"parents who would tell their children not to read playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
9/18/95 citizen, quoting judith krug,
ala director of oif.
link/legal notice.

effects of ala policy:  list of crimes and filters in libraries and schools; please help an 8 year old library crime victim.

apa online - click for sexualization report
another effect is the sexualization of children.  see:  report of the apa task force on the sexualization of girls
please donate $1 now.





ala's double standard
on censorship

the ala's office for intellectual freedom [oif] censors material it does not want the public to see while decrying the censorship of sexually inappropriate material for children

while the ala's oif professes that it is censorship to keep children from viewing pornography, the deputy director (and the deputy executive director of the freedom to read foundation) is directly censoring unfavorable information about the ala's oif itself and particularly its director, judith f. krug.  under these circumstances, the ala's oif should not be considered authoritative.  would william aramony, past united way of america president who stole huge amounts of donated money while telling others to dig deep, resulting in a seven year jail term, be considered authoritative on charitable giving?  likewise, can an organization that claims for itself the responsible for the prevention of censorship actually commit blatant acts of censorship in violation of its own ethics rules and still be considered authoritative by public libraries and by government officials nationwide?
click to see representation of ala page hawking these cards.interesting aside:  the ala censors out christmas!

claiming it is censorship to keep children from accessing pornography is no problem for the ala but merry christmas is censored out of ala "seasons readings" greetings cards, essentially reading merry christmas right out of the season, although hanukkah is represented, as is the artificial kwanzaa.  read official says "humbug" to politically correct greetings, by bill bowman, 7 dec 2005.
click to go to the boy scouts of america.another interesting aside:  the ala censors out the boy scouts!

a renewed effort by several members of the american library association's governing council would sever all ties with the boy scouts of america until the youth organization stops "discriminating" against avowed atheists and homosexuals.  ....  the renewed effort is led by mark rosenzweig, formerly an official archivist with the u.s. communist party and a chief defender of fidel castro in the ala controversy over the communist regime's repression of the independent library movement in cuba, reported by worldnetdaily.

"it is scary that an organization which purports to believe in free speech and intellectual freedom would take this kind of action," said bsa spokesman bob bork.  "it is a soviet-style effort to make us a non-person."  ....

the bsa's bork responded:  "how could they show such utter disregard to the first amendment rights of any organization?  we have the same rights of freedom of association as the ala and it is disgusting to think they would disrespect those rights."

"this resolution plays into the hands of critics who take ala to task for being too liberal," [an ala council member and city librarian for bridgeport, ct., michael] golrick warned.  "if anything, this will turn off many librarians who might otherwise join the organization since it positions ala in such a left-wing position."

the above are direct quotes from the following recommended reading:  librarians to sever ties with scouts?  effort underway cites discrimination against atheists, 'gays', by walter skold, 22 apr 2006.

notice there are no issues of libraries or librarianship here.  this is clearly outside the ala's activities for which it receives taxpayer and corporate support.  might it be time to withdraw such support?  is this not further evidence of the ala double standard?
click for more info on the marketing of evil.still more:  the ala censors out conservative librarians!

a librarian has come under vicious attack.  his professional reputation has been ruined.  he has been accused of sexual harassment.  his boss has been informed of his nefarious activities.  he has been derided by the entire faculty of ohio state university.

but has he been defended by the ala?  no.  why?  did he actually sexually harass someone?  no.  is the ala even publishing information about his case?  yes, in a single piece that downplays what happened and makes it look like the librarian is at fault or it was all just a "colossal misunderstanding":  "librarian's book choice sparks controversy at ohio state's mansfield campus," library journal, 25 apr 2006.  when computers are filtered or sexually inappropriate books are removed from children, judith krug and the ala's orwellian office for intellectual freedom swoop in immediately to assert control and ensure children retain access to such information, even going so far as to create cadres of lawyers sufficiently indoctrinated in ala agenda to be able to turn at the drop of a dime and assist librarians with ensuring the continued flow of porn.  did that happen here, did judith krug and the ala team attack approach come to the librarian's aid?  no.

why?  because the librarian is a conservative asserting conservative values that have no place any longer in the ala (or on most universoty campuses apparently, as in this osu case).  the librarian recommended college students read a book written by another conservative.  that caused some faculty members to feel unsafe and claim sexual harassment.  a book recommendation caused them to feel unsafe.  again and again the librarian was attacked professionally, his librarianship was called into question directly, but never, not once, has the ala offered to assist him in anyway, and the one article that does address his case is late in the game and completely slanted.

another example of the ala double standard.  pushing porn on children is okay but recommending conservative books for college students is sexual harassment.  and people are starting to take notice, indeed, even good librarians:
predictably, as the virginia tech librarian told wnd, "the american library association has had an incredible silence about scott savage.  here's a librarian under attack for recommending a book!"
for the source of this quote and other accurate information on the matter, see 'marketing of evil' locked out of college libraries; bestselling book stocked only in fraction of facilities carrying liberal-left titles, by worldnetdaily, 26 apr 2006.

best of all, the censored librarian speaks in an outstanding, must-read article the ala refused to publish despite previously agreeing to do so, so sit back and read what the ala itself has censored so you won't see it:  "persecuted librarian censored again," by scott savage, 9 may 2006.  here are some quotes proving again the ala is exactly as safe libraries has been reporting, including a direct challenge to judith krug whom we have said is the de facto leader of the ala and the chief cause of the ala's porn pushing proclivities:
as librarian david durant noted in his 2005 bombshell article in the chronicle of higher education, "the loneliness of a conservative librarian," the lopsidedly leftist, activist tilt in librarianship has resulted in "a politicized atmosphere of groupthink and intolerance," which increasingly privileges the feelings of officially protected groups over the bill of rights.
ultimately, ala's current actions speak louder than the words it once uttered as a defender of free speech.  if today's association won't stand up for anti-communist librarians in cuba, i'm not holding my breath anymore that they'll stand up for allegedly "anti-gay" me.  (memo to j. krug:  four weeks of heavy media and internet exposure, and you haven't called � is this a "day of silence" protest on your part?)

question.  who said, because she would know and later do this herself:

"if people know what they're accessing or reading is evidence of wrong thinking, they're going to censor themselves."

ala bookmark showing the ala violates its own admonitions.  click to see source page.question.  who is the deputy director whose oif and ftrf (freedom to read foundation) organization follows this "code of ethics of the ala":

we significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. in a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information. we have a special obligation to ensure the free flow of information and ideas to present and future generations.  ....

ii) we uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.  ....

vi) we do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions.

question.  who created a web page on wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia about judith krug?  note that wikipedia is an open content, free encyclopedia.  "'open content' ... describe[s] content that can be modified by anyone; there is no closed group, like a commercial encyclopedia publisher, responsible for all the editing."

questions.  who found that the wikipedia page of judith krug had been updated with a link to us v. ala and with various sourced krug quotes showing krug's extremist views, such as her wish that a dead 9/11 terrorist's computer usage in a public library had not been revealed to police by a florida librarian?  who knew people might, in her own words, "access[] or read[] ... evidence of wrong thinking ... [so she had to] go[] ... censor [her]sel[f]"?  who then proceeded to violate the ala's code of ethics's "special obligation to ensure the free flow of information and ideas," did not "uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources," and "advance[d] private interests at the expense of library users"?

question.  who then censored the krug quotes and the link to us v. ala from the wikipedia open content page over and over again despite the issue of potential censorship being brought directly to her attention by several people independently (clearly showing the ala is aware the case was a significant defeat for the library's efforts to push pornography on children despite the claims that it was a big win for the ala because it upholds the right of adults to unfettered access to constitutionally protected material)?

question.  even more galling, who not only censored out information that she did not want you to know, but also inserted in her own voluminous information instead again and again?  she later removed all these additions but the damage was already done.  at a minimum the removal of her own work was her first effort to comply with wikipedia policy that hitherto she had ignored.  but she never restored the work she censored.  to this day she has still not said or done anything to mitigate her blatant censorship. isn't this outrageous from an organization so against supposed censorship?  is judith krug herself not responsible for this?

question.  who called a collection of judith krug newspaper quotes point of view spam (pov spam)?  who then said when censoring out the collection, "an author eliminating pov spam from his or her original article is exercising editorial control, not censorship." yet when a patron attempts to remove playboy from his public library, he is called names by ala president michael gorman.  the prevention of so called censorship and the defense of so called intellectual freedom is supposedly so paramount to the ala, except of course if you are the ala itself and you are attempting to hide the outrageous statements made by the one person responsible for decades for ensuring children have continued access to inappropriate material in public libraries despite the law.  look at this "thank you" note from the ala president congratulating a library for keeping playboy in its collection [emphasis added]:

playboy:  although the oak lawn public library board of trustees proceeded in a careful and measured manner in deciding not to comply with the demands of one patron for the removal of playboy magazine from the library's collection, the report of our board's action at their june 21st meeting was featured prominently in the chicago tribune of thursday, june 23 and also published in the ala online for june 24.  consequently, i [jim casey, oak lawn public library director] was congratulated and our board was praised on a number of occasions by many ala members who had noticed the story.  ala president-elect michael gorman sent a personal message to me for our board of trustees on june 25.  "dear jim:  please convey to the president and members of the oak lawn public library board my admiration of, and thanks for, their principled stance against would-be censors and self-appointed arbiters of what may not be read and viewed by the patrons of your library.  such pressures seem to be on the increase - all the more reason to thank and support those who defend intellectual freedom.  best wishes, michael."

let us remind you the efforts to remove playboy from the oak lawn public library have drawn comments from judith krug herself.  she said, "i get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children...."  the ala president's and the ala's oif director's direct involvement in the oak lawn matter proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that citizens who attempt changes in their local public libraries that are not approved by the ala are slapped down hard and fast.  one would think public libraries are answerable to the public, not to the ala propaganda machine.  look at your own library policies to see just how much your own library bows to ala dictates, not community standards.  look, in the same issue where the gorman quote above appears also appears the ala colluding to defy local control of local libraries:  "resolution on gender identity, sexual orientation and library materials."

question.  who also exposes that she purposely misled people about the true purpose for her censorship?  and who unknowingly admits to censoring information of which she did not approve?

question.  who violates the ala's "important resolution on disinformation, media manipulation & the destruction of public information" that says,

"whereas inaccurate information, distortions of truth, excessive limitations on access to information, and the removal or destruction of information from the public domain are anathema to the ethos of librarianship and to the functioning of a healthy democracy...."

question.  who is an attorney at law of the state of illinois and may have violated her own profession's rules of professional conduct by potentially, while representing the ala, (rule 4.4) "us[ing] means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person," or by (rule 8.4) "violat[ing] or attempt[ing] to violate these rules" or "engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" or "stat[ing] or imply[ing] an ability to influence improperly any tribunal, legislative body, government agency or official"?  [we think that stating or implying an ability to help local library officials to improperly advise such governmental people that it is age discrimination for librarians to keep children from accessing inappropriate material when the us supreme court says the exact opposite in a case the ala itself lost in the us supreme court, or doing so directly, is "improper influence."] there might also be involvement with rule 4.1, "in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not: (a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false...," and rule 1.13 (a) "a lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents."

answer:  the deputy director of the ala's oif and the deputy executive director of the freedom to read foundation, deborah caldwell-stone (a.k.a. deborah stone)!  did you know "removing content from wikipedia that people have worked hard to create ... is considered vandalism"?  is censorship and vandalism being done at the behest of judith krug herself?

proof:  here is the evidence of ms. stone's censorship of information of which she, as deputy director of the ala's oif, disapproves claiming responsibility for the prevention of the censorship of information including pornography for children:

  1. wikipedia history of the judith krug page shows someone named "dcs47" removed the link to us v. ala and removed the krug quotes that had been added on october 5, 2005.  "(cur) (last) 23:03, 26 october 2005 dcs47 (original author returned page to biographical content only.)"  the material that was added contained nothing other than judith krug direct quotes with surrounding material for context and the associated links as required by wikipedia; it should not have been removed for any reason given the wikipedia structured environment -- it is not the ala's personal web page.
  2. dcs47, seeing the collection of shocking krug quotes and the us v. ala link, admits she is the "original author" who "returned page to biographical content only," thereby violating everything for which the ala's oif and ftrf supposedly stands while at the same time violating wikipedia's open content policy where "content ... can be modified by anyone; there is no closed group."  a perfect illustration of the observation of dan gerstein, an independent consultant, former communications director for joe lieberman, and a senior strategist for his presidential campaign:  "the ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny.  ....  [t]he reality is that it is those who cry "censorship!" the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."
  3. dcs47 is deborah caldwell-stone, the deputy director of the ala's oif (office for intellectual freedom) and the deputy executive director of the freedom to read foundation.  the former might be renamed the office for intellectual freedom for double standards, and the latter should be changed to the freedom to read only what we allow foundation.
  4. looking at the history of the judith krug wikipedia page, one can see a new judith krug page was created 6 jul 2005 by one jkelley94 who is her administrative assistant, jonathan kelly.  about three months later a safe libraries member posts several krug quotes and a link to us v. ala onto the judith krug wikipedia page, something that is indeed the very purpose for which wikipedia stands.  then about three weeks later the ala apparently notices the added information and completely removes it, not once but twice.  each time a different wikipedian reverses the censorship (rdsmith4 then graemel), all this happening within minutes.  four minutes later dcs47 again censors out the quotes and the case link falsely claiming, as we shall see, "original author returned page to biographical content only."  that apparently sufficiently intimidated the wikipedians enough so that they did not choose to follow wikipedia policy further.  and that's not what she was doing, she just didn't want people to see certain information, and she'll admit that soon.  we will show you she is misrepresenting her actions in support of the ala.  she does this again and again even despite warnings of potential censorship in the history notes.

    now here comes the clear and convincing evidence of her intentional effort to mislead people about the reason for her censorship, and clear and convincing evidence of her censorship in her own words!  she admits she removed the krug quotes and added the other information instead, not as a mere effort to exercise editorial control as previously stated several times, but because she did not like that a collection of krug quotes not aggregated by the ala might misrepresent judith krug!  here is the proof, in her own words:  "article text was added with a view to letting the subject 'speak for herself' rather than let selective pov quotes/spam misrepresent her views.  dcs47 23:35, 1 november 2005 (utc)." she took our work down because she didn't want our message to get out, meanwhile implying and stating that it was for mere editorial control!  she deceived people!  she censored out information!  this is misrepresentation and censorship pure and simple!  and the proof is in her own words posted online for the world to see!!!

    by the way, the judith krug page has been redone by an experienced wikipedian (des).  he has significantly upgraded the page from its original appearance to one more interesting and more in line with wikipedia standards.  significantly, he has incorporated several quotes we raised directly into the text of the biographical information and linked to many other quotes, proving that we were correct in our efforts to add information on the judith krug wikipedia page.  the page, now devoid of censorship, is more truthful and more interesting at the same time.  safe libraries is happy to have pointed out this publicly viewable evidence (the wikipedia interface) of the ala's hypocritical censorship of information that it attempted to hide (and the effort was definitely a burden under rpc 4.4 above).  no one should consider the ala authoritative on matters of censorship; on the other hand they are the perpetrators of blatant, unknowingly admitted censorship.

what the ala censored and does not want you to see:  here is a direct link to judith krug's wikipedia page, that is if the ala has not gone and censored it again.  (that is exactly what the ala did and did it again and again; it seems if you hold yourself out to be the censorship czar with misleadingly named "banned books week," you know all the excuses for rationalizing your own convenient acts of censorship.)  here are the quotes that were censored out.  so in case the act of censorship is repeated again and again, here is what the links would have revealed (with bold emphasis added):

quotable krug

"blocking material leads to censorship. that goes for pornography and bestiality, too. if you don't like it, don't look at it ... every time i hear someone say, i want to protect the children, i want to pull my hair out."

"preventing kids from seeing illegal smut is not unconstitutional; it's common sense," by janet m. larue, national center for policy analysis, 2001. http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt051700a.html


"i get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children...."

"oak lawn library vows to keep playboy on shelf" by jo napolitano, chicago tribune, jun. 23, 2005. http://www.safelibraries.org/oak_lawn_library_vows_to_keep_playboy_on_shelf23jun2005by_jo_napolitano.htm


"the first amendment is national in scope and ... it does not stop at the schoolhouse door," said the ala's krug. "not all children are the same. is a 17-year-old on the eve of his 18th birthday the same as a five-year-old? it is not the responsibility of librarians ... to determine what is appropriate."

"library interests debate decency act" newsbytes news network, feb 21, 1996. http://www.plan2succeed.org/newsbytes_news_network-library_interests_debate_decency_act21feb96.htm


"you should have access to ideas and information regardless of your age," krug said. "if anyone is going to limit or guide a young person, it should be the parent or guardian -- and only the parent or guardian."

"we want to provide as much information as we can, and say to our users: 'it is all here. you make the choice,'" krug said.

"i have a real problem when people say, 'well i walked by and you should have seen what was on the computer screen.' well, don't look, sweetie. it's none of your business. avert your eyes."

"a library that would rather block than offend," by pamela mendels, the new york times, jan. 18, 1997. http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/011897library-florida.html


i have always found it a little strange that the majority of schools are utilizing filters. it seems to me that this is the environment where filters would not be used because the students are so carefully monitored, the activities in which they engage all go toward the same goals of education, and this is the very place where young people should be learning about information and its uses, in other words, where they should be learning information literacy.

i'm glad you asked [how big a problem is it with patrons - especially children - accessing pornography on library computers?]. this has often felt to me like a legislative solution looking for a problem.

"children's internet protection act," by brian krebs, the washington post, jun. 3, 2002. http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/washtech_policy060302.htm


when the names and photographs were first released, kathleen hensman, a public librarian in delray beach, fla., recognized some of the suspected hijackers in the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon as men who had used the computers in her small library.

she immediately called the police.

that broke a florida law that guarantees confidentiality to library patrons. it also violated a cardinal principle of librarians never to tell the police, in absence of a court order, about who uses their rooms and what books they check out.

but almost no one thinks ms. hensman did the wrong thing. ....

judith krug, director of the american library association's office of intellectual freedom, said, "i would have felt better if she had followed the florida law."

"a nation challenged: questions of confidentiality; competing principles leave some professionals debating responsibility to government," by david e. rosenbaum, the new york times, nov. 23, 2001. http://www.cs.uwm.edu/~levine/comp-privacy/volume19/v19%23014 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=f00e13f83e5e0c708edda80994d9404482


"for those of us in this battle, we clearly understand one thing - that when left up to 'local' decision-making, it's still the ala policy/philosophy of 'no filters' that often triumphs," said ala director judith krug. "local folks are not having their concerns taken seriously. i hear this repeatedly from individuals who contact us asking what they can do because they're up against an ala wall. does 'w' (bush) understand this? his wife is a librarian."

"bush on porn in libraries," by brian krebs, newsbytes pm, feb. 28, 2000. http://www.computeruser.com/newstoday/00/02/29/news5.html


"i have heard some horror stories," she said, citing one in which an adult asked the librarian for the filter to be turned off and was told the request had to go to a committee that wouldn't meet for two weeks.

"goodbye, orlando?," by john berry et al., library journal, aug. 15, 2004. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/ca443907.html


"we know that there are children out there whose parents do not take the kind of interest in their upbringing and in their existence that we would wish, but i don't think censorship is ever the solution to any problem, be it societal or be it the kind of information or ideas that you have access to." "material that might be illegal is such a minuscule part of what is available that we have to remember--and i mean not only librarians but everybody has to remember not to let it overshadow the incredible wealth of information that is available in this medium."

"easy access?," by spencer michels, the newshour with jim lehrer, aug. 7, 1997. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/july-dec97/library_8-7.html


[t]he office of intellectual freedom drafted an "interpretation of free access to minors" and sent it to librarians all across the country. (it was this statement that cut off the partnership between parents and librarians and caused what parents see as a betrayal of their trust.)

the statement labels as "unprofessional," any librarians who continue to notify or act for the parents. librarians who do not follow the ala line are accused of being "in violation of article 5 of the library bill of rights." i asked ms. krug if librarians were legally bound to follow the statement of interpretation. "no," she said. "it's a philosophical statement. but 55,000 librarians adhere to it." [w]hen librarians or their governing bodies respond by removing or restricting material, they are the censors. with advice like this from the top of the ala, it is no wonder librarians and library boards are afraid to respond affirmatively to parents' concerns.

"the internet and the seduction of the american public library," by helen chaffee biehle, family friendly libraries, jul. 4, 2002. citations omitted. surrounding text presented to provide context. http://www.fflibraries.org/basic_docs/biehle.htm


judith krug, the director of the office for intellectual freedom at the american library association, said that psychological studies had shown that children were not so easily affected by sexual imagery.

"voters defeat measure on filters at library," by keith bradsher, the new york times, feb. 24, 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/24library.html


judith krug, director of the office for intellectual freedom at the american library association, said the law is not necessary as 97% of all u.s. libraries have an acceptable use policy that prohibits accessing violent, pornographic or otherwise offensive material on library computers. "we know for a fact that the library is the main access point to the internet outside of the home and workplace," she said. "particularly for young people, information about aids, sexuality, suicide could mean the difference between life and death. this law keeps us from giving people access to the information they need."

"aclu, ala file law suit against child internet protection act - american civil liberties union, american library association declare law unconstitutional - brief article," electronic education report, mar. 28, 2001. http://www.plan2succeed.org/electronic_education_report-aclu_ala_file_law_suit_against_cipa28mar01.htm


external links

louis vuitton outlet