Showing posts with label Video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video. Show all posts

Saturday, April 19, 2014

American Library Association Blames YouTube Video for Benghazi Attack; Passes Policy Silencing Prayer After Jewish Man Prays for Dead Colleagues at ALA Meeting; Does Not Support Free Speech

ALA claims Benghazi attack was
"fueled" by a YouTube video.
The American Library Association [ALA] claims a YouTube video was responsible for the Benghazi attack.  Yet the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  Instead its use supports Islamist efforts to use blasphemy laws to silence the free speech of those speaking out about Islam from a different point of view than the Islamists.  ALA now evidences agreement with that anti-free speech goal.

ALA, supposedly a supporter of free speech, has in the past censored a speaker in response to complaints from Islamists and maintains a block on speech from Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.  Now it has joined with those promoting blasphemy laws to silence free speech.  The video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, yet ALA calls it, "the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi"?
  • "Appeals Court Decision Undermines Free Speech, Misinterpret Copyright Law," by Carrie Russell, Director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP), American Library Association, 14 April 2014 (hyperlinks in original, emphasis mine, grammatical errors in title and text are in original):
    Last week, the American Library Association (ALA) joined an amicus brief calling for reconsideration of a 9th circuit court decision in Garcia v. Google, case where actress Cindy Sue Garcia sued Google for not removing a YouTube video in which she appears.  Garcia appears for five seconds in Innocence of Muslims,” the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi.  The video was uploaded on YouTube, exposing Garcia to threats and hate mail.  Garcia did not know that her five second performance would be used in a controversial video.

ALA Policy Silencing Impromptu Prayer at ALA Meetings

By the way, at ALA's latest annual conference, it passed a policy silencing prayer at ALA meetings in response to a Jewish ALA member saying a quick prayer over other ALA members who had just died:
As former ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon said, "When Mr. Friedman intoned the Jewish mourner's 'Kaddish' after the sudden deaths of 2 Councilors, I was highly indignant and walked out.  It never should have been allowed and before the second incident I begged Mr. Friedman not to repeat the prayer-at least on Council floor." Source: ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon.
Anyone is free to pray at any time, anywhere.  What people are not free to do is to force others to participate in their prayers, which is what happens when one prays aloud.  If Mr. Friedman wished to offer a prayer in his own particular religious format, he has a temple or synagogue in which to do so.  An ALA meeting is not a religious service, & if Mr. Friedman wished to express his sadness over the deaths of the councilors there, he's free to do so in a non-religious way.  Source: Sherry Rhodes.
So the self-arrogated free speech police who claim it violates free speech to keep children from inappropriate material and decry "banned books" think one has free speech to "express sadness over the deaths of the councilors" but only "in a non-religious way," unless you go your own "temple or synagogue."

A single ALA member (ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon) was incensed at a Jewish prayer being said in a single ALA meeting and ALA has now banned such prayer.  The free speech police banned free speech.  Remember, ALA claims a single parent should not be allowed to "censor what others students can read" in public schools; one parent should not control an entire school.  But it is okay for one person to react to Jewish prayer and cause ALA to block religious free speech ALA wide.  Just another double standard.

It is right that ALA is not a religious institution and should not have official prayers or prayer times, but a colleague saying an impromptu prayer upon news of the death of another colleague is not official ALA prayer and ALA had no right to silence people in such a fashion.


ALA Censorship Double Standard; ALA Does Not Support Free Speech

What we see here is ALA censorship promoted by impromptu Jewish prayer while ALA promotes censorship of those who oppose radical Islam.  All while telling communities it is censorship to block porn in public libraries and censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material.

ALA supports Islamic blasphemy laws that silence free speech, censors points of view that differ from Islamist views, and silences its own members after a Jewish man makes a quick Jewish prayer at an ALA meeting out of respect for a dead colleague.  ALA does not support free speech.



On Twitter:  @ALALibrary @JihadWatchRS @OITP

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

American Library Association Enables New Porn Craze—Making Porn In a Library—Should Be Considered a Criminal Organization

Man masturbates into library book
in a library.  Added graphic
covering Action Jackson says:
"Another 'HYSTERIC'
Librarian for Freedom."
Megan Fox reveals, "There is an entire community out there who film themselves masturbating in libraries (usually while watching porn on publicly funded WiFi) and then upload these videos to porn sites.  People are making porn in public libraries. ....  The American Library Association is to blame for this.  They have adopted such a radical position against censorship of any kind (unless it's censorship of the Second Amendment) that they actively promote porn watching in public libraries that leads to the making of pornography on publicly funded WiFi.  The ALA has been voted consistently on the list of the Dirty Dozen, twelve organizations that are the biggest purveyors of porn in America as compiled by PornHarms.com":
"The ALA is a radical left-wing organization that is standing up for perverts to watch X-rated material and then masturbate while filming it on free WiFi a few aisles over from your child.  It's time for the ALA to be considered a criminal organization."  Emphasis added.

Interesting, no?  Remember, the ALA anthem is "Smut!" by Tom Lehrer.



On Twitter:  @IntolerantFox @OIF @Porn_Harms

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Smug Gering Public Library Director Diane Downer Touts ALA Porn Policy

Gering Public Library
The Gering Public Library, Gering, NE, allows porn viewing, expressly basing its decision to do so, despite children viewing porn, on guidance from the American Library Association [ALA].  So effective is the library's propaganda that the town mayor says, "there are Supreme Court rulings that said you cannot prevent someone from having access to those types of materials," the 100% exact opposite of the law as expressed in United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  In reality, it is perfectly legal to block porn and also to refuse to unblock porn even if requested.  Watch:


I have written so much on how the ALA misleads libraries that then lie to communities to mislead them to allow the libraries to act outside the law, and how local officials are totally bamboozled and expose their communities to significant liability.  ALA was recently listed, for example, as one of the nation's leading porn facilitators.  So I won't repeat all the details now.  I am just noting that this story from Gering, NE, really provides a perfect little example of what I have been reporting is happening, complete with a smug smile from library director Diane Downer when she cites the ALA porn policy:

Smug Library Director Diane Downer Touting ALA Porn Policy

  • Parent Michael Onstott, contact me for how I can help.  
  • Mayor Edwin Mayo, contact me for reliable sources showing that you have been misled and your town is exposed to significant liability.  
  • Library Director Diane Downer, contact me if you have an open mind.  
  • Reporter Kenna Nash, contact me for what may be even a bigger story than just this one library porn incident.

For educational purposes in line with Section 107 of the US Copyright Act, here is the unedited text of the article:

by Kenna Nash
KOTA Territory News ABC
8 June 2013

A panhandle father is fuming after his son catches a glimpse of a man watching pornography at the Gering Public Library.

"They were on the computers, checking out books, doing whatever, and my wife had noticed and my son had also noticed, that another person in the library was using one of the computers to view pornography," says concerned parent Michael Onstott.

Onstott's wife approached library staff about what she and her son had witnessed but was told the man wasn't breaking library policy.

"She was basically dismissed, saying there's nothing that they can do about it," says Onstott.  "He wasn't doing anything illegal and that it's within their current policies not to do anything."

Library Director Diane Downer says the Gering Public Library's policy follows the American Library Association's guidelines.

"It doesn't specifically say 'no pornography'," says Downer.  "Obscene? Yes, but what's obscene to someone is not always obscene to someone else."

Mr. Onstott wrote a letter of concern to city council after learning about the library's policy.

Mayor Edwin Mayo says he's sympathetic to the issue but says his hands are tied.

"On the adult side, the adult used computers, they can not have those filters on," says Mayo.  "They are Supreme Court rulings that say you can not prevent someone from having access to these types of materials."

Onstott says he will do whatever it takes to get this policy changed.

"If I have to go to the state to get a law changed, I plan on riding this to the end,"
 says Onstott.  "I'm in it to win it. And I think everyone that has any values for their kids, their grand kids, nieces, nephews... they're going to understand. This has to be changed."

Mayor Mayo says this is a tough situation because if you block all access to all materials that people deem inappropriate, then they get complaints on the other side of it too.


NOTE ADDED 14 JUNE 2013:

More stories on this issue, likely because everyone knows the library director is wrong:


NOTE ADDED 15 JUNE 2103:

Here is one local media source ignoring the facts and the law to side with the porn facilitators, exemplifying the work Michael Onstott has cut out for him in deprogramming the ACLU/ALA propaganda:




Saturday, May 14, 2011

School Removes Squirting Sperm Book After 8-Year-Old Complains To Her Mother

Lovingly Alice book in the news.
Public school officials have removed a book containing inappropriate material from the Quail Run Elementary School in Phoenix, AZ, at least until the next school year.  The book, Lovingly Alice, from the Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, includes material such as a "penis squirting sperm inside the vagina."  The 8-year-old girl complained about the book to her mother who then brought the book to the school's attention.

The principal was "shocked."  According to the mother, he said he "didn't even know this was in our library."  "Even the school librarian admitted it wasn't appropriate for younger kids and put a restriction on it for sixth graders only," said a reporter.

See for yourself:

I spoke with the outspoken mother, Hilary Lockhart.  Here is some information that may help her and any other parent/guardian having similar concerns:
Alice book removed from school library labeled "Children."

NOTE ADDED 20 MAY 2011:

A former head of the Arizona Library Association wants the squirting sperm book returned to the shelves:
Ann Dutton Ewbank wants
children to retain access
to squirting sperm book.
Regarding the article "Mother's complaint prompts Paradise Valley school officials to remove book" that appeared on azcentral.com on Tuesday:  Paradise Valley administrators removed the book "Lovingly Alice" from the Quail Run Elementary School library prior to the initiation of an official book challenge.  The district policy governing this process, "Parent Complaint Procedures Regarding Instructional Materials" states, "During the review, materials in question may remain in use."  As a parent, Hilary Lockhart has the right and responsibility to direct her children's reading, but the decision to remove the book prior to the outcome of the book-challenge procedure restricts access to all students.  District administrators should return the book to the shelves until the challenge process is complete and a final decision has been made by a committee of teachers, parents and librarians, as stated in district policy. - Ann Dutton Ewbank, Phoenix
The writer is a past president of the Arizona Library Association.
"PV Schools Skipped Book Procedure," by Ann Dutton Ewbank, The Arizona Republic, 19 May 2011.

Notice "may remain in use" completely negates her argument since the book need not remain in use.  That leaves her simply throwing around her Arizona Library Association weight to attempt to browbeat the school back into line.  It's demagoguery pure and simple.

So skipping the material reconsideration procedure is bad if it keeps kids from reading inappropriate material, but, in Clarkstown, NY, skipping the material reconsideration is good if it keeps kids reading inappropriate material.  And there we have yet another double standard.  The ends justifies the means.


NOTE ADDED 4 FEBRUARY 2019:

Ann Dutton Ewbank, the librarian who wanted the squirting sperm book returned to the shelves, has now written a book:
It cost $40!

Get this, and I quote, "Ann Dutton Ewbank is associate professor at Montana State University, Bozeman. She researches school library advocacy and is a member-leader in the American Library Association. A tireless advocate, Ewbank has direct experience working with elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels to enact positive policy for school library programs."  Returning the squirting sperm book to school shelves despite the principal and the school's own librarian removing it must be the positive policy for school libraries about which she's writing.

Also, I have updated most dead links with archived or new links, and I removed a dead video.

Friday, May 6, 2011

School Bullies Girl to Promote Political Push for Perks By Displaying In Class Video of Girl's Parents; School Board Misleads Parents Opposing School Book So Only Book Supporters Attend Public Meeting; Media Touts Total Victory And Leaves Out Bullying and Political Trickery; Guest Writer Aldo DeVivo Speaks Out

I am Aldo DeVivo and I and my wife would like to make a public statement regarding what was reported in "Clarkstown Rejects Ban on 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower,'" by Hema Easley, The Journal News, 6 May 2011.


Backgrounder From SafeLibraries

Before continuing with Aldo DeVivo's statement, here is some background from SafeLibraries to better understand what Aldo DeVivo is saying and why:

This story involves a book used by the Clarkstown High School North, New City, NY.  The book is entitled, "Perks of Being a Wallflower."  It contains bestiality and other sexually explicit material, for example:
After a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl's head down, and she started to kiss his penis.  She was still crying.  Finally, she stopped crying because he put his penis in her mouth, and I don't think you can cry in that position.  I had to stop watching at that point because I started to feel sick, but it kept going on, and they kept doing other things, and she kept saying "no."
A recent Harris Poll showed most people do not want children in public schools to have access to sexually explicit material.  See "Most Oppose Explicit Books in Public Schools Says Harris Poll."  This is evidence such materials violate community standards.

Further, pervasively vulgar books may be quickly and legally removed from public schools thanks to Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).  This is evidence the law allows for the removal of such material.

School policy called "TEACHING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES" requires that, "Teachers shall always give fair representation to all sides of issues."  Keep this in mind when reading about a video a teacher showed about the DeVivos that made their daughter break down in tears after she found out it was shown in a different English class.  By the way, "teachers, within their professional judgment, may at times present pertinent, controversial issues to classes and select appropriate curriculum materials approved by the administration."  Did the administration approve the showing of the video that effectively bullied the daughter?  Either way, there's a serious injustice.  And students may be expelled for defamation, discrimination, harassment, or bullying.  What about teachers or the school administration if it approved the video in question that essentially does the same thing, based on the daughter's reaction? 

In my opinion, I fully understand why the school board used trickery, the school teacher and/or school administration used intimidation and bullying, and the media choose to ignore the inconvenient truth.  But read on to see for yourselves.


Continuing Aldo DeVivo's Message

What a scam!  None of us against the book even knew there was a vote.  Just to give an idea of what I'm talking about:

BUDGET

Countdown to the 2011-12 School Budget Vote

There are two remaining public meeting for voters to learn about the 2011-12 budget and express their comments prior to the vote.  Both will be held in the Main Board Room at the Chestnut Grove Administrative Center, 62 Old Middletown Road in New City.

On Thursday, May 5 at the regular meeting of the Board of Education, the Board will hold a public hearing at 8:00 pm.  Members of the community are invited to share their questions and opinions on the proposed spending plan.

So what do you think about that?  Most likely the room was filled with proponents for the book who knew that there was going to be a vote on the book.  These people, using students as pawns, had it staged all along to present their arguments before the board—without us knowing.

What's even more deplorable is that during the day an English teacher decided to show a video clip of an interview my wife and I had with a TV network in an 11th grade English class.  Of course we presented opposing views in that interview.   She was using this clip as a prelude to her having students reading the Perks book.  And she had the students write letters in support of the book for the meeting she knew about but we didn't.  Several students read their letters to the board.  By the way, they've gone back to no parental notices.

Now what I'm about to describe is the depravity and egregious nature of these people.

Keep in mind that when this video clip was shown during the school day, there had not been a decision on the book yet.

Furthermore, our daughter, who is a junior at the school, has close friends and casual friends who don't care about our position on the book.

Conversely, I'm sure there are other students who know our position who may think differently of befriending our daughter.

In any case, between classes, a friend of our daughter mentioned that her English teacher showed a video clip of us during class regarding the book.

My daughter broke down in tears.  How could a teacher show a clip of us knowing full well that showing this would place our daughter in not only an awkward and inappropriate situation, but may also place her in a position of being harassed by other students?

It's absolutely despicable. We don't mind losing in a fair fight, but this was not a fair fight.

Can you believe a budget meeting turned into a vote for the book?

And what they did to our daughter is truly the lowest of the low.  Will there be justice before we are forced to compel it?


NOTE ADDED 6 MAY 2011:

I sent an email to a number of people, some at the school concerned.  Get a load of this automated response:

DISCLAIMER:


NOTICE: Clarkstown Central School District wishes to maintain an environment that promotes mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance of differences.  We believe that all classroom, school, district and meeting environments must promote a positive culture that serves to enhance the emotional well being of all students, staff, parents and visitors to our school district.  It is our expectation that all parties are treated with dignity and respect. As such, we expect individuals to speak in ways that are tactful and respectful.  The district does not tolerate verbal, written or defamatory comments or actions that target specific individuals or groups.

Is there a double standard at work or will the school comply with its own policy?

Were the DeVivos, including the daughter, treated with "mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance of differences"?  Did showing a video for political purposes that caused the DeVivo's daughter to cry "promote a positive culture that serves to enhance the emotional well being [sic] of all students"?  Were the DeVivos "treated with dignity and respect"?

"The district does not tolerate verbal, written or defamatory comments or actions that target specific individuals or groups."  Did the video not target Mr. and Mrs. DeVivo?

What obvious duplicity. 


NOTE ADDED 11 MAY 2011:

Aldo DeVivo received a letter dated 22 March 2011 from Clarkstown Central School District's Deputy Superintendent of Schools Deborah O'Connell stating, "As we continue to move through this process we will keep you informed."  The substance of the letter is shown below.

Not only was Mr. DeVivo not informed, but the school district broke its agreement to do so.  The "Materials Reconsideration Policy" review was not honored by the school, and the matter should be reopened for a proper review:

Letter agreeing to keep Aldo DeVivo informed.  An agreement never honored.


.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Yakima Public Library Allows Porn--Thanks to Legislative Policy?

The Yakima Public Library allows porn.  That is obvious from the news report and video in:  "It's Legal But Many Don't Approve of Watching Porn at the Library," by Ileana Diaz, KNDO 23, 19 March 2010.

"[I]t's legal to look up just about anything, which includes porn."   More "anything goes."

But look at the next sentence:  "It's a policy that legislators set...."  What?  Will someone please print that legislative policy in a comment to this blog post?

I am going to investigate this further.  Anyone in the area who wants to contact me, please do.  In the meantime, please see these stories from about 80 miles away:

As the library's motto says, "Yakima Valley Regional Library; Connecting People and Ideas...."  And porn.

.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Political TV Ad Exposes Library Policy Supported by Opponent Who Allows X-Rated Video Viewing Near Children

This political TV advertisement exposes public library policy supported by an opponent who allows "x-rated video" viewing near children. For details, see "Supervisors' Library Porn Solution a Joke," by Barney Brenner, Tucson Citizen, 18 August 2006.



Transcript:

In these tough times I love that children are using our libraries more. But they've become places where men watch x-rated videos with our kids nearby. Sharon Bronson voted to let this continue. I want it to stop. What do you want?

On Screen Text:
  • Barney Brenner Supervisor District 3
  • Paid for by Brenner for Supervisor Committee. Dennis Melin, Treasurer.
Title:

Brenner For Supervisor
'Library'
:15
November 2008
Moret & Associates Adv.

Related: