech in violation of OMA. Kevin DuJan says, “You have no policy that bans this … that policy is void ab initio. …. You are in violation of the Open Meetings Act.” The library board persisted in blocking my speech even after being told it was violating the law. Mr. DuJan was threatened with arrest if he did not stop arguing that I should be allowed to speak. A fuller transcript can be found at http://tinyurl.com/OPPLViolatesOMA so the facts that evidence the breaking of the law can be fully reviewed. It is the Request for Review filed 21 May 2014 by Kevin DuJan. That Request for Review contains even more detail about exactly how the OMA violation occurred with respect to the subject of my own Request for Review. In the interests of brevity, I ask its facts related to how OPPL-BoT violated OMA by refusing to allow my public comment be included here in my own Request for Review. That Request for Review is hereby incorporated by reference.

Megan Fox Files Request for Review About OPPL-BoT Blocking Me

On 27 May 2014, Megan Fox also filed a Request for Review with the Attorney General ( http://tinyurl.com/OPPLViolatesOMA2 ). Her request is predominantly about the library’s lawbreaking with respect to blocking my public comment. I consider what she said to be factual as well and is hereby incorporated by reference into my own Request for Review. After all, she was the one to whose iPad I was electronically connected and ready to speak. As she points out, “OPPL-BoT desired to keep Dan Kleinman, the national expert on child porn and other evils being accessed in libraries, from speaking during the Public Comment segment.”

OPPL-BoT Evidences an Intention to Defy the Law

And by that time OPPL-BoT was well aware of the Attorney General’s admonition where representative Steve Silverman warned, “This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules.” So OPPL-BoT threw caution to the wind, as it were, and plowed ahead with its lawbreaking by again restricting public comment on substantive bases not addressed by its established and recorded rules.

That evidences an intention to continue to defy the law and shows absolutely no respect for the Illinois Attorney General. Such an intention indicates the crime of child pornography in the library will continue to go unpunished and unabated. This is a major consequence of a library acting outside the law.

OPPL-BoT Purposefully and Knowingly Defies the Law to Protect the ALA

OPPL-BoT’s defiance of the Illinois Attorney General is purposeful and knowing. It will not back down on its provision of pornography in the library no matter what the consequences because, inter alia, ALA has been holding out OPPL’s successful but lawbreaking tactics as being exemplary. If OPPL is eventually forced to comply with Illinois library law, that will spell disaster for ALA’s efforts to promote porn in public libraries throughout Illinois and nationwide. For an example of porn promotion, teaching new library trustees that libraries must allow Internet porn when the law says the opposite is promoting porn in libraries ( “How State Library Associations Endanger Children; NJ Libraries and You: Not Perfect Together” http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/08/LibraryAssociations.html ). ALA has for two years in a row now been found to be one of the nation’s leading facilitatators of porn (“ALA Listed as Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women” http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/03/DirtyDozenALA.html ). Even now there is Illinois library filtering legislation SB2784 that ALA opposes, and OPPL following library law and filtering the Internet would be disastrous to efforts to oppose such legislation. I say this not to promote my view but to illustrate how strongly OPPL-BoT will resist Attorney General determinations, as if that is not already becoming evident from OPPL-BoT’s own actions. And I’m not the only one saying this. Consider Jim Kraft at the Edgar County Watchdogs ( http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2014/05/whats-next-with-the-orland-park-public-library-child-porn-scandal/ ):

Behind the scenes, the real power play at issue here is that the American Library Association cannot afford to allow a plum like the OPPL to shut off the child porn access, since the ALA is based in Chicago and fears losing control of another public facility. Currently, the ALA in effect controls the OPPL, via the OPPL’s Director Mary Weimar (who is a committed acolyte of the ALA). If the OPPL Board of Trustees voted against the ALA and stopped allowing itself to be an access point to child pornography this would be a clear repudiation of the ALA’s “guidelines” for libraries…and would diminish the ALA’s clout.

The fear in the ALA’s offices is that if the OPPL votes to block the child porn then other libraries in Chicago could follow…and if that happens then the ALA’s entire house of cards could tumble.

This is why every effort imaginable is now being undertaken by the OPPL’s Board of Trustees to violate the OMA and FOIA in our State to thwart the public’s demand that child porn be permanently blocked in this Library.

Not Even the Appearance of Compliance with the Attorney General is Present

OPPL-BoT has shown absolutely no interest in ever giving even the appearance of compliance with Attorney General letters of determination and OMA. For example it used policy passed at the illegal 12 February meeting that the Attorney General found to be void ab initio to continue to silence me as it had in the past–even though it already knew that meeting was illegal, the policy was invalid, there was no required public recital at the next meeting, and the library’s attorney is supposedly an expert on sunshine laws.

A Third Library Patron Speaks Up for My Free Speech But OPPL-BoT Turns a Deaf Ear

At least one other person besides Kevin DuJan and Megan Fox also commented at the recent OPPL-BoT meeting how it was wrong for the library board to refuse to allow me to speak. He said: “However, rather than compromise, this elected board, with help from the ALA, has turned a deaf ear to the public, and instead taken it upon themselves to initiate inept activities to undermine its critics. You lied to the media. You stonewalled FOIA requests. You filed baseless complaints with the police. You arbitrarily moved public board meetings and changed rules just to avoid criticism. I ask why you wouldn’t allow that man who wanted to Skype in today, hear what he has to say? What is wrong with a free and open exchange of ideas here?”

Request for Review of Government Censorship and Law Defiance

So I request this latest denial of my free speech, what amounts to government censorship, be reviewed as yet another instance in a continuing string of illegality and OMA violations by OPPL-BoT. I also look forward to a decision on my first Request for Review for the first time the library violated the law regarding my public comment in December.

It would be worthwhile to consider at the same time whether the new policy language, were it to be properly effectuated, would also represent a violation of OMA. I understand that since the policy is not yet legally in effect, the issue might not be ripe for review. Nevertheless, OPPL-BoT acts as if the policy is in effect, and it will certainly place it into effect eventually, so that may make it valuable to make it clear to OPPL-BoT that such a policy of blocking electronic participation would violate OMA.

The Village of Orland Park Has the Right and Duty to Step In or It May Face Liability

Now that the library is acting outside the law, the Village of Orland Park has every right and duty to step in and require the library to follow the law that created the library and the board. It can do this without piercing the veil of autonomy that allows the library to act freely to carry out the purposes of that law. Where the library steps outside that law, the local government must act. The local government has the power to remove library trustees who have broken the law. The law has been broken. Given how the library ignores Attorney General admonitions and continues to defy the law with alacrity, it is my opinion that removing such library trustees is likely the best means of restoring respect for the law to the library board. If the local government does not move to stop the library board from acting in defiance of the law, it condones such illegality and risks serious liability, at a minimum. If it needs notice of potential harm, consider this to be that notice.

ALA Targeting Me By Name May Be Why OPPL-BoT Repeatedly Silences Me

A significant fact has come to light regarding these violations as it tends to show an intention to violate OMA at the time the crimes were committed and likely a continuing motivation to violate the law. Basically, ALA targeted me by name when setting up library training in which it featured OPPL personnel. If I were present, it would have to tone down its message to librarians–that’s basically what ALA wrote. As it turned out, I was not present, and if I heard correctly, ALA trained librarians how to thwart the law by destroying evidence otherwise available via FOIA requests. No wonder ALA didn’t want me to be present and OPPL-BoT silences me despite the law. And I’ll bet there’s more where that came from. More FOIA’s are being filed but the level of compliance is near ALA perfection, namely, few things of major significance has been supplied so far and the rest is likely destroyed, per ALA diktat, but in violation of state criminal law.

On 7 November 2013, ALA sent an email asking if I would be present at its librarian training featuring OPPL personnel because, if so, it would have to change its message: “IF Dan Kleinman or some of our detractors attend, we will need to change our content.” See the full email published at “Illinois Attorney General Update Evidencing Orland Park Public Library's Defiance of the Open Meetings Act; Arrests Possible” ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/05/NewEvidence.html ).

Now I know why OPPL-BoT has written policy expressly to deny my public comment. I was targeted by the ALA over a month before I had attempted to speak at any OPPL-BoT meeting. So now I’m targeted by OPPL-BoT for silence. The targeting is evidenced by, among other things, a refusal to follow policy that allows my public comment, the drafting of new policy that specifically targets me, the supposed adoption of the policy during an illegal meeting held during a holiday, and the overbreadth of the policy such that it may violate ADA as well as OMA. As a result my public comment has been suppressed again and again in violation of OMA and is likely to continue to be suppressed without intervention from the Attorney General. And even then, OPPL-BoT has shown no proclivity to follow the Attorney General’s determinations/opinions.

Attorney General Intervention is Needed to Stop the Lawbreaking

Given this, Attorney General intervention is needed to begin to stop OPPL from violating the law. OPPL-BoT has demonstrated that mere warnings are not enough of a remedy to stop a recalcitrant library board from breaking the law to defend its various lawbreaking activities, including aiding and abetting child pornography by, among other means, failure to report such crime to the police and destroying evidence. Therefore, I respectfully request the Attorney General review my request and take action to stop the repeated criminal activity.

Thank You

Thank for for reviewing my request regarding OPPL-BoT violating OMA yet again. I look forward to a response at your earliest convenience, but OPPL-BoT shows no sign of slowing its crime spree on its own, so I hope to have resolution as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
SafeLibraries
[address/phone elided]
http://tinyurl.com/AboutDan

---

The above was submitted today, sans the graphics and captions.

More about this very incident of OPPL-BoT committing another Class C Misdemeanor crime by censoring me, besides what's provided by Kevin DuJan (link) and Megan Fox (link) as discussed above, is available here:

• "Klein, Thorpe, & Jenkins: Orland Park Public Library Fight – Part 5," by Jim Kraft, Illinois Leaks, Edgar County Watchdogs, 28 May 2014.

NOTE ADDED 10 JUNE 2014:

THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS LAUNCHED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE ABOVE MATTER:

• "Two More Letters Opening Investigations Into the Wrongdoings of the OPPL-BoT; This One is Really Interesting Because It Involves the Library From Prohibiting Dan Kleinman From Speaking," by Megan Fox, Fans of Megan Fox, 9 June 2014.
• "Illinois Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Public Library Censoring Me In Violation of Law," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 10 June 2014.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/05/LibraryCensorship.html

On Twitter:  @ChiPubLib @ECWDogs @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IllLibraryAssoc @IML_Legislative @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @Skype @VillageOrlandPk

Follow @SafeLibraries