A note to so-called Safelibraries.org

You're projecting your shadow and misrepresenting reality.

No, I am not imposing my morals anywhere, although that's what the ALA does

No, you are not imposing your self-righteous lunacy on others, you are merely attempting to seduce them into taking your para-schizophrenic world view onto themselves. The ALA, on the other hand, is, generally, encouraging people to hold onto the authority over and responsibility for themselves that they already have.

I am not telling people what to do.

Only, I'm sure, because you have no legal authority to do so. I have no doubt whatsoever that you would take great joy in usurping the authority free persons have over themselves if you thought for two seconds that you could get away with it. However, the statement is factual as it stands, because what you are doing, in reality, is simply screaming hysterically against the underlying foundation of freedom and liberty.

s-x-alized

Hyphens are not letters, they are punctuation. And if you are not emotionally mature enough to write a word out because you are embarrassed by it, then you are not emotionally mature enough to be let out on your own.

That aside, however, it is not the ALA, writers, publishers or booksellers, or any country's supreme court that is sexualizing children, it is people like you. It is people like yourself that see them as sexual objects as much as preferential child molesters do.

children are being s-x-alized by the ALA, in my opinion,

Can you define the term "sexualized"? Do you actually know what it means? You certainly don't appear to.

. . . I am not infuriated, and instead it works to my advantage to point out that your ad hominem attacks, even if true, are irrelevant to the underlying issues.

Another half-truth. Even though this statement is correct, you are merely playing the wounded innocent. You are misrepresenting the full truth in an effort to direct attention away from the issues. This is not to your advantage, because most of the readers of this site can see for themselves that you doing that, and they are not fooled by it.

The rest of your bleating posturing is just more of the same, so I'm not going to bother with it. Instead, I'm going to demand that you define your terms. For instance, when you talk about children not being safe in public libraries, how do you define a child so as to differentiate him or her from one who is not a child, and what do you mean by "safe". Do you mean safe from criminal harm, safe from physical harm, or safe from ideas -- particularly to ideas that you do not agree with and do not want disseminated?

What objective criteria do you have by which something can be determined to actually be offensive instead merely offending your hypersensitivities?

Why do you reject and repudiate all those Supreme Court rulings that uphold the principles of personal freedom and liberty, cherry-picking instead only those that can be subverted to censor materials by which you are embarrassed?

(Due to technical difficulties I cannot post this to the Comments section of the Johnston County Libraries story.)

Comments

Deconstructing ignorance

Given the number of libraries and the number of open days a child has about a 1 in 42 million chance of being accosted at the library, internet pervert or otherwise.

Scientists call this "statistically insignificant." I call it "funny."

When a statistician speaks of something being "significant", he does not mean that it is important the way a layperson would. In statistical analysis, "significant" means "not likely to have happened by chance. One should conclude, then, from the statement : given the number of libraries and the number of open days, a child has about a 1 in 42 million chance of being accosted at the library, which is statistically insignificant, that a child does not have any greater proportional chance of being molested at the library than in any other milieu. Such as a public playground, or in a kindergarten or day care center, or in his own bathtub or bedroom.

Save the easily offended: ban everything.

SafeLibraries earned a spot

SafeLibraries earned a spot on Web Pages That Suck

.

.

not nearly enough

"Children do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults. Simple fact."

It's not about the rights of children. It's about the right (or lack thereof) of one person or family to decide what goes in a library collection.

"ALA goes further, by recommending to children incredibly inappropriate materials, while insisting that librarians and teachers and publishers have a moral right (a responsibility, even!) to circumvent parents in delivering radically s-xualized content."

Does that mean it actually happens that way? Not being a librarian you might not know that ALA has little to do with the day to day operations of the more than 100,000 libraries nation-wide. I'm not saying that any of your accusations about ALA are accurate or even non-crazy. But I can say that the ALA's office of intellectual freedoms has as much to do with how I do my job as the League of Women Voters or the Red Cross. I think it may be a windmill that you are jousting with, good sir knight.

"When someone like Safe Libraries documents how much it is indeed happening, you switch to a different lie and claim that it isn't really filth, it's actually "quite healthy", and besides, No One Has The Right To Tell Anyone Else That They Can't Fill The Minds of Children With Slime."

What slime are you talking about? It makes a difference.

"Many, probably most of those who have actual "authority over and responsibility" for children (that would be their parents, you overgrown, twisted adolescent -- and please take that in the spirit of your own constant name-calling) aren't playing a rhetorical game of "define your terms" or building an ideological theme park where Bill Clinton's "what the meaning of is, is" sucks and swallows the reality of sin (and I know you'll have fun with that awfully intolerant word)."

Pardon?

"Your attempt to marginalize Safe Libraries as the lunatic fringe ultimately will meet up with the fact that millions of parents simply are not putting up with this crud anymore."

Where are they? Whenever they hit the newspaper it's always one family. Where are you armies, general?

"We're on solid legal, ethical, and free speech grounds, we pay the taxes that have kept perverse anarchists like Fang and Chuck in dog chow for far too long, and -- need I repeat it? -- we're spittin' angry, in protective mode, and we won't give up."

I always thought of myself as a nihilist. Also, if your taxes are paying my salary you are getting royally screwed because there is not much of a chance that you live in my town. You might want to check and see what else you are paying for.

In fact the majority of people who "keep us in dog chow" are happy with the jobs we do.

"We will never stop until we've turned back this agenda ,driven by people who think just like you, an agenda on children and childhood we wouldn't consider fit to use as a nose wipe."

Good luck with your mission of making sure that no one reads about or has any knowledge of seks, genitals, seks acts, violence, blasphemy until the day after their 18th birthday. I'm sure that this notion of childhood that hasn't existed since the Taft administration is just WAITING for a comeback.

What I'm most surprised by is your contempt for the family unit. What gives you the right to make decisions about other people's families? How dare you violate someone else's parental rights? What's up with that?

Enough

http://lisnews.org/node/28649?destination=node%2F28649

The ALA, on the other hand, is, generally, encouraging people to hold onto the authority over and responsibility for themselves that they already have.

Children do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults. Simple fact. The ALA LBoR falsely implies that they do. And ALA goes further, by recommending to children incredibly inappropriate materials, while insisting that librarians and teachers and publishers have a moral right (a responsibility, even!) to circumvent parents in delivering radically s-xualized content. When we complain about it, you lie and say it isn't happening. When someone like Safe Libraries documents how much it is indeed happening, you switch to a different lie and claim that it isn't really filth, it's actually "quite healthy", and besides, No One Has The Right To Tell Anyone Else That They Can't Fill The Minds of Children With Slime. It's in the ALA Bill of Rights, after all!

There's a problem for you here , Fang. Many, probably most of those who have actual "authority over and responsibility" for children (that would be their parents, you overgrown, twisted adolescent -- and please take that in the spirit of your own constant name-calling) aren't playing a rhetorical game of "define your terms" or building an ideological theme park where Bill Clinton's "what the meaning of is, is" sucks and swallows the reality of sin (and I know you'll have fun with that awfully intolerant word). Your attempt to marginalize Safe Libraries as the lunatic fringe ultimately will meet up with the fact that millions of parents simply are not putting up with this crud anymore.

We're on solid legal, ethical, and free speech grounds, we pay the taxes that have kept perverse anarchists like Fang and Chuck in dog chow for far too long, and -- need I repeat it? -- we're spittin' angry, in protective mode, and we won't give up. Long after your morally relativistic, utterly paranoid (talk about projection!) vomit has cooled off and stuck to your bib, we will be fighting like hades to push back ALA's utterly transparent agenda. Got that, Fang? Got that, Chuck? We will never stop until we've turned back this agenda ,driven by people who think just like you, an agenda on children and childhood we wouldn't consider fit to use as a nose wipe.

Children do not have the

Children do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults.

The recognition and enumeration of human rights and civil liberties in the U.S. Constitution apply -- ideally, in any event -- to all human beings and members of or visitors to that civil society. The misperception that children do not have human rights necessarily reduces them to the status of subhuman. This is the same category to which is relegated niggers / wops / spicks / kikes / illegal immigrants / women; anyone who is "not one of us" white, anglo-saxon protestant males.

Even if children are not able to understand the principles of human rights or civil liberties sufficiently to fully participate in human and civil society, that does not supercede, nor abrogate or derogate from their rights and liberties.

All restrictions, as implied by the U.S. Supreme Court by some of its rulings, must be reasonable as to time, place, or manner. You have a 14th Amendment right to raise your children in as constrained a manner as you choose so long as it does not become abusive. You have no rights, in any way, shape, of form, to intrude upon the authority of other parents to raise their children their way. Which is encoded in the 19th Amendment.

Censorship is not only a human rights violation against children -- chilren de facto and de jure -- but it is a civil liberties violation against those parents who are raising their children to think for themselves.

. . . a rhetorical game of "define your terms" . . .

Wrong again; there's nothing rhetorical about it. And I can understand why you members of the lunatic fringe go into apopleptic fits at the idea of being nailed down to hard and fast definitions. You'd like for everything that offends your hypersensitivities to be vaguely and overbroadly defined so you could twist those psuedo-definitions to include everything that you don't like, while leaving enough wriggle room that you could pretend they don't apply to your pet prejudices.

Your attempt to marginalize Safe Libraries as the lunatic fringe . . .

In surveys conducted in several communities in which censorship efforts were initiated, it was revealed that sixty-six percent of the population opposed the censorship against a mere thirty-three percent that supported it. Censormorons are outnumbered two to one. That puts them far enough out there for me to call them a fringe group, and if the suppression of factual information is not a lunacy, then what, pray tell, is it? Evolution denial is every bit as much a lunacy as Holocaust denial.

And I suggest that before you answer that question you research the Dark Ages and the various Inquistions of the R.C. church.

We're on solid legal, ethical, and free speech grounds, . . .

No, you are not; because you are, as I pointed out above, violating the 14th Amendment rights of parents who allow their children to read material and ideas of which you are frightened. Moreover, a young adult of 17 yrs 364 days is only a legal minor. He or she is not a child by any stretch of the rational imagination.

In point of fact, there are four different types of adulthood, of which "legal" adult is entirely artificial.

. . . we pay the taxes . . .

This statement makes you a fucking liar. You do not "pay those taxes" because you are not the only ones who pay those taxes, Chuck and I pay those taxes as well. And so do the many more millions of parents who are raising their children in the spirit of freedom and liberty than those millions who are raising their children in willful ignorance and the spirit of slavery.

. . . sin . . .

"Sin" is a religious term that refers to any action the theo-fanatic power-elite wants to control in the population. It is not a legal term. The Islamo-fanatics of Afghanistan outlawed applause and paperbags as offensive to Islam; as a "sin" before Allah, in other words. The Christo-fanatics of the U.S. are no different. They simply have not yet reached the point where they can do that and get away with it. One piece of stupidity they have tried, however, in a state legislature, was to legislate Pi to equal exactly 3.0000. The state senate voted that stupidity down. More recently, there is the Christo-fanatic suppression of the fact of evolution. A denial of reality that also involves denying the Laws of Thermodyanics. And those simple minded parasites in Congress recently passed a resolution giving government approval to the judeo-christian notion of Christmas; a clear and present action to amalgamate church and state. "Christian" church, of course, as "Christian" will be defined by whatever power-elite seizes control.

. . . we're spittin' angry, in protective mode, and we won't give up.

I know; people like you have:

  • been trying -- and failing miserably -- to legislate morality using both biblical and secular law since the amalgamation of church and state by Emperor Constantine I in 325 BCE;
  • using the bible to disfranchise Jews;
  • subsequently using that disfranchisement to vilify Jews as being some kind of global, shadow government that controls the world economy;
  • burning any number of innocent Jews at the stake as heathens since 1013;
  • burning at the stake anywhere from 30,000 to seven million innocents using the excuse of satanism since about 1485 through the early 1700's, and a number of those victims were burned as witches simply because they were Jews;
  • massacred in one paroxysm of bloodlust, some 600 Pequot indians to send them to Hell;
  • hanged 19 innocents and pressed to death one man in Salem Massachussetts for the idle amusement of three hysterical women in 1692;
  • argued during the 19th-century-abolition-movement in the Confederate States of American that niggers are the cursed seed of Ham and there is some kind of moral imperative thereby to keep them in the chains of slavery;
  • murdered 5.8 million Jews in Nazi Germany using the same bullshit excuses that derived directly from the disfranchisment of the Jews stemming from biblical interpretation;
  • murdered women in horrific ways and tried to justify it as "honour killing";
  • savagely beat a homosexual university student in Montana and left him hanging to die on a barbed-wire fence;
  • subjected children to this day to horrific physical and psychological abuses in the name of morality . . .

Oh, yeah, I know that you self-righteous moralizers are never going to give up your most cherished bigotries, savageries, and stupidity.

Long after your morally relativistic . . .

Ah, yes, the invocation of "morality" as absolute. So, tell me, which part of the bible are you going to invoke to justify your "morals". The commandment that says thou shalt not commit murder, a very clear and present absolute, or some line you can pervert to show that God not only condones, but mandates, . . . say the death of well over one million Iraqi innocent civilians so you can steal their oil?

Oh, wait. Stealing. Isn't there something about thou shalt not steal, as well? And isn't that clearly enough put to constitute an absolute in its own right? But, of course, you're allowed to violate the commandments willy-nilly under some kind of relativism that makes it okay for you supposed Christians to do it to Muslims, but not okay for anybody else, much less Muslims, to do it to you.

And never mind that morality is as much a religious concept as "sin", and that for a government to invoke or act in the name of morality constitutes a violation of disestablishmentarianism.

. . . utterly paranoid . . .

Oh, sorry, but you've just shot yourself in your own ass. It is't paranoia when they really are out to get you and your bombast is one long threat against our personal liberties and freedoms; a threat to enslave us under your pathetically stupid and savage ideology. A movement that probably got its start at the First Ecumenical Council in 325 and is still underway.

"one long threat against our

"one long threat against our personal liberties and freedoms; a threat to enslave us under your pathetically stupid and savage ideology."

Thanks, Fang. You were flushed out of your usual game of hate-n-hide by language almost as strong as your own; as a result we now have a full accounting of your views toward Christians and Christianity. I can't imagine that more than about one percent of the population would follow where you've gone in your foaming-at-the-mouth outburst of tolerance and diversity. Not counting "knowledge workers," like yourself, of course, who are, by the way, much more likely to hate and be hateful toward Jewish people under the guise of being "pro-Palistinian" (Hello, Kelly!) than are conservative Christians.

Some affirmations to recite into your bathroom mirror each morning, Fang:

I am an emblematic member of a dangerously fanatical and lunatic fringe.

I am filled with insane, slanderous hatred toward Christians.

I can champion "the idea of being nailed down to hard and fast definitions" while positing with a straight face "burning at the stake [of] anywhere from 30,000 to seven million innocents" as a factual point of argument.

It's not pretty inside your head.

Thank you Frank, and Surveys Show We Are In the Vast Majority

Frank, thank you for your comments. I ignore Fang-Face since I've had my fill of pure hatred and pure lies while he never addresses any real issue. So this comment is for you, Frank.

Three times Fang-Face says his type is in the majority:

"In surveys conducted in several communities in which censorship efforts were initiated, it was revealed that sixty-six percent of the population opposed the censorship against a mere thirty-three percent that supported it. Censormorons are outnumbered two to one. That puts them far enough out there for me to call them a fringe group, and if the suppression of factual information is not a lunacy, then what, pray tell, is it?"

Strike one.

"I figure ten percent are actually humanitarian enough to promote and protect the human rights and civil liberties of others actively, and ten percent disguise their hatred for human dignity and humanity with a pretence of moralism. That would be you and safelibraries.org, just so there is no doubt about it."

Strike two.

"Like so-called safelibraries.org, you are projecting your shadow. For one thing, as I factually pointed out, those of us who prefer liberty over censorship and enslavement are in the majority. The dangerous and lunatic fringe are the censors who think they can "cleanse" libraries."

Strike three.

Surveys show Fang-Face's type is in the minority, by far, but Fang-Face uses made up lies to claim the opposite. Here are numerous surveys showing people do not want children exposed to inappropriate material:

http://www.safelibraries.org/surveyresults.htm

I suggest ignoring Fang-Face as he digs his own grave and makes it obvious he is doing so.

Define "Inappropriate"

You still haven't defined your terms, either of you. "Inappropriate" is used as a catch-all category that includes alphabet primers, dictionaries and encyclopedias, factual admissions about the human condition, evolution, civil liberties, and personal freedom. You haven't defined "pornography", which includes Michelangelo's sculptures, and Playboy magazines aren't even "indecent" by the U.S. Supreme Court legal defintion of the term. Plus, you haven't defined "child". A fourteen year-old with a hard on who looks at Playboy magazines because he has a sudden interest in nude females is not a child except under the artificial definition of age of majority.

Then too, the report conflated "pornography" with "obscenity". The second term is frequently used too vaguely and overbroadly to mean anything that someone doesn't like to look at. Legally, it means something that is "proscribably obscene", and something can be found to be proscribably obscene only in a court of law. Which the court of public opinion is not.

But a big thing that puts the lie to your position is the Morningline disclaimer: Morningline is not a scientifically designed poll, and therefore no claims are made as to the validity of its results.

Oh, yes: you also ignored the part of the Oak Lawn survey that said patrons do believe that children are safe at the library. Your own postings intimate that your position is bankrupt from start to finish.

Save the easily offended: ban everything.

Any Questions?

This is SafeLibraries.org.

I'm not responding to attack dog Fang-Face. I skim his messages for the usual attacks, and finding them, as usual, I ignore everything else he says. I hold out hope he will be willing to discuss issues, that's why I skim his messages, but it never, ever happens with him. It's pure vitriol and venom. I happily respond to people, even people who act like Fang-Face sometimes, but there's a limit when someone is as consistently mean spirited as he is and as consistently absolutely wrong and misleading as he is. Obviously he is hiding something if attacking me at every moment and in every venue is more important than addressing the issues involved.

I'm ready, willing, and able to discuss in a civil fashion. Any questions?

I have a question

How does a survey of a small town, an unscientific survey by a Chicago newspaper and one from Australia relate to librarians all over the country?

If I survey a group of gay men I will find that 100% of the group think that men are fun to have sex with. Is this true for all of America?

See where I'm going with this?

And Fang: Man, come on. You're not 12. Calm down, will you? You sound like you are pushing a shopping cart down a freeway and wearing a cape made of fiberglass insulation.

Oak Lawn Shows ALA Controls Local Libraries

Chuck,

Good questions. First, I'm a guy working in his "spare" time on this. I do not have the time and resources to produce definitive results or to find them. I do what I can. The opposition to my educational efforts to help people see past the ALA propaganda is a huge organization receiving huge funding from other huge organizations. I just don't compete, and expecting me to is not really fair.

Which brings up your question. You asked, "How does a survey of a small town ... relate to librarians all over the country?" That presupposes once again that the huge behemoth, the ALA, is paramount to any individual community whose library the ALA controls or attempts to control. Am I suppose to produce evidence about every single American library before you will think I might have a point and the ALA might be too controlling? For that I'll rely on a 2000 report called Dangerous Access by David Burt and his collection of other related material: http://www.filteringfacts.org/research/papers

Back to your question, exactly what is the relevance of the Oak Lawn, IL, survey and the ALA's actions there to force its agenda into the community despite the lengths to which the community went to remove such influence have on the rest of the country? Good question. Answer? The ALA is shown as having forcefully controlled public library policy and actions, and nothing the community could do could loosen the grip (although the community stopped short of legal action due to the costs -- an advantage the ALA uses against local communities).

Oak Lawn serves as an example of the control the ALA has over local communities and the lengths to which it will defend its control. Oak Lawn serves to prove that the ALA claims that a local community control its own local libraries is false, at least some of the time and in respect of the issue the ALA is pushing. This false claim of local control is used as the main argument against state filtering laws.

The ALA argues state filtering laws take away a local library's ability to act locally for itself. Yet at the same time the ALA itself controls local libraries, and Oak Lawn serves as an example. Do you know any other communities where the government, backed up by a survey, officially asked the library to reconsider making Playboy available to children and the library refused and children still have access to the material this very day?

The ALA gets to thwart the people seeking to filter libraries by claiming libraries must act locally, then the ALA controls those very same libraries so that it is impossible to act locally. Does this seem fair to you? Does this seem fair to anyone? I know you can at least be fair because even though you agree with Fang Face, at least you told him to "calm down."

When the ALA opposes state filtering laws by claiming such laws take away the ability for local libraries to act locally, can the ALA be taken seriously when the Oak Lawn matter proves the ALA itself controls at least one local library? Is not the ALA's opposition to filters really designed to protect the ALA's very control over local public libraries? Indeed, aren't state filtering laws proposed and needed precisely because local public libraries don't stand a chance against the ALA?

And the Oak Lawn case proves this lack of local control. Hence the significance of Oak Lawn to the entire country.

I don't think I understand

The Oak Lawn Library had Playboy before the whole thing blew up, right? The staff did not want to withdraw the items and resisted the request of some in the community to have them removed.

The ALA interceded with, presumably, legal and PR assistance.

But the dispute was with certain citizens of the town and the library staff. What did the ALA "control?"

Safe, I must tell you: I've worked in libraries for nearly 15 years now and I have never once seen, heard, experienced or intuited the ALA being in charge of anything.

I'm telling you if you ask any librarian you find, from here to Oxnard, you won't find one who has had the ALA try or succeed in control anything about their library policy. They intercede after the fact sometimes, with censorship issues. That's it.

I'm not tell you this because I really want to win an Internet argument or because I'm trying to get over on you. This is really the truth.

The ALA controls nothing. Honest Abe.

The Library Director was an ALA Councilor

"The Oak Lawn Library had Playboy before the whole thing blew up, right?" Correct.

"The staff did not want to withdraw the items and resisted the request of some in the community to have them removed." Unknown to me as to the staff's thoughts, as opposed to the director, etc.

"The ALA interceded with, presumably, legal and PR assistance." Partially true.

"But the dispute was with certain citizens of the town and the library staff." False. The dispute began with a single citizen, but eventually reached the level of the highest town governmental structure.

"What did the ALA 'control?'" The library director was an ALA Councilor. He might still be one. ALA Councilors are those who set ALA policy. So the ALA was, thereby, directly involved in this local library. To anticipate your next argument, the relationship was further cemented when the ALA Councilor solicited and received the input/help of all of the other ALA Councilors and the ALA's top leadership.

"Safe, I must tell you: I've worked in libraries for nearly 15 years now and I have never once seen, heard, experienced or intuited the ALA being in charge of anything." I hope the above paragraph will at least get you to start thinking. I am always clear not all libraries are ALA satellites. You apparently are fortunate to have 15 years of a pleasant work experience. But that Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library complaint I linked several comments back shows that all is not honky dory when the censorship police decide it's their way or the highway.

"I'm telling you if you ask any librarian you find, from here to Oxnard, you won't find one who has had the ALA try or succeed in control anything about their library policy. They intercede after the fact sometimes, with censorship issues. That's it." False. Numerous librarians tell me things, whispering, they would not want their management to hear. One even asked others to call the police for her -- they did and the perp was never seen again. This because the library was being forced to follow ALA rules, like in the Adamson case. Librarians are afraid of those carrying out ALA policy. It's sad, but it's real. If you haven't seen it in 15 years, well from what you have been saying here, I doubt anyone would open up to you.

"I'm not tell you this because I really want to win an Internet argument or because I'm trying to get over on you. This is really the truth." I have no doubts you are telling me the absolute truth as you see it. However, your experiences do not match mine, or the Adamson case, or the Oak Lawn matter, and on and on, like the Chicago libraries that would not even report crimes to the police., etc., etc. See http://www.safelibraries.org/seeforyourself.htm

"The ALA controls nothing. Honest Abe." I know you are being honest. But you are wrong. I take no pleasure in saying that. I only wish it were true so I could turn my attention to something else other than the string of crimes in public libraries against children which crimes may be a direct result of ALA policy. I look forward to courts of law being called on to determine the percentage of the ALA's culpability for the various physical assaults on children, etc. Let the ALA lose one case, and the dominoes will start falling, and children will no longer be harmed.

child sexual assault in libraries

I only wish it were true so I could turn my attention to something else other than the string of crimes in public libraries against children which crimes may be a direct result of ALA policy. I look forward to courts of law being called on to determine the percentage of the ALA's culpability for the various physical assaults on children, etc. Let the ALA lose one case, and the dominoes will start falling, and children will no longer be harmed.

I did a Lexis-Nexis search and found that for the past year there were a total of about 7 incidences of child sexual assault involving libraries. Four of those were one guy in Maryland.

Given the number of libraries and the number of open days a child has about a 1 in 42 million chance of being accosted at the library, internet pervert or otherwise.

Scientists call this "statistically insignificant." I call it "funny."

mmm, scapegoat

"The staff did not want to withdraw the items and resisted the request of some in the community to have them removed." Unknown to me as to the staff's thoughts, as opposed to the director, etc.

My point was that the dispute was between certain taxpayers and the library / town, not the ALA.

"What did the ALA 'control?'" The library director was an ALA Councilor. He might still be one. ALA Councilors are those who set ALA policy. So the ALA was, thereby, directly involved in this local library. To anticipate your next argument, the relationship was further cemented when the ALA Councilor solicited and received the input/help of all of the other ALA Councilors and the ALA's top leadership.

He is still a Councilor. It took me 15 seconds to find that out. But more importantly membership in a professional organization doesn't mean the organization controls you. I don't know if you are a professional but people usually view their participation in those organizations as working for those orgs. specifically. Their regular jobs are loosely connected.

Further since Casey was a Councilor and therefore one of the policy-makers, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that that the Oak Lawn Library set policy for the ALA?

I am always clear not all libraries are ALA satellites. You apparently are fortunate to have 15 years of a pleasant work experience. But that Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library complaint I linked several comments back shows that all is not honky dory when the censorship police decide it's their way or the highway.

There are more than 117,000 libraries in the United States. If I find examples of government officials being pedophiles does that mean that I have found evidence that pedophilia is rampant in the U.S. Government. These are, as the kids say, isolated datapoints.

Numerous librarians tell me things, whispering, they would not want their management to hear. One even asked others to call the police for her -- they did and the perp was never seen again.

You don't, by any chance happen to have a secret list of Communists working in the State Department, do you? Again, rumors, unsourced unattributed ancedotes and "perps?" What "perps?"

This because the library was being forced to follow ALA rules, like in the Adamson case.

Forced how?

This because the library was being forced to follow ALA rules, like in the Adamson case. Librarians are afraid of those carrying out ALA policy.

Sounds like the Minneapolis PL screwed the pooch, so to speak. The director fell down on the job, did not protect her staff. For the record I do not support the viewing of pornography in libraries. I believe that Playboy is a dumb-assed thing for a PL to own.

However I don't see a mention of ALA in the complaint or in the article that Adamson wrote in 2002. All directives came from either the board or the director of the library. Who, again, seem to have messed up royally.

It's sad, but it's real. If you haven't seen it in 15 years, well from what you have been saying here, I doubt anyone would open up to you.

Yeah, my habit of minding my own business as a general rule makes me a real pariah.

I look forward to courts of law being called on to determine the percentage of the ALA's culpability for the various physical assaults on children, etc. Let the ALA lose one case, and the dominoes will start falling, and children will no longer be harmed.

Best of luck with that.

Blip on the Radar Screen Defense Holds No Water

Chuck, that picture is funny. And that comment about Oak Lawn controlling the ALA is funny too. But since you admitted Minneapolis was bad but it's only a blip on the radar, as least we've moved from it's not happening to it is happening, only it's a blip on the radar.

As to the librarian who had someone call the police, here is more detail as she told it to me. She was an elderly librarian. The guy used the library to view child pornography and chat with children on a regular basis. He began to act like "the regulars" in the Minneapolis case in that he became abusive towards the librarians. The library director took no action for the same reasons as in the Minneapolis case. The guy would not leave the library when it closed, so strong was his attraction to the illegal material on the computer. They had to pull the plug to turn it off. He would follow them out to the parking lot, threatening them. By the time the police arrived, he was already gone. She had to get someone to call the police to catch him in the act in the library. She told the library manager that the guy was the same guy kicked out of a neighboring library for the same behavior and criminality. The library manager told her the guy has First Amendment rights and the police should not be called.

This was told to me personally by this elderly librarian who was afraid she would lose her job if anyone learned her identity. And the perp happened to be a guy who was kicked out of a neighboring library for doing the exact same thing and for using chat rooms to pick up children to abuse. He was arrested in another neighboring town waiting to meet such a child.

Chuck, that matter never made it to the newspapers. Silence. Fear by the librarians of the library management is the reason. Such a case and such fear is a contributing factor to why such stories are not made public.

Another contributing factor is libraries that intentionally suppress information about criminal activity, and I think I already provided a link to such stories.

Another contributing factor is the total unawareness that these types of things could be happening. I have personal knowledge of this. A child was raped in a public bathroom in or near Des Moines, IA. The news stories all discussed the crime, but none discussed the connection to the unfiltered Internet. I called the reporters. I said I did not know but there was a possibility the unfiltered Internet may be connected, the library may not be filtering because of direction from the ALA, and this type of thing might continue if the ALA policy regarding this issue was not excised.

Wouldn't you know, one reporter calls me back to thank me. The rapist was a regular viewer of porn, right at the computer by the bathroom. So, about a month after my call, new stories came out about the connection of the crime to the unfiltered computers.

Chuck, this is a third example of why there are so few blips on the radar. In this case, the media are not even aware of the possibilities so they do not think to ask along the lines I presented. Once they do, however, that changes things and the connection was suddenly found.

So your argument that this happens so few times as to be laughable is weakened by numerous examples of crimes not being reported or not even being in the minds of the media in the first place.

By the way, as a result of that story of the connection of the rape to the unfiltered computers in the public library, the Iowa state legislature created legislation to address that problem state-wide so it did not happen again. They used that case as the reason for the legislation. That case would not have come to light if I had not contacted those reporters and one of them was actually open minded enough to investigate.

So your single blip on the radar screen defense does not sway me.

Chuck, this back and forth we are having is interesting, isn't it?

Missing the point

I think you are missing SafeLibraries, SafeLibrary's, whetever, point. Saying you never see this does not mean it does or did not happen. If what Sfe said is true, there is a serious problem at the ALA, even if it happened in just one library. That link he gave from that Minneapolis case is truly scary -- I don't thinkSafe made that up. I'm going to check my own library to see if its polocy is ALA recommended policy.

Yeah, you totally aren't

Yeah, you totally aren't responding to him. Not one bit. Idiot.

ROTFLMAO!

ROTFLMAO!

OOOOOOooooohhhhhh . . .

You so funny.

. . . we now have a full accounting of your views toward Christians and Christianity.

You're inability to interpret words written in plain and straight-forward English, and which construct an idea that does not conform to your narrow prejudices, is indicative of your own tendency toward fanaticism.

I specifically identified relgious fanatics. Christo- and Islamo-fanatics; not christians or christianity, not muslims or islam. It is quite typical of the ultra-right to lie about what people have said in the fashion you have employed, when they cannot repudiate the ideas and facts put forth.

I can't imagine that more than about one percent of the population would follow where you've gone in your foaming-at-the-mouth outburst of tolerance and diversity.

Actually, the figure is probably closer to ten percent. Most people are decent and respectful enough of the human dignity of others, even though they don't go out of their way to trouble themselves about it. I figure ten percent are actually humanitarian enough to promote and protect the human rights and civil liberties of others actively, and ten percent disguise their hatred for human dignity and humanity with a pretence of moralism.

That would be you and safelibraries.org, just so there is no doubt about it.

Not counting "knowledge workers," like yourself, of course, who are, by the way, much more likely to hate and be hateful toward Jewish people under the guise of being "pro-Palistinian" (Hello, Kelly!) than are conservative Christians.

Sorry; I'm having a bit of difficulty making sense out of this insane babbling. It looks for all the world to me as if you are spewing mindless hatred about "Liberals" who demand the recognition and enforcement of Rule of Law; which means applying the law equally toward everyone regardless of who they are; under a single-standard morality instead a double-standard morality.

I suppose if I were to use your pseudo-schizoid rationales I should conclude from your statement that you are a self-loathing Jew. In reality, I conclude that you are merely a two-faced hypocrite who thinks it's okay for "us" to commit murder against "them", but not okay for "them" to commit murder against "us". If you are not such a person, then kindly post for my edification the missing portion to that commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder", which qualifies the statement and justifies your hypocrisy as not hypocrisy.

In any event, as I pointed out in my previous message, "christians" is the group that disfranchised Jews and created the conspiracy theories under which they have been unjustly vilified and subjected to one genocide after another since the 4th century.

Oh, and I'm not a "knowledge worker" whatever the hell that's supposed to be. I'm a human rights activist.

I suppose, knowing that, you'll now squeal piteously about how I have no business frequenting this site and daring to put censormorons in their place, who think that having an MLS gives them some kind of Divine mandate to decide what information and ideas other people are allowed to have access to.

I am an emblematic member of a dangerously fanatical and lunatic fringe.

Like so-called safelibraries.org, you are projecting your shadow. For one thing, as I factually pointed out, those of us who prefer liberty over censorship and enslavement are in the majority. The dangerous and lunatic fringe are the censors who think they can "cleanse" libraries. As the fanatic Taliban demonstrated, however, all the censorship you can inflict is never enough, and it is always necessary to go to ever increasing lengths in your effort to enforce "morality".

I am filled with insane, slanderous hatred toward Christians.

Not christians, just christo-fanatics; as a subset of the set of all fanatics.

"Christians", self-styled, that are the kind of vile, hate-mongering perverts who would hold a mass to "celebrate Mathew Shepherd's journey to Hell", and who would preach "Thank God for IEDs" and praise the death of servicemen in Iraq because the U.S. is too tolerant toward homosexuals. Or those who demand the right to stone homosexuals to death; along with "abortion providers", adulterers, and disobedient children. And those are good-old, home-grown, American Christo-fanatics. In Iran, they put homosexuals to death by decapitation; or some cop might just take it upon himself to shoot one dead in his own doorway. In islamist theocracies, a woman who is gang-raped gets sentenced to be whipped for adultery while her rapists go free. A sixteen year-old woman can be hanged for daring to criticize a judge in his own courtroom.

Those are facts, by the way, but feel free to refute them with whatever countervailing facts you think you have.

Ah, but you don't have any facts, do you? You don't have any way you can refute what I'm saying in these posts, do you? Which is why all you can do is accuse me of "insane, slanderous hatred" and of being the kind of person that you actually are?

I can champion "the idea of being nailed down to hard and fast definitions" while positing with a straight face "burning at the stake [of] anywhere from 30,000 to seven million innocents" as a factual point of argument.

If you have any information about how many people were murdered / executed / whatever you want to call it during the witchunts of the 15th through 18th centuries -- which actually happened, by the way, and which derived in one part from conspiracy theory and outright fraud and in a second part from paranoia -- then feel free to post it; cite your sources. My source for that information is Deviance and Moral Boundaries by Nachman ben Yehuda. If you would like to know how horrific those witchunts were, I suggest High Road To The Stake, by Michael Kuntz.

It's not pretty inside your head.

At least my mind can encompass more than two dimensions.

Save the easily offended: ban everything.

Syndicate content