Please donate $1 now.
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."
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:
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):
"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