Will Manley Outs Library Profession as the Only One in the World That Wants Children to Have Access to Pornography; Annoyed Librarian Says Some Librarians Sound Like Smut Peddlars

Will Manley speaks the truth about the library profession.  See "3 Ways to Get Blackballed in the Library Profession," by Will Manley, Will Unwound, #428, 26 April 2011, emphasis and graphics added, excerpted here:

....

1)      Conservative politics….We all know that the library profession is extremely liberal in its political leanings.  To prove this all you have to do is look at the big name speakers at A.L.A. conferences.  How many conservatives have there been among this group in the past 40 years?  Maybe one or two at most.   Librarians would rather be validated than challenged when it comes to politics.  But it goes beyond that.  Many librarians think that conservatives are selfish, stupid, unsophisticated, and ultimately evil people.  Conservatism is not an alternative political viewpoint to the library profession; it is a curse.  The unfortunate issue here is that our many city councils, county boards, and state legislatures are ruled by conservative politicians.  These are the folks who hold our purse strings.  Isn’t it time to stop demonizing them and start dialoging with them?  Don’t even think about it if you want that big promotion.

2)      Organized religion….The library profession is very wary of organized religion, because religious morality is the banner that many book censors wave.  Many librarians disdain organized religion because they think it is repressive, judgmental, irrational, evangelical, and overly structured.  If you are a librarian it is okay to freely talk about your spiritual quest as long as you do not mention that you belong to an organized church.  It’s also very okay to be openly atheistic and agnostic because this shows you are a thinking person who has overcome an early childhood attachment to superstition.  If you have to be an avowed member of a formal religion, Buddhism seems to be your best bet.  Buddhism seems to be the cool religion right now.  Protestantism and Catholicism definitely are not.  If you are a member of a formal Christian Church keep that part of your life in the closet for the good of your career.

3)      Censorship – Perhaps the most career limiting move that you could make in the library profession is to refuse to toe the line with the anything goes philosophy of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom.  I am still getting criticism heaped on me for a series of articles that I wrote in the 1990s advocating that filters be put on children’s room computers to block out pornography.  Really!  I’m pretty sure that the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography.  Why?  Because everyone is afraid of being called a censor.  It is the death nail in the career coffin.  The irony of all of this is that the library profession touts itself as the champion of intellectual freedom.  If that’s true why can’t we freely express our dissenting views of an "anything goes" philosophy of intellectual freedom…or conservative politics…or organized religion for that matter?

And why are librarians afraid to be called a censor?  That would be courtesy of former de facto ALA leader Judith Krug and her bringing her ACLU leadership policies and enforcement tactics to the ALA. 

Librarians Should Take Back Control of the Office for Intellectual Freedom From the Porn Pushers

Look in the comments on Will's post to see comment after comment by librarians speaking out to agree with Will.  Judith Krug, may she rest in peace, has passed on and the new leader of the OIF is a poor substitute.  The deputy director is a plagiarizer and an unethical astroturfer.  (Administrative Assistant Bryan Campbell is honest but I'll leave that for another story.)  Maybe now is the time for librarians to do what they know is right and take back control of the OIF from the Krug/ACLU acolytes.

See also:

• "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries" at http://tinyurl.com/WillManley
• "The Conservatives Among Us," by Will Manley, American Libraries, 30 November 2010

The Annoyed Librarian Outs Smut Peddling Librarians

By the way, the other top library blogger also pointed out that the ALA is "pro-porn."  See:  "Libraries and Porn Privacy," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 27 April 2011.  "But if librarians insist on sounding like smut peddlers, the articles will keep coming.  If this is the hill librarians want to die on while they pretend they’re protecting free speech, then so be it."  That's the Library Journal post, by the way, where the Annoyed Librarian agrees with my view of the ALA in the Brooklyn Public Library porn matter saying, "Safe Libraries Guy argues that the problem is the ALA urging libraries to disregard federal law.  He does have a point there."  Lawyers take note.

And see how the Annoyed Librarian mocks "library porn mavens" in still more evidence of the ALA's anything-goes policy:

The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet porn at the taxpayer's expense. An Internet filter for porn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core porn magazines for their public library. It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library. The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it.

"Library Porn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007, emphasis added.

I get a lot of criticism for saying the ALA pushes porn on children.  But I make that statement based on solid evidence including that presented by the likes of Will Manley and the Annoyed Librarian.  For example, just search on what the Annoyed Librarian has said about the ALA's love for porn.

A First Amendment Right to Porn in the Public Library?

The Annoyed Librarian is so funny.  Look at this.  Here is the ALA's First Amendment:

Library Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and view publicly subsidized pornography in their local library.

Speaking of librarians "acting like smut peddlers," "Smut!" by Tom Lehrer is the ALA's anthem.

Will Your Community Stop the ALA From Targeting Children?

"[T]he library profession is the only profession in the world that

wants children to have access to pornography."

Will Manley said that.  Any questions?  Any community want the ALA anywhere near your public libraries and your children while it continues along its current path?  Will librarians finally move to deradicalize the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom?  Anyone want to write a guest blog post for SafeLibraries to say what it's like in your own libraries? 

.

Librarian Strongly Supports Filtering Legislation; Notus Public Library Director Jo Ellen Ringer Tells It Like It Is

Notus Public Library Director Jo Ellen Ringer strongly supports filtering legislation and exposes that "[e]very librarian knows full well that non-filtered computers are used for pornographic purposes."  And, "Is porn information?  NO!"  Heresy!

In a comment to a recent post of mine she wrote:

J.Ringer said...

I am probably the only librarian in Idaho that totally supported the filtering legislation.  I made my legislators aware of my career and my backing of the bill.



Every librarian knows full well that non-filtered computers are used for pornographic purposes.  No one denies it.  I have yet to encounter the person who is doing breast cancer research, thus needs filter turned off.



Why should public tax dollars go to support porn addicts?  That is the bottom line, not freedom of information.  Is porn information?  NO!

I have seen men publicly masturbating while viewing porn on library computers.  When I reported this to my supervisor (at Nampa, ID library), I was told it was none of my business.  I wondered if it became "our" business if he sexually assaulted some child in the library bathroom after this viewing.

I expressed my views to the Idaho Library Association and was quite disappointed that they chose to fight filtering.  All filters can be turned off NOW for legitimate research.



Jo Ellen Ringer, Notus Public Library, Notus, ID

Thu Apr 07, 04:28:00 PM 2011

Brava Jo Ellen Ringer!  She now joins other librarians and library directors willing to speak out about the "dogma," like Dean Marney.  See, "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma."  Or like Will Manley; see, "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries."

Maybe it is time that librarians and library directors rise up and speak out about what they know to be true.  I will make that happen as best I can.  For example, here's an open invitation to guest post on this SafeLibraries blog.  You are not alone.  The American Library Association's anthem need no longer be "Smut!" if enough people speak out.

And thank you, Jo Ellen Ringer, for commenting on my blog post and getting this ball rolling.

.

Bums are Ground Zero in Libraries - Librarianship is a Hazardous Occupation

Sleeping in Public Library

Bums in the library?

Please read "Dear Monday - Any Advice for Furious," by Will Manley, Will Unwound #367, 21 February 2011.  Sample quote from a pseudonymous librarian named "Furious":

My problem is bums in the library.  Not just garden-variety bums that read the newspaper, doze in chairs and sneak a nip in the stacks–I’m familiar and comfortable with those bums since they do leave.  The bums I am taking exception to are addicted bums that are being fostered, fed and given money by our IT manager.

Wow!  Some IT manager!  Be sure to read the comments, most being from active or formers librarians.

The graphic above is from another worthy read: "Why You Should Work in a Library Before Library School," by YoSafBridg, Tales of a Rampaging Librarian, 1 June 2007.  It has lovely quotes from another source describing the Salt Lake City Public Library,  including:

Serious respiratory problems among the chronically homeless in a shelter are as common as beer guts at a racetrack.  If an epidemic strikes, the susceptibility of the homeless will translate into an increased risk of exposure for the rest of us and, eerily enough, our public libraries could become Ground Zeroes for the spread of killer flu.  Librarians are reluctant to make plans for handling such scenarios because we do not want to convey the message that America's libraries are anything but the safe and welcoming environments they remain today.

Libraries not safe?

.

Deep Throat in the Public Library

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Anything Goes for America if Seattle Public Library Director Susan Hildreth's Nomination is Confirmed for the Institute of Museum and Library Services

Susan Hildreth

"Anything goes" is coming to American libraries if the nominee for the Institute of Museum and Library Services [IMLS] Director is confirmed.   Susan Hildreth has been nominated for this post.  N1, N2, N3.  She is the American Library Association's [ALA] Freedom To Read Foundation [FTRF] Treasurer.  She is also the Seattle Public Library's director.  She should not be confirmed.  Here's why:

Susan Hildreth's ALA is an Anything-Goes Organization Out of the Mainstream

The ALA, in which Susan Hildreth is prominently positioned, is an "anything goes" organization.  As Will Manley of the ALA put it:

It would appear that in the case of keeping children away from Internet p[]rnography, it is the library profession, not the Supreme Court, which has distanced itself from the mainstream.  Our profession's 'anything goes' view of intellectual freedom simply does not square with the values of the communities we serve.  N4.

Will Manley asks:

Why is there such a disconnect between our profession and everyone else on this particular issue?  More specifically, how could we have allowed ourselves to be put in such a publicly disadvantageous position as defending the right of children to access p[]rnography?  The answer is simple and ironic.  Our profession preaches intellectual freedom but does not tolerate its practice within our own ranks.  Librarians imbued with common sense and good political judgment are afraid to espouse even a moderate position that advocates the limited use of filters.  There is a great fear within librarianship of being branded a censor.  No librarian wants to be wounded by that bullet.  That's why we can never really initiate an open and honest dialogue among ourselves on issues involving even the most obvious need for limitations of intellectual freedom.  As a result, the extremists always dominate, and we end up with an "anything goes" official policy that distances the library profession from mainstream America.  N4.

Has an out-of-the-mainstream extremist just been nominated for IMLS Director?  She is from the FTRF, after all.  But let us look at the library that she directs to examine this issue further.  She likely has more sway there as director than in the ALA as treasurer of the FTRF.

Susan Hildreth's Library Approves Internet P0rnography and Opposes Filtering

Susan Hildreth directs the Seattle Public Library.  The library refuses to use Internet filters to cut back on the p0rnography that may attract crime.  N5.  In fact, the library welcomes p0rnography: it's—"okay"!  A shocking statement, yes, but here is the basis for that observation:

"Each individual to have access to constitutionally protected material," Seattle Public Library Spokesperson Andra Addison said.

In Seattle, it's open access to everyone. As long as it's legal, it's okay, even if it's explicit. They're not about censorship, they're about protecting user privacy and confidentiality.

"The library believes it's the right and responsibility of parents and legal guardians to determine and monitor their own children's use," Addison said.

And that's where it comes down to choice: choice for parents, choice for the library.  Libraries try to walk that line, especially since there is a wide range of what people consider explicit.  But all will tell you, filters can be a false sense of security.

"You can be vigilant, and you can be proactive but you cannot prevent it," Rosemary said.  N6.

Susan Hildreth's Outdated Dogma on Internet Filters and Public Library P0rn

Dean Marney

A "false sense of security"?  Does Susan Hildreth believe that?  Yes.  As she put it, "Internet filtering is not 100 percent effective at all.  They're not able to deal with all the wild and crazy sites that are put up at every minute of the day."  N7.

Is it true that filtering is not effective and that legal p0rnography may not be kept out of libraries?  Of course not.  It may be what Susan Hildreth believes, the person nominated to lead the IMLS, but it is not true.  Ask library director Dean Marney, for example.  He revealed that the ALA uses outdated dogma to control local libraries, and good filters work fine.  See, "Library P[]rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P[]rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma."  N8.

Susan Hildreth is using outdated dogma as well.  She won't change when she gets to the IMLS.

The Seattle Public Library Run by Susan Hildreth is Riddled with Crime

And what has come of Susan Hildreth's anything-goes policy?  This is an important question because, as IMLS Director, she may bring the ALA's anything-goes, out-of-the-mainstream and outdated dogma to the national stage.  How has the Seattle Public Library been affected by this policy with which Susan Hildreth agrees?  It has been riddled with crime, that's how.  Look:

KIRO7 Library Misconduct
Click for Video

KIRO Team 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne discovered security has already ejected 432 patrons in the first four months this year for offenses like assault, drug dealing, intoxication and lewd conduct.
....
In all, 1,323 conduct violations were substantiated just in 2008, a disproportionate number at the Central Library branch.
....
According to Seattle Library Administrator Marilynn Gardner, nobody has to worry about safety at any branch.  N9.

Right.  Nobody has to worry about safety in a library with thousands of incidents, N9, and where management believes viewing p0rnography is "okay," N6.  No wonder Seattle librarians think there's a "sort of 1984 atmosphere at the library these days."  N10.

The library simply refuses to use Internet filters to prevent p0rnography, N5; indeed, it believes p0rnography in the public library is "okay."  N6.  And the crimes continue by the hundreds.  N11.  Hundreds!  Does anyone see a problem with that?  Does anyone want Susan Hildreth to use her position as IMLS director to bring that to American libraries?

Loss of E-Rate Funding Never Restored; Hildreth Says Go Fish to the Poor

For those who do not know, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Internet filters in public libraries are perfectly legal.  N12.  To get E-Rate funding for "Internet Access," all you need do is use Internet filtering.  The Seattle Public Library used to get money for "Internet Access," but 2003 was the last year as a result of the library's refusal to use Internet filters.  N13.  At least that's better than the nearby King County Library System that is defrauding the E-Rate program of over $1,000,000.  N14. 

Does anyone in the Seattle community know that the Seattle Public Library is intentionally turning down funding it used to get, simply because p0rnography is "okay"?  Has Susan Hildreth, struggling for funding for the library, N15, done anything to restore the lost E-Rate funding?  No.  Instead, the library will shut for a week.  N15.  Apparently, ALA politics trumps local interests.  "[F]or those who aren't familiar with our digital collection, this is a good time to learn how to download books, movies and music, since they will be available during the closure," said Susan Hildreth.  N15.

Librarians, always decrying the "digital divide," N16, suddenly advise people to "learn how to download."  N15.  Will poor populations have computers at home to download during the week?  She could have obtained E-Rate funding by properly filtering the computers but chooses instead to shut the library for a week.  It's just more evidence of Hildreth's ideological bent.  Obviously she cares more about the p0rn people than about the poor people.  Is that IMLS material?

Susan Hildreth Frightens Librarians Into Silence

Remember from above how Will Manley revealed librarians are afraid to speak out for fear of what the ALA might do?  Guess who Seattle Public Library librarians fear?  IMLS director nominee Susan Hildreth:

[M]any librarians feel unrepresented by management, and some fear retribution for speaking their minds against new policies and restructuring.

....

When asked why she didn't include a librarian on the committee to provide perspectives of what day-to-day SPL employees need or believe should be added to service, Hildreth says she didn't want an internal perspective to influence the committee.  "That's why we don't have [library] board members on the committee," she says.

The advisory committee isn't the only place where librarians feel silenced, though.  In recent months, SPL employees have taken to anonymously posting comments on blogs to air their grievances about recent shifts in policy and what they perceive as a newfound institutional inattentiveness to the needs of many patrons.  SPL employees stormed the web in protest when the December 30 edition of American Libraries magazine praised Hildreth and the library board for being "inspiring" and "ambitious."

The Stranger

A number of librarians have contacted The Stranger anonymously because they think the public needs to be informed that they are unhappy with SPL leadership.  Common complaints include anger at the creation of a new level of middle management while entry-level positions are cut and hours are shortened; a lack of librarian input on planning, restructuring, and budget decisions; fear of retribution for negative comments (even if the comments are delivered internally, through proper channels); a lack of communication with the library board; and a long-term plan to replace qualified librarians with volunteers and paraprofessionals.

....

Librarians have their own hopes for [Mayor] McGinn.  The mayor doesn't have much official power over the library-he approves the budget and appoints new members to five-year terms on the five-person library board-but they would like him to advocate for them.  One librarian says, "It's hard for someone in my position not to fantasize about the mayor pulling Susan Hildreth aside at some future meeting and saying, 'I hear your staff is not at all happy with how things are being run lately.  Not enough communication?  Something about bullies?  Might [be worth] watching.'  It'd be nice to imagine there was pressure, however subtle, from above, for her to clean house a bit."  N16.

Wow.  Her own librarians are afraid of Susan Hildreth, and now she's going to be the IMLS director.  Wow.

Conclusion

How ALA and ALA Affiliate Bullies
Get It Done

If Susan Hildreth becomes IMLS director, ALA politics will trump national interests, just like they trumped local Seattle interests with Susan Hildreth at the helm.  She can clearly steer national funding the ALA's way.  N17.  I am certain she will steer national policy the ALA's way as well.  Communities may suffer as a direct result.

I strongly oppose approving Susan Hildreth as IMLS director, and I urge people to contact their leaders [U.S. Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121].  For example, urge Senator John McCain to oppose Susan Hildreth as IMLS director.  Especially tell members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee before December 1.  N18.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will be holding a full committee markup at 10am on Wednesday, December 1.  On the agenda for this markup, among other issues, the committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Susan Hildreth to be the director of the Institute for Museum and Library Sciences (IMLS).  N18.

And, given what Will Manley (and The Stranger) said about librarians being afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled a censor (like the ALA labels all library patrons who raise concerns, N19), comments below may be left anonymously.  Here's your chance.  Speak out before the ALA policy that has made the Seattle Public Library crime riddled and fear wracked becomes national policy.  The ALA monitors this blog so your comments will be noticed.

End Notes

N1:  "President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 9/29/10," by Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 29 September 2010.

N2:  "Hildreth To Be Nominated as IMLS Director," by David Rapp, Library Journal, 30 September 2010.

N3:  "President Nominates Former Public Library Association President for IMLS Director," by Jenni Terry, (ALA) American Libraries, 30 September 2010.

N4:  "Intellectual Freedom Begins at Home," by Will Manley, (ALA) Booklist, 1 October 2003.

N5:  "Public Use of the Internet Policy," by Library Board of Trustees, The Seattle Public Library, 22 January 2002.

N6:  "P[]rn at the Public Library: How Do Local Libraries Compare Across the State?," by Chelsea Kopta, KEPR 19, 12 June 2009.

N7:  "P[]rn, Sex Crimes At Libraries," by Dan Noyes, KIRO 7, 19 October 2007.

N8:  "Library P[]rn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal P[]rn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 November 2010.

N9:  "Library Conduct Violations Reach All-Time High," by Chris Halsne, KIRO 7, 27 May 2009.

N10:  "Not Keeping Quiet; Librarians Speak Out Against Proposed Policies at Seattle Public Library," by Paul Constant, The Stranger, 16 June 2009.

N11:  "Incidents by Primary Rule Violation, 2007-2009," by Seattle Public Library, KIRO 7, data from 3/07-12/09.

N12:  United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).

N13:  "Automated Search of Commitments," by Universal Service Administrative Company, undated.

N14:  "Library Leaves Pedophile Free to Molest Other Children; King County Library System Defrauds Taxpayers of $1,158,253 from CIPA Program; Media Investigation Needed," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 14 October 2010.

N15:  "Seattle Libraries to Shut Down for a Week; Budget Woes for Second Closure in a Year," by Larry Lange, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 22 August 2010.

N16: "Corporate Euphemisms, Angry Librarians, Accusations of Bullying: The Tense Battle for Seattle Public Library's Future," by Paul Constant, The Stranger, 8 April 2010.

N17:  "Among $9.3 Million in National Leadership Grants, IMLS Backs ALA E-Government Project," by Carrie Netzer Wajda, Library Journal, 4 October 2010.

N18:  "HELP Committee is Scheduled to Vote on the Nomination of Susan Hildreth and LSTA Reauthorization," by ALA Washington Office, American Library Association, 24 November 2010.

N19:  "The Parent Trap: ALA Uses Banned Books Week to Ridicule Patrons Complying with ALA Materials Reconsideration Policies," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 29 September 2010.

About the Author

I'm Dan Kleinman and I wrote the above opinion.  I began opposing ALA policy almost a decade ago when the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom policies forced inappropriate material into the hands of my kindergartner.  The school principal eventually removed the material from the public school library stating she found it twice as bad as I had reported.  Now running SafeLibraries.org, I educate people and politicians about who controls public libraries and what can be done to restore local control.  I am consulted nationwide for my expertise in how the negative aspects of ALA influence can be mitigated, and I appear in numerous media reports.  I write regularly and ask people to consider subscribing to SafeLibraries.  Guest posts are welcome.  I track library crimes on Delicious and broadcast my latest crime additions on my SafeLibraries Twitter.  I may be reached at SafeLibraries@gmail.com.

My efforts and those of my late partner, Mark Decker, have been rewarded by the ALA naming SafeLibraries as one of its "prominent" opponents, if not the top one.  See "Intellectual Freedom Manual, Eighth Edition," Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 2010, p.383 [ALA's online version naming SafeLibraries].  Also see:

• "SafeLibraries Changing Library Profession According to Speaker at ALA 2010 Annual Conference; SafeLibraries Welcomes Media Requests for ALA Balance"

• "ALA Chills Free Exercise of Democracy by Publicly Attacking Mom and Pop Groups Who Dare to Oppose ALA Influence That Endangers Children"

• "Booklist Webcast - Defending the Right to Read: Celebrating Banned Books Week Featuring Special Guest Judy Blume"

I am available for media interviews.  This is especially important as the ALA plans a huge propaganda campaign in September 2011 for the 30th anniversary of "Banned Books Week."  I can provide balance with a smile and with solid legal and factual support, as illustrated above.  Hint, no books have been banned in the USA for almost 50 years.

URL for this blog post:  

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/11/anything-goes-for-america-if-seattle.html

NOTE ADDED 1 DECEMBER 2010:

Today, the Senate HELP committee was no help.  The nomination of Susan Hildreth to be the director of IMLS was favorably reported from committee.  Her nomination now goes to the full Senate.  When you call your senators, please urge them to oppose Ms. Hildreth’s nomination.  Given this is the lame duck session, I doubt such opposition will prevail.


NOTE ADDED 17 FEBRUARY 2013:

• "IMLS: Don't Award Fraud in Public Libraries," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 February 2013.

.

The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries

Why is there such a disconnect between our profession and everyone else on this particular issue?  More specifically, how could we have allowed ourselves to be put in such a publicly disadvantageous position as defending the right of children to access pornography?  The answer is simple and ironic.  Our profession preaches intellectual freedom but does not tolerate its practice within our own ranks.  Librarians imbued with common sense and good political judgment are afraid to espouse even a moderate position that advocates the limited use of filters.  There is a great fear within librarianship of being branded a censor.  No librarian wants to be wounded by that bullet.  That's why we can never really initiate an open and honest dialogue among ourselves on issues involving even the most obvious need for limitations of intellectual freedom.  As a result, the extremists always dominate, and we end up with an "anything goes" official policy that distances the library profession from mainstream America.

Will Manley said that.  I love you, Will Manley, for being one of the few to speak truth to power.  "Anything goes."  Exactly.  Please consider getting more of Will Manley's common sense at his new blog, "Will Unwound."

The above quote comes from "Intellectual Freedom Begins at Home," by Will Manley, Booklist, 1 October 2003.  You must read the entire article.  It points out that US v. ALA was a "major setback" for the American Library Association [ALA], that some librarians "personal[ly] attack[ed] the values of the justices themselves."  And they are in your communities telling you to sidestep US v. ALA.

Our profession's "anything goes" view of intellectual freedom simply does not square with the values of the communities we serve.  While librarians were blasting the Supreme Court as a band of censors, parents from Maine to California were thanking the justices for protecting their children from the excesses of sex on the Web.

Thank you, Will Manley.  Yes, this article is many years old, but nothing has changed within the ALA on this issue—rather it has only solidified.

Any community facing the ALA propaganda machine should consider this Will Manley article as a powerful antidote.  When you are labeled as a "censor" for attempting to legally protect children from inappropriate material, you are in good company with the "band of censors" in the US Supreme Court.

Here is the entire article reprinted under Copyright §107 Fair Use.  Ah, freedom of speech.  Enjoy!

"Intellectual Freedom Begins at Home"

by Will Manley

Booklist

1 October 2003

Among the flurry of Supreme Court decisions that were handed down at the end of the last session in early July was a ruling that received critical reaction from many librarians.  The Supreme Court's decision upholding the right of the federal government to make the filtering of children's-room computers a requirement for libraries that receive federal monies was, in particular, a major setback to the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom.  ALA devoted a great deal of time and money to a vigorous legal battle challenging the right of the feds to mandate filtering.  At first blush, the Supreme Court decision would seem to be a setback in the crusade for the rights of access for millions of minors throughout America.  When it was first announced, the professional library reaction was both swift and negative.  Some referred to the decision as an "electronic book burning" others called it a grave act of censorship.  An ALA spokesperson predicted that many libraries would consider rejecting federal money rather than installing filters.

Some librarians were so upset that their criticism went beyond a point-by-point critique of the actual decision and elevated into a personal attack on the values of the justices themselves.  According to these librarians, this was one more example of the narrow-minded thinking of a court packed with ultra-right-wing appointees from the Reagan and Bush I eras.  They were quick to point out that these "fundamentalist" justices were the very same judges who stole the presidency from Al Gore and handed it to Bush II on a silver platter.  They overreached, however, when they asserted that in upholding the constitutionality of filtering the Internet, the Supreme Court was now validating Bush's conservative social agenda.  These critics had conveniently forgotten that the Children's Internet Protection Act had actually been promulgated by both the Clinton/Gore administration and a Democratic Senate.

It is perfectly legitimate to attack the Supreme Court decision on the basis of one's view of the First Amendment and how it applies to a library patron's right of access to pornography.  It is also appropriate to condemn the decision on the basis of the fact that some filters unintentionally block access to nonpornographic sites.  It is not, however, valid to criticize the decision on the grounds that the Rehnquist Supreme Court is dominated by conservative judges who are out of step with mainstream America.  Consider the other rulings that were released by this "conservative" court at the same time as the library-filtering decision.  Affirmative-action selection techniques were upheld in determining university enrollment, a California law aimed at bringing justice to child molesters was overturned, a death penalty was struck down because a defense attorney was deemed to be "ineffective," and a Texas sodomy law was ruled unconstitutional.  Are these the decisions of a conservative court?

The fact of the matter is that several of the justices appointed by Reagan and Bush have turned out to be liberal on a good many legal and societal issues.  As a result, the Supreme Court that we have now is one with a good deal of balance.  At times it's conservative, moderate, and even liberal.  In that regard, it reflects the variable moods of mainstream America.  It would appear that in the case of keeping children away from Internet pornography, it is the library profession, not the Supreme Court, which has distanced itself from the mainstream.

Our profession's "anything goes" view of intellectual freedom simply does not square with the values of the communities we serve.  While librarians were blasting the Supreme Court as a band of censors, parents from Maine to California were thanking the justices for protecting their children from the excesses of sex on the Web.  This is how one grandmother, who visits her public library twice a week with her grandchildren, explained it: "Sex is something that's like a gun; dangerous if you don't know how to use it.  I'm all for them putting restrictions in a public place."  Representative Istook of Oklahoma, one of the drafters of the Children's Internet Protection Act, said that the ruling "will mean libraries can continue to fulfill their mission because parents won't need to be reluctant about dropping off their kids for an afternoon at the library."

Journalists have traditionally joined hands with librarians in the cause of advocating intellectual freedom.  In this case, however, that support was not there for us.  The local newspaper that I read every day is quite liberal in its editorial point of view, but on the issue of filtering the Internet for children, its stand was clear and conservative:  "Children must have access to libraries and all that they provide.  At the same time, they require sensible protection from a cyberworld that knows no limits."  Our other local paper was even more forceful in its opposition to ALA's party line:  "These days librarians want to let it all hang out.  It's free speech all the way--which explains why the American Library Association is not happy with Monday's ruling by the US Supreme Court on the subject of Internet pornography.  Free speech, of course, is precious.  But as courts have noted over and over again, it cannot be completely unfettered.  And one fetter that almost everyone agrees is necessary is the one that keeps pornography out of children's hands."

Everyone, that is, but the library profession.  Why is there such a disconnect between our profession and everyone else on this particular issue?  More specifically, how could we have allowed ourselves to be put in such a publicly disadvantageous position as defending the right of children to access pornography?  The answer is simple and ironic.  Our profession preaches intellectual freedom but does not tolerate its practice within our own ranks.  Librarians imbued with common sense and good political judgment are afraid to espouse even a moderate position that advocates the limited use of filters.  There is a great fear within librarianship of being branded a censor.  No librarian wants to be wounded by that bullet.  That's why we can never really initiate an open and honest dialogue among ourselves on issues involving even the most obvious need for limitations of intellectual freedom.  As a result, the extremists always dominate, and we end up with an "anything goes" official policy that distances the library profession from mainstream America.

© American Library Association 2003

NOTE ADDED 26 APRIL 2011:

Will Manley has, all these years later, reaffirmed what he said in 2003.  See "3 Ways to Get Blackballed in the Library Profession," by Will Manley, Will Unwound, #428, 26 April 2011, emphasis added:

....

1)      Conservative politics….We all know that the library profession is extremely liberal in its political leanings.  To prove this all you have to do is look at the big name speakers at A.L.A. conferences.  How many conservatives have there been among this group in the past 40 years?  Maybe one or two at most.   Librarians would rather be validated than challenged when it comes to politics.  But it goes beyond that.  Many librarians think that conservatives are selfish, stupid, unsophisticated, and ultimately evil people.  Conservatism is not an alternative political viewpoint to the library profession; it is a curse.  The unfortunate issue here is that our many city councils, county boards, and state legislatures are ruled by conservative politicians.  These are the folks who hold our purse strings.  Isn’t it time to stop demonizing them and start dialoging with them?  Don’t even think about it if you want that big promotion.

2)      Organized religion….The library profession is very wary of organized religion, because religious morality is the banner that many book censors wave.  Many librarians disdain organized religion because they think it is repressive, judgmental, irrational, evangelical, and overly structured.  If you are a librarian it is okay to freely talk about your spiritual quest as long as you do not mention that you belong to an organized church.  It’s also very okay to be openly atheistic and agnostic because this shows you are a thinking person who has overcome an early childhood attachment to superstition.  If you have to be an avowed member of a formal religion, Buddhism seems to be your best bet.  Buddhism seems to be the cool religion right now.  Protestantism and Catholicism definitely are not.  If you are a member of a formal Christian Church keep that part of your life in the closet for the good of your career.

3)      Censorship – Perhaps the most career limiting move that you could make in the library profession is to refuse to toe the line with the anything goes philosophy of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom.  I am still getting criticism heaped on me for a series of articles that I wrote in the 1990s advocating that filters be put on children’s room computers to block out pornography.  Really!  I’m pretty sure that the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography.  Why?  Because everyone is afraid of being called a censor.  It is the death nail in the career coffin.  The irony of all of this is that the library profession touts itself as the champion of intellectual freedom.  If that’s true why can’t we freely express our dissenting views of an "anything goes" philosophy of intellectual freedom…or conservative politics…or organized religion for that matter?

NOTE ADDED 27 APRIL 2011:

I consider this republication of Will Manley's work and my repeatedly linking to it to be a success since knowledge of Will Manley's views have apparently swayed decisions away from the anything goes ALA view and toward one that better reflects local community values and leads to filtering computers.  Here is a statement by Will Manley himself upon which I base my observation:

Dan, that is one of the articles that got me into trouble.  I still have librarians coming up to me very upset because their trustees saw that article and then voted for filtering.  So much for intellectual freedom.

by Will Manley April 27, 2011 at 1:28 am

Notice his comment, "So much for intellectual freedom."  As the Annoyed Librarian pointed out, librarians have the intellectual freedom to agree with the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.  Will Manley's statement lends support to that.  This is one example why SafeLibraries's mission is "Educating people and politicians about who controls public libraries.  Citizens should, not the American Library Association."

In any case, this Will Manley view into the behind-the-scenes machinations of the ALA has successfully led library trustees to vote for Internet filtering.  Please consider sending this information to your own library trustees.

.