Please donate $1 now.
Safe Libraries encourages the passage of state Internet filtering laws and local ordinances nationwide and we hereby call for organizations to contact us so that we may publish lessons learned in the struggle to protect children from predation in public libraries and public schools that may possibly be a direct result of the ALA's refusal to accede to US Supreme Court guidance. At a minimum, municipalities could consider requesting libraries apply existing non-CIPA laws to library policy.
New! An expansion of CIPA to protect children from MySpace.com! See US to Block Minors' Access to MySpace? Republicans Set Their Sites on Social-Networking..., by Declan McCullagh, 11 May 2006, about DOPA, the Deleting Online Predators Act, that would add an additional requirement to CIPA. But weed out the usual media slant when reading this. We predict the ALA leadership will use all its resources to ensure children remain maximally exposed to its friends, including the pedophiles. See also, "Fitzpatrick Deletes Online Sexual Predators; Authors Legislation to Protect Students on Social Network Websites," 9 May 2006. Now, months later, SafeLibraries is right again; on July 27, 2006, the House voted 410-15 for DOPA, an extension of CIPA, proving just how out-of-the-mainstream is the ALA and proving to the public that they can TAKE BACK CONTROL of their own school and public libraries from the ALA! 410-15!! The ALA is "dismayed"!!! See "DOPA Passes House by Wide Margin; ALA Dismayed," Library Journal, 28 Jul 2006, where the ALA President says DOPA is useless because libraries are already required to filter, but the ALA advises libraries not to filter! Does the ALA really think people are that gullible?
Some documents on this page are available in Portable Document Format (PDF). Learn more about viewing and printing these documents with Adobe Reader.
Oak Lawn Public Library, Oak Lawn, IL: "Challenged materials which [sic] meet the criteria for selection in the materials selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure unless there is a court order to the contrary." Non-Removal of Challenged Library Materials, 21 Oct 2001, emphasis in original.
American Library Association, Chicago, IL: "Challenged materials that meet the criteria for selection in the materials selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure." Challenged Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.
The ALA language holds sway in many libraries, intentionally ignoring community standards, and providing the strongest proof why states and communities need to pass laws to bypass librarians intent on defying community concerns (note the ALA claims local libraries make up their own local policies and the ALA has little influence--obviously this is not the case--just look how the tentacles of the ALA have pervaded practically the entire nation's library system including its public schools): The Newark Public Library, Newark, NJ; The Auglaize County District Public Library, Wapakoneta, OH; Northern Illinois University Libraries, DeKalb, IL; Beloit Public Library, Beloit, WI; University of Detroit Mercy Libraries, Detroit, MI; Hayward Public Library, Hayward, CA; The Nevada Library Association, Carson City, NV; Virginia Library Association, Norfolk, VA; New Hampshire Library Association, Concord, NH; Milwaukee Area Technical College, Milwaukee, WI; Hawaii Board of Education, Honolulu, HI; City of Grand Island Public Library, Grand Island, NE; Texas Library Association, Austin, TX; Oral Roberts University Library, Tulsa, OK; Pikes Peak Library District, Colorado Springs, CO; Albion College Stockwell-Mudd Libraries, Albion, MI; University of Arkansas at Little Rock Ottenheimer Library, Little Rock, AR; University of Wisconsin Centers Libraries, Fond du Lac, WI; Schenectady City School District, Schenectady, NY; Salem-South Lyon District Library, South Lyon, MI; Saint Vincent College, Latrobe, PA.
Fayetteville Public Schools District Libraries, Fayetteville, AR: "As the debate wore on, it featured twists and turns, reversals of prior decisions, polarizing arguments by people for and against Taylor and a summer of inaction by the school board, which only prolonged the issue. This helped make it the Northwest Arkansas Times' choice for the top story of the year." School Board Spends Much of 2005 Debating Books, by Brett Bennett, Northwest Arkansas Times, 1 Jan 2006.
Yesterday the Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act.... This action .... represents a grave potential threat to the nation's security. .... The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties. .... It is simply false to claim, as some of its critics do, that this bill does not respond to concerns about civil liberties. .... Concerns have been raised about the so-called library records provision; the bill adds safeguards. The same is true for roving wiretaps, "sneak and peek" searches and access to counsel and courts, as well as many others concerns raised by groups like the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. Given these improvements, there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism. .... 'Someday, someone will die - and wall or not - the public will not understand why we were not more effective.' How quickly we forget.
|ALASKA||HB 353 2008||"Library Internet Filter Legislation Moves Through House," by Alan Suderman, Juneau Empire, 21 March 2008. "The House State Affairs Committee on Thursday passed 4-3 a bill that would cut state funding for public libraries that don't prevent patrons under 18 from looking at sexually explicit material on library computers - either by using Internet filter software to block offensive Web sites or by having computer screens watched by library staff." See also Public Library Internet Filters - Sponsor Statement: House Bill 353.|
|ARIZONA||Carrizo. Rev. Stat.
§§ 34-501 to -502
|Requires public libraries to install software or develop policies to prevent minors from gaining access on the Internet to materials harmful to minors. Requires public schools to install computer software that would prevent minors from gaining access to materials harmful to minors.|
|ARKANSAS||Ark. Code § 6-21-107, § 13-2-103, § 13-2-104||Requires school districts to develop a policy and to adopt a system to prevent computer users from accessing materials harmful to minors. Requires public libraries to adopt a policy to prevent minors from gaining access to materials harmful to minors.|
|CALIFORNIA||Cal. Ed. Code §§ 18030.5||Requires public libraries that receive state funds to adopt a policy regarding access by minors to the Internet.|
|COLORADO||Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-90-401 to -404, §24-90-603; §§ 22-87-101 to -107; HB 1004 - Internet Protection For Library Users||Requires public schools to adopt and enforce reasonable policies of Internet safety that will protect children from access to harmful material. Provides for grants to publicly supported libraries, including school libraries, that equip public access computers with filtering software and that have policies to restrict minors from accessing obscene or illegal information. Requires public libraries to adopt a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure for computers with Internet access. See also Colorado Library Law.|
|DELAWARE||Del. Code §§ tit. 29 §§ 6601C-6607C||Requires public libraries to have acceptable use policies and provides for libraries to develop age appropriate databases that minors may access on the Internet. The minor's parent or guardian must specify the level of access to the Internet the minor may have.|
|FLORIDA||SB 960, HB 519, 2006||An act relating to Internet screening in public libraries; creating s. 257.44, F.S.; defining terms; requiring public libraries to provide technology that protects against Internet access to specified proscribed visual depictions; allowing adults to request disablement of the technology for specified purposes; prohibiting a public library from maintaining a record of adults who request such disablement; requiring a public library to post notice of its Internet safety policy; providing for the assessment of a fine and attorney's fees and costs in connection with a violation by a public library; directing the Division of Library and Information Services within the Department of State to adopt rules requiring a written attestation of compliance as a condition of state funding; providing a cause of action is not authorized for a violation by a public library except as provided under the act; providing a finding of important state interest; providing an effective date.|
|GEORGIA||HB 1055; Ga. Code O.C.G.A. §20-2-324, O.C.G.A. §20-5-5||
Children Online Protection Act Passes in Georgia's House 158-0: "'History may very well record the internet as one of the best things and one of the worst things ever developed. We have a whole generation at risk because of the internet,' said Rep. Mike Keown when explaining the need for the Children Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to the Sub-Committee of the Academic Support Committee of the Georgia Legislature on February 13, 2006. Keown, sponsor of the bill, called this the perfect time to pass the bill as all regional public libraries and all public school libraries in Georgia are in full compliance with the federal CIPA law. This bill would require technology protection measures for any library who might opt-out of the federal funds in lieu of only state funds."
THE GOVERNOR HAS SIGNED THIS INTO LAW!! See HB 1055 - Public Schools; Internet Safety Policies; Adopt and Implement.
|ILLINOIS||HB5564, 2006; HB1727, 2007||
Creates the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act. Provides that each public library must have a technology protection measure to prevent the display on a public computer of any visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors. Authorizes enforcement by the Attorney General or an individual. Provides that each public library must annually certify, under penalty of perjury, its compliance with this Act. Allows a public library to disable the technology protection measure for an adult engaged in legitimate research or some other lawful purpose. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Fund. Fines under the Act are to be deposited into the Fund. Amounts in the Fund are to be used by the State Librarian, subject to appropriation, to implement and administer the Act. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Also see How Safe Are Our Kids In Public Libraries? Convicted Sex Offenders Have Free And Legal Access To Pornography At Chicago Libraries, CBS, 21 Dec 2006. ["When state lawmakers are back in session, officials from the City of Naperville will be pushing for a new Illinois law to ban sex offenders from public libraries."]
IN THE ALA'S HOME STATE, A STATE CIPA LAW HAS FINALLY, AFTER ABOUT A DECADE, COME OUT OF COMMITTEE FOR A FULL VOTE!! See IFI Update: House Committee Passes Library Internet Filtering Bill How Did They Vote?, by Illinois Family Institute, 14 March 2007. SafeLibraries.org was directly involved in this matter!! See Open Letter to Lawmakers Regarding Library Internet Filters, by Dan Kleinman, 13 March 2007, that was emailed and faxed to the Committee.
On 2 May 2007, Illinois's House Voted 63-51 for Public Library Filtering Bill HB1727! Right in the Home State of the ALA! Read "Great News! Internet Filtering Bill Passes in the Illinois House; Moving On to the Senate," by David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute, 2 May 2007.
|IOWA||SF 2108, 2006||This bill requires the division of libraries and information services established within the department of education to require a public library that receives state funds to adopt an internet filter policy designed to eliminate access to pornography on the public library's computer equipment, as well as a policy restricting the content of video materials a child under 17 years of age may borrow from the library. According to Funnel Deadline Will Kill Some Bills This Session, 2 Mar 2006, "A lot of bills are 'dying' at the statehouse today.... .... Some of the other 'dead' issues for the year are ... a bill that would have forced libraries to install Internet porn filters on library computers."|
|KANSAS||HB 2581, 2006 [HB 2353, 2005]||An act enacting the Children's Internet Protection Act, prohibiting certain acts, and providing remedies for violations. See Bill to Restrict Minors' Access to Smut at Libraries Advances, 8 Feb 2006 and Lawmaker Wants Libraries to Filter Porn From Kids, 9 Feb 2006.|
|KENTUCKY||Ky. Rev. Stat. § 156.675||Requires the Department of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to prevent sexually explicit material from being transmitted via education technology systems.|
|LOUISIANA||La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17:100.7||Requires schools to adopt certain policies regarding students' and school employees' access to certain Internet and online sites.|
|MARYLAND||Ann. Code Md. § 23-506.1||Requires public libraries to adopt policies to prevent minors from obtaining access to obscene materials via the Internet.|
|MICHIGAN||Mich. Comp. Laws § 397.602, § 397.606||Requires libraries to use a system to prevent minors from viewing obscene or sexually explicit matter, or to reserve separate terminals exclusively for adults or children so as to prevent minors' access to obscene or sexually explicit matter.|
|MINNESOTA||Minn. Stat. § 134.50||Requires public library computers with access to the Internet available for use by children to be equipped to restrict, including by use of available software filtering technology or other effective methods, access to material that is reasonably believed to be obscene or child pornography or material harmful to minors. Also requires public libraries that receive state money to prohibit, including through the use of available software filtering technology or other effective methods, adult access to material that under federal or state law is reasonably believed to be obscene or child pornography.|
|MISSOURI||Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 182.825, 182.827||Requires public school and public libraries with public access computers to either (a) equip the computer with software or a service to restrict minors' access to material that is pornographic for minors, or (b) develop a policy that establishes measures to restrict minors from gaining access to such material.|
|NEW HAMPSHIRE||N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 194:3-d||Requires school boards to adopt a policy regarding Internet access for school computers, and establishes liability for violation of the policy.|
|NEW YORK||N.Y. Ed. Law
|Requires public libraries to establish policies concerning patron use of public access computer terminals.|
|OHIO||1997 H.B. 215 (uncodified)||As a condition of funding, requires local libraries to adopt policies to control access to obscene materials.|
|OKLAHOMA||1997 H.C.R. 1097 (uncodified); 2007 HB 1715||Directs all state agencies and State System institutions to adopt policies prohibiting the acquisition, storage or distribution of obscene material, take immediate action to have removed from their computers and computer systems all obscene material and take all reasonable action to block access to obscene material via computers and computer systems. See Proposed Law Could Impact Local Libraries, 10 Mar 2006. Also see Lawmakers Vote to Protect Children at Libraries, Feb 2007: "House Bill 1715, by state Rep. Paul Wesselhöft, prohibits children 12 and under from accessing the Internet at their local library unless filters have been installed or the child is under adult supervision."|
|PENNSYLVANIA||24 Pa. Stat. § 4304
Child Internet Protection Act
|Requires libraries receiving state aid to adopt policies regarding access by minors to the Internet and online sites that contain explicit sexual materials. House Bill 2262 - Child Internet Protection Act - requires public libraries and schools to develop acceptable use policies for internet usage and to enforce such policies with Internet filtering software, subjects non-compliant libraries to civil liability damages, withholds funding from non-compliant schools and libraries, and enables the filters to be temporarily disabled by anyone for "bona fide research or other lawful purpose." Significantly, this state's CIPA does not apply where the requirements of the federal CIPA are being fulfilled. Final approval in the House was 190-6!|
|SOUTH DAKOTA||S.D. Cod. Laws Ann. §§ 22-24-55, 22-24-56, 22-24-57, 22-24-58, 22-24-59||Requires schools to equip computers with filtering software or to adopt policies to restrict minors from access to obscene materials.|
|SOUTH CAROLINA||S.C. Code §§ 10-1-205 to -206||Requires publicly-funded libraries and public school libraries to adopt policies intended to reduce the ability of the user to access web sites displaying obscene material. Also establishes a pilot program to evaluate the use of filtering software in libraries.|
|TEXAS||Prohibits a public school or public library that provides a computer used for Internet access from eligibility for a Texas Infrastructure Fund loan or grant unless the school or library adopts and implements an Internet safety policy protecting children from access to obscene materials.|
|UTAH||Utah Code §§ 9-7-213, 9-7-214, 9-7-215, 9-7-216, 9-7-217, 53A-3-422, 53A-3-423, 53A-3-424||
9-7-215 Internet and Online Access Policy Required prohibits a public library from receiving state funds unless the library implements and enforces measures to filter Internet access to certain types of images; allows a public library to block materials that are not specified in this bill; and allows a public library to disable a filter under certain circumstances. Requires local school boards to adopt and enforce a policy to restrict access to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material. See also Utah Library Laws and Legislation.
|VIRGINIA||Va. Code § 22.1-70.2, § 42.1-36.1; SB 334, SB 176, SB 908, SB 1393 and HB 2197||
Requires public libraries to adopt Internet use policies. Requires public schools to adopt Internet use policies that 1) prohibit transmitting or viewing illegal material on the Internet, 2) prevent access by students to materials the school determines as harmful, 3) select technology to filter or block child pornography and obscenity. Also see Information Alert: Shell Game Politics with Internet Filters, 31 Jan 2006 by Virginia Cobb. And see Discarding Porn; Bill Requiring Anti-Porn Software Altered in Senate, 1 Mar 2006, by Jason Jacks (but see this excellent response). March 8: SB 176 (and SB 334 incorporated) passed House 89-5. "Summary as passed Senate: (all summaries) Public Library Internet Protection Fund; established; purposes. Establishes the Public Library Internet Protection Fund. The bill permits grants from the Fund to be made to reimburse free public libraries and library systems for the initial purchase and subsequent renewal of technology protection measures for computers that have access to the Internet. The bill limits the grant amount for any given fiscal year depending on the type of grant. The Fund would be administered by the Board of the Library of Virginia. The bill incorporates SB 334 (Obenshain)." The next day the Senate shot it down 6 to 31.
Computer Filters Proposed, Jan. 23, 2007:
A bill now in the General Assembly would force, if passed, state-funded libraries in Virginia to install anti-pornography filtering programs on all computers with Internet access. The bill would allow the library board or other governing body to choose the software to be used, so long as it is in compliance with the Library of Virginia. A member of the library board would have to oversee the installation of the software. Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) is the sponsor of the bill.
THE LEGISLATION IS NOW AWAITING THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE!! See Action Alert: Contact Governor on Internet Filters, by Virginia Cobb, 28 Feb 2007:
The legislation passed the House 86-11 and the Senate 37-3. The only opposition comes from two groups: first, the Virginia Library Association, who claim that installing filters is "too costly" for local libraries (despite the budget amendment), and that it violates the "First Amendment," something already dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
|WEST VIRGINIA||None! They just follow the federal CIPA!||
Wells, Gabe. Libraries Target Net Porn; West Virginia Libraries Have
Filters at State Level, 17 Sep 2008:
West Virginia Library Commission Executive Secretary J.D. Wagoner said his agency pays for the filtering of computers in all public libraries in the Mountain State. The filtering is done by the West Virginia Office of Technology, and Wagoner said it involves both site and key word filtering.
OTHER STATE LAWS RELATING TO INTERNET FILTERING/BLOCKING:
|OHIO||§ 3314.21||E-school teachers; filtering device or software to prevent access to materials that are obscene or harmful to juveniles.|
|TEXAS||Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code §§ 35.101 to 35.103||Requires an interactive computer service provider to place a link to free or shareware filtering software conspicuously on the first accessible web page of the service provider. Provides for a civil penalty of $2,000 for each day that the provider fails to comply.|
|UTAH||2005 H.B. 260||Requires Internet service providers, upon request by a consumer, to provide in-network filtering or filtering software to prevent transmission of material harmful to minors.|
Are you afraid of the ALA, the ACLU, and the financial ruin and personal attacks they threaten to use to cow you into anything they want? Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix, AZ gets the "Guts and Gumption Award" for not believing the ALA propaganda and not fearing ALA retribution and ensuring Phoenix public libraries get effective Internet filters that will not be immediately disabled upon request. He has said, "when it comes to our taxpayer-supported library system, there's just no compelling reason, legal or moral, not to pull the plug on porn." He obviously has a higher regard for the safety of his citizens than for cowing to the ALA's agenda of sexualizing children. Now this mayor's got gumption! Do you?
Read his message to his citizens where he explains that tax money is not to be used for allowing pornography in public libraries. Common sense yes, but the ALA would have you believe the exact opposite; Mayor Gordon had the guts, intelligence, and information needed to see right through the ALA's smoke screen. Read the August 26, 2004 Mayor's Message and maybe it will give you the impetus you need to protect your own community, not the ALA's agenda.
Read the proclamation to create the "Keep Pornography Out of Our Public Libraries" Month. Read the Questions and Answers About Phoenix Public Library Internet Filtering Policy where it says, among other things, "Patrons can speak to the librarian, but it's important for them to understand that the process of evaluating Web sites is not instantaneous. Staff members do not have the ability to block or unblock sites immediately." Now this mayor's got guts! Do you?
According to a Concord Monitor article, "Councilors Jay Bowers and Ken Merrifield [Franklin, NH] said that after an earlier meeting with the library's board of trustees, they had the impression that there was a 'gentleman's agreement' that if the city paid for filters, they would be placed on all the computers." "I don't want city taxes being used to pay for porn."
As time passes we'll see what happened. In the meantime, such an agreement is likely the least contentious and most productive way to filter all computers; the you-catch-more-flies-with-honey-than-with-vinegar approach may work. Just remember, the ALA advises librarians in writing how to manipulate the public and city officials (e.g., "Try to talk in user-friendly terms your audience can relate to: Freedom of choice-not the Library Bill of Rights. 'People with concerns' or 'concerned parents'-not censors"), so "trust but verify."
According to San Bernadino County Libraries Pull Manga History Book, 14 Apr 2006:
Bill Postmus, chairman of the board of supervisors of suburban San Bernadino County, California, has ordered the county's libraries to remove the scholarly text, MANGA: SIXTY YEARS OF JAPANESE COMICS, from circulation, reports ICv2.com. On the county's website, he called the book obscene and added, "that book is absolutely inappropriate for a public library and as soon as I was made aware of it yesterday, I ordered it to be removed immediately."
This is leadership. This is backbone. This is representing your constituents. This is not cowering from or kowtowing to propagandist ALA porn pushers, like county library collection development coordinator Nannette Bricker-Barrett who bows at the ALA alter, according to her statements in the article. This is another model for all government leaders to follow nationwide. Read his release then consider similar action; imagine, the nerve of him to say publicly, "We have a responsibility to protect our children and this type of material should not be so easily accessible. We also need to take a closer look at what kind of material is appropriate to be purchased with taxpayer dollars."
The only problem we foresee is that nothing will be done because, "Postmus has called for the library system, 'to draft a plan to protect children from inappropriate books and other materials that may currently exist in the county library system.'" For this to be a plan that represents the public, not the ALA, people like propagandist Nannette Bricker-Barrett should not be considered the authoritative source, to say the least.Judith Krug Scoffs at Parents' Efforts to Protect Their Own Children
On this page about how politicians and government officials could take action to protect their citizens, we thought it appropriate to point out the total disdain Judith Krug, the de facto leader of the ALA, has for you. She scoffs at your puny efforts to protect children; you're all talk and no action.
You be the judge. From "L.A. County Libraries to Install Net Filtering," by Eugene Tong, LA Daily News, 11 Jan 2006, emphasis added:
"(On the adult computers) there will be very basic filtering of explicitly visual sexual sites," [Nancy Mahr, a county library spokeswoman] said. "That's all that will be blocked. If a site that has been blocked and a person needs to get it, we will lift the block on that computer for that person."
Asked whether the move constituted censorship, [Tony Bell, a Fifth District county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich spokesman,] said: "County taxpayers have no obligation to fund pornography in our county library. The county library will be implementing corrective measures to assure that county computers are not abused."
Though there are always concerns about content filters - they're installed in fewer than 50 percent of the nation's libraries, according to the American Library Association - the county's policy is in step with current laws, in accordance with a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the technology if it can be turned off upon request.
"If they just turn off the filter, then they're totally within the law, and the truth is we can live with that," said Judith Krug, director for the Office of [sic] Intellectual Freedom at the association.
"We hear from time to time that in response to a situation like what happened in L.A. County, that politicians will be making noises. But there has been very little follow-through on it, mainly because people get upset, and there are things like privacy screens."
Now as a person responsible for protecting the welfare of your citizens, particularly the children, how does it feel to be laughed at by the de facto leader of the organization pushing porn into public libraries and public schools nationwide with near impunity? Have you ever seen a greater display of arrogance or in-your-face chutzpah? And this is the false god your local librarians often view as the supreme being of local library policy? Are local librarians clinging to the so-called ALA Library Bill of Rights that essentially says age may not be used to discriminate against children who wish to access porn, and this despite US v. ALA that found, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree"? Who's right - the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA, a case the ALA itself lost, or the laughing leader of the law-defying ALA, laughing at you?
Judith Krug is the de facto leader of the ALA and has been for decades. As the head of the misleadingly-named Office For Intellectual Freedom, she is the chief proponent of the policy that pushes pornography on children. "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.
One parent (SafeLibraries) tried to remove Playboy magazine from his public library. The magazine was explicitly available to children of all ages, an independent poll showed a huge percentage of citizens wanted the magazine out of the library, and the city government even requested the library reconsider its stance on Playboy. But the library refused to budge after dragging the parent though an extended, useless process, including name calling by the ALA's top leaders. Krug rode to the rescue of Playboy magazine and its availability to children: "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.
Another parent tried to keep her daughter from reading what she felt was a book depicting excessive, frightening violence against children. Again Judith Krug and the ALA revealed their true agenda: "'What we're dealing with is a minority of people who are very vocal,' Krug said. 'These people are small in number but they start screeching, and people start getting concerned.'" "Parent Loses Fight to Ban Book; Committee Votes to Keep 'Abduction!' on Library Shelves," by Bao Ong, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 19 May 2006.
So Krug and the ALA ridicule politicians and ridicule parents. Governments "make noise" and people "start screeching." It's no surprise the porn industry and the ACLU and the like support the ALA, but people and their governments out to wake up to reality and stop funding the ALA until it reverts to the American Library Association, not the ACLU Library Association.
An effort is being made to expand CIPA to block MySpace and similar "social networking" sites that are more akin to a catalog of children for pedophiles like an L.L. Bean web site is a catalog of the outdoors for online shoppers. Naturally, the ALA opposes such expansion.
An expansion of CIPA to protect children from MySpace.com is described in US to Block Minors' Access to MySpace? Republicans Set Their Sites on Social-Networking..., by Declan McCullagh, 11 May 2006. The expansion, called DOPA, the Deleting Online Predators Act, would add an additional requirement to CIPA. (Weed out the usual media slant when reading this.) See also, right from the source, "Fitzpatrick Deletes Online Sexual Predators; Authors Legislation to Protect Students on Social Network Websites," 9 May 2006.
As we predicted, the ALA leadership is using all its resources to ensure children remain maximally exposed to its friends, including the pedophiles. From "Some in Congress Seek To Expand CIPA To Block MySpace, Blogs, More," Library Journal, 15 May 2006: "The American Library Association Washington Office urged members to lobby against the bill." Exactly as we predicted.
Worse, can you see the propaganda here: "The message: DOPA isn't necessary because schools and libraries already must block obscene or offensive Internet content, and DOPA is much too broad because it would block many beneficial collaborative web applications and resources." The truth is not the whole truth. True, libraries must block, but what is not revealed is the ALA's full force effort to prevent libraries from blocking. True, DOPA may be "too broad," but the whole truth is that so was CIPA in the first place, and the US Supreme Court allowed it anyway because one merely had to ask for the filters to be disabled.
Here's another slick trick by the ALA -- using the ALA-friendly media as support for its own arguments, including making political attacks (isn't that a violation of non-profit status): "News.com called DOPA 'part of a new, poll-driven effort by Republicans to address topics that they view as important to suburban voters.'" We suppose that means non-Republicans and urbanites don't view protecting children from pedophiles as important, according to the extremist ALA. Is this not an example of the ALA propaganda machine?
Even where a city does not want to create a municipal CIPA law, some libraries are applying existing state and municipal general pornography laws by specifically incorporating them into their library policies. Here are examples of such policies and the ordinances upon which they are based:
Computers may not be used for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose, including any activities prohibited under any applicable federal, Missouri, or local laws. Violation of current Missouri law (Missouri Revised Statutes 573.010 and 573.060) and Springfield City Code (Sec. 78-227) in regards to accessing and displaying pornography and/or obscene materials will result in suspension of computer privileges.
All computers within the Library, including staff computers, are filtered for pornographic and sexually explicit web sites in accordance with the Children's Internet Protection Act. Patrons connecting to the library's network with their own laptops or PCs will also be filtered for pornographic and sexually explicit web sites. Adults doing bona fide research may request that filters be disabled.
The Library filters access to pornographic and sexually explicit web sites from all computers as required by Missouri Revised Statute 182.827 and the Childrens [sic] Internet Protection Act.
Promoting obscene Internet content is illegal in Loveland. By simply showing another library patron or library staff obscene Internet content, you can be cited and charged with a violation of City of Loveland Code Chapter 9.20.
The Library uses filtering software on Internet computers. It is used to assist in preventing access to sites which violate Oklahoma State Statutes Title 21-1021-21-1024.4 and Title 21-1040.75-21-1040.77, otherwise known as "harmful to minors law." The current filter blocks sites featuring pornography, sex, tasteless gross acts and nudity. The software also allows the Library staff to override a block or to place a block.
In an editorial, no less, another example of how to slay the monster is brilliantly displayed, and this method doesn't even rely on legislation. Apparently even some in the media are tiring of the ALA's propaganda and the endangerment of children:
Every member of the editorial board is a writer, a reader and a lover of libraries. Nevertheless, by a narrow margin, the editorial board opposes Proposition 81, the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Library Construction Bond Act of 2006.
Speaking of local control ... even after six years, it still rankles that our librarians refused and continue to refuse to adopt a policy prohibiting access to pornography by minors on library Internet terminals. When every day new incidents reveal the ease with which sexual predators solicit children online, any claims that the library is a safe place for kids ring hollow. The values espoused by the American Library Association are so divorced from the values of our community that we would seriously consider withdrawing from the Joint Powers Authority and going back to the days of a city library under local control, rather than giving one thin dime to an institution controlled by an organization that believes in "all materials for all patrons regardless of age."
For those reasons, we urge a no vote on Proposition 81.
"Vote No on Prop. 81," Editorial, Gilroy Dispatch, 19 May 2006.
There's no reason why politicans cannot use the same technique -- strangle the monster of its money supply, in this case, $600,000,000. Recognizing the ALA controls local libraries is shown in the article to be the first step.
Harmful to minors laws exist in many states to criminalize the giving of material "harmful to minors" to children. (Funny how the ALA advises the children should decide for themselves what's harmful, librarians must not prevent children's access to such material, and people who try to protect children from such material are called "censors.") Some of those laws make exceptions for certain professions, and librarians are included, but only in limited circumstances. People should start suing librarians and finding them criminally liable for violating harmful to minors statutes, and the ALA should not escape notice.
We are working now to develop this idea further. Until then, please look at this list of harmful to minor laws from across the nation vis-a-vis librarians, then do your best to stop them from harming our children. (Hat tip to Family Friendly Libraries for making us aware of this list.)
Eventually, people get tired of their children getting steamrolled by politicians, library directors, or library trustees who choose to follow ALA directives instead of community standards. Toni Manning is one such person. Her child, Heidi, was possibly a victim of some politician's actions. And she started Friends for Safer Libraries to take action to stop more Heidis from being similarly affected.
Heidi, you see, was a 10 year old girl who, in a public library, was exposed to pornography on an unfiltered computer." Toni Manning complained but was told adults have a "First Amendment right" to view anything in a public library.
But this wasn't just any public library. This public library chose to join the ALA/ACLU lawsuit to stop the CIPA law from protecting children. Then, after the library and the ALA lost big in the US Supreme Court case of US v. ALA, the library choose to turn down about $100,000 per year in federal funding just to be able to evade CIPA and continue to provide unfiltered Internet access. As one article of 15 Dec 2004 put it, "The county sacrificed $100,000 in federal funding by defying the law." It's that defiance of the law, that unfiltered Internet access that exposed little Heidi to the disturbing pictures of naked women. It's that exposure that might not have happened but for the actions of the ALA and the people in the local library that made the decisions they did.
Politician Rob Brading was one of the people in the library who, as a Library Board member, a) decided the library should join the ALA to stop CIPA, and b) after having lost in US v. ALA, decided the library should refuse federal funding just to avoid the need for CIPA compliance. Then, providing the political cover for Rob Brading to claim he was not involved and to SLAPP Toni Manning, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners ultimately made the decisions, but that Board "unanimously accepted" the Library Board's recommendations. Now Rob Brading's running for office again. The question is, does Toni Manning roll over and play dead? Does she sit silently by knowing Rob Brading's decisions were, at least in her opinion, partly responsible for what happened to her child and is likely to happen again and again to other children?
No! Toni Manning does something others should copy. She uses the political season to tell the truth to the public so the person who put the ALA's interests above her own community's children's interests is defeated at the polls. She issues a political flyer telling people about Rob Brading and what he helped do that may have directly caused harm to her daughter and possibly to more children in the future. AND ROB BRADING LOST IN 2006 WHEN HIS PARTY GENERALLY SWEPT! Here are graphics of the flyer; consider using similar flyers in your own communities:
Click for larger images or mouseover for magnified view: