From NPR: American Library Association, Barnes & Noble Called 'Facilitators Of Porn'


From NPR's The Two-Way: The American Library Association and Barnes & Noble were among the groups named by conservative group Morality in Media in its "Dirty Dozen List" of "the top 12 facilitators of porn." The list states that the ALA encourages libraries to have unfiltered computers, and that the bookstore chain "is a major supplier of adult pornography and child erotica."

The top spot, however, went to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for "refus[ing] to enforce existing federal obscenity laws."

Hat tip to Bobbie Newman @librarianbyday for the lead.


Friends on LISNews, I haven't written for a while, but now I have more on ALA involvement in this porn facilitation case.

Note, the ALA OIF has quickly responded to this matter as it has gone nationwide big time. In a comment to that response, I have challenged the OIF to a public debate. Anyone here think that might be interesting?

Since your arguments aren't based in reality and you don't answer question posed to you, it would not be interesting to hear you spout propaganda in the guise of debate.

It appears ALA OIF agrees. It removed (censored?, denied my free speech?) my debate challenge from the American Libraires page.

Here's all it said. Anyone here think this should have been removed from American Libraries online?:


Dear Ms. Caldwell-Stone,

I hereby request a debate with you or the ALA OIF Director Barbara Jones on the issues that you raise here or on related issues. Yes, I am indirectly the reason the ALA is in the news as a porn facilitator that caused you to write this piece, but that only makes debate with me more interesting. We once both appeared on an NPR radio broadcast, and you/OIF have several times talked about me publicly when I was not present, but it is time we meet and talk face to face in a forum where people can learn from what we say. Perhaps at an ALA annual meeting, for example.

So what do you say, will you or a suitable alternate accept the challenge?

Thank you for your consideration.

I say it is uncool to pull the comment.

Right, and thank you. That other anonymous is probably in the ALA's OIF justifying its action. ALA is all about free speech, equal access, and censorship. Given that, when it acts in a manner that goes against such values, that only hurts its own interests. ALA regularly drops only my comments or blocks only me from accessing its offerings, although I was able to participate in a FTRF webinar by Theresa Chmara yesterday. (It probably couldn't figure out the technical means for dropping only me from the webinar.) In addition to that, it regularly attacks me when I'm not present. I'm even in its Intellectual Freedom Manual as something I'm not. So the ALA OIF is simply intentionally spiking my message so it can continue to promote its own. That may be a typical thing people do, but its particularly egregious where the ALA holds itself out as some great champion of free speech. It is not. But librarians like Will Manley have already revealed that. Etc.

What you are basically saying is that if the ALA OIF bought a billboard advertisement that your free speech rights include being able to post your own counter message on their space. Nope. ALA pays for the website and they can pick who or what is posted on it. End of story. And since you are a known ALA OIF troll, it makes it a very simple decision.

Now, if ALA was trying to stop you from posting on your own blog, then they would have gone too far. But you clearly don't understand the limitations of free speech which includes forcing people to listen to your message on their property.

But here is where your billboard analogy if off. ALA OIF did not have a billboard. They had a website with a COMMENTS section. Safe libraries left a COMMENT and then it was deleted. If the COMMENT was vile I could see removing it. But the only problem with the COMMENT seemed to be that it did not agree with ALA OIF.

Why have a comments section when you do not want comments?

Isn't the fix to bad speech, MORE SPEECH? Why did they not respond with SPEECH? They responded by removing the comment.

You're either missing or ignoring my point. They can allow whatever they want for comments. This includes removing it. Since SafeLibraries has a long history of link spamming and trolling behaviors, they are within their rights to remove the comment.

Yes they have the RIGHT to remove the comment. Just like libraries have a RIGHT to filter Internet porn. Question is whether they exercise the right. Do we really like when a supposedly free speech group removes comments just because they do not like the content?

Thanks, Anonymous 2. Anonymous 1, likely from the ALA OIF, won't stop repeating the same false information that amounts to ad hominem argument.

My comment was just about as polite and friendly as one could get. It was even of public interest as I bet the silent majority of librarians would like someone to speak truth to power. Yet it was removed. The OIF Blog removes comments regularly -- I've never seen it removed before from American Libraries, although American Libraries has changed quotes to make them appear to say the opposite of what they did.

But even worse about the comment removal is that OIF knows, American Libraries knows, my reporting is the very reason why Morality in Media placed ALA on its Dirty Dozen List. I reported, for example, that Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, revealed that the ALA OIF is intentionally misleading a third of American communities into leaving their children exposed to the very harm the law can legally curtail. And the ALA, along with Library Journal, refused to report that.

So literally the only regular source of news that is critical of the ALA is me.

And the ALA cut out my comment. Even after cutting out the CIPA story. It borders on Orwellian, or worse.

And the ALA cut out the very reason we are here writing about ALA porn facilitation policy in the first place. If it had sway at LISNews, these comments would disappear as well. THANK YOU LISNEWS FOR FREE SPEECH!

Given ALA's supposed love of free speech and equal access, this behavior of the ALA in silencing me is especially egregious, given the circumstances as I just stated.

Biased reporting is not journalism. American Libraries and Library Journal have no obligation to reprint stories from dubious sources. And since you regularly interpret debate as attacks, there is no reason to take you serious for anything you write ever. You do not allow yourself be questioned so there cannot be a debate.

You're not being silenced. You have your soapbox still. You're just mad that you can't say what you want to say where you want to say it. Your persecution complex is growing just like when you got kicked off of Wikipedia. No one is out to get you. All of these bad things are on your head.

You really don't understand the concept of free speech. It doesn't allow you to wander the world and demand that people listen to you. You don't have the right to enter any venue just so you can spout off whatever is on your mind. This also includes websites; why should the ALA provide a venue for you to link to your bogus material or announce your dubious challenges? Free speech isn't forcing someone else to listen to your crap nor is it their prerogative to provide you with one. You still have your website and no one is trying to shut that down.

You could call it censorship, but then your own arguments are invalid when it comes to community policing the content of its own public libraries. Using your own flimsy arguments, they just simply removed content that was not consistent with their community values. See, that's not censorship. Go on, argue how it's censorship in this case but not censorship when it comes to public library content. You can't. You just can't. But go on and try since it just unravels your own position.

Ever see a gun nut on the news spouting about the 2nd amendment? Librarians are like gun nuts with the first amendment. Just like with the 2nd amendment we need common sense regulation of the first amendment.

You are not Benjamin Franklin because you back the rights of some perv to sit and surf porn in the library.

It's a slippery slope of indicting speech that one doesn't like as 'offensive' and asking for it to be removed. That includes pornography, but recent events show how it seeps out to religious, hobby, and other websites being blocked as well. It's people like yourself who think they have the right to not be offended and believe that the best solution for that is curbing the behavior of others rather than self regulation (don't look, don't watch, don't read, don't participate). Defending speech isn't pretty and we don't get to choose our clients as repulsive as we might find them, but it is a necessary action in a democracy that puts a premium on the freedom of expression.

Oh yeah lets bring up democracy. Because if people can't look at porn in the library we won't be in a democracy.

In regards to your don't look, don't watch, don't read, don't participate that is a load of crap.

I go to my local library and they have a DVD collection that I like to look at. There is a row of computers that have the monitors facing the DVD collection. When you turn to walk away from the DVDs you are looking directly at the computer screens. I am at the library at 10am on a weekday and there are three creepy guys sitting at the computers practicing DEMOCRACY. When I walk over to the DVDs they start acting all squirelly because they plan on flipping to another browser when I walk away from the DVDs. It makes it real awkward to look at the DVD collection.

I guess I should exercise my first amendment rights by standing behind them and saying STOP LOOKING AT PORN.

Anonymous, If you need help removing porn from your library, ask me. [email protected] Anonymously, if you wish, but I'll protect your privacy. Porn can be legally removed from libraries, and I can provide key assistance, as I have done in other communities, which is likely precisely why the OIF lady keeps ridiculing me and falsely claiming I'm link spamming and trolling, etc.

You say you speak truth to power. So are you going to call me out? Go on. You want to say a name. You want to blame the OIF. You want to think that there is some dark conspiracy against you that originates from the ALA. Here's the sad truth.

When asked about SafeLibraries, a near 100% of librarians will answer, "What?" They've never heard of you. You're only huge in your own head. You think you're a thorn in the side of ALA but most people don't give a crap.

Sorry you had to find out this way, but most librarians don't know who you are. They just don't. You don't suffer from persecution, you suffer from indifference. Your talks do well on the Tea Party circuit as portraying libraries as the new Sodom and Gomorrah, but outside those groups, you're a non-entity.

So, why do I answer you? Because your kind of morality enforcement must be opposed to maintain a free society.

So, you being awkward means that someone else has to change? That's the start of the slippery slope. If they were hiding the fact that they were watching KKK videos, or Taliban propoganda, or gruesome war footage, would that make it ok? If you say no, they you prove my point. If you say yes, then where are your limits? If that offended someone else, should they be allowed to say what people can watch or see?

You do not have a right to not be offended. Period. End of discussion. Limiting other people's behavior based on your personal morals is not a solution. Period.

>>You do not have a right to not be offended. Period. End of discussion. Limiting other people's behavior based on your personal morals is not a solution. Period.

Ok if you use enough double negatives you think you are making a point. The point is why if I want to look at the DVD collection do I have to walk around a bunch of creepy dudes watching porn?

If libraries want to support porn so much why not have masturbation booths in the libraries? Make sure the floors are linoleum and teach the librarians how to mop.

I just want to look at the DVDs without seeing the creeps. If you give them masturbation booths in the library I do not have to see them. Plus they will be happier. Win/win.

Your reading comprehension is wanting if you think that is a double negative. This is all about you and what you want which is extremely short sighted and ultimately selfish. Your kind of logic leads to getting rid of the homeless people because you don't want to see them while you walk around the city.

Get over yourself.

>>Get over yourself.

No you get over yourself. You think you are standing on some grand ideal of freedom of information when what you are actually doing is making our public libraries crappy places for families and kids to go to.

If kids and families are not going to the library who is going to stand up to keep the libraries open? Plenty of people question why we even have libraries at all.

You did not even respond to my idea about masturbation booths. I would have no problem having these is public libraries. If people are not surfing porn and masturbating in public view, no problem. I am much more liberal than you give me credit for. Can we put some masturbation booths in your library?

I'm not responding to it because I didn't think it was a serious answer. And right now you are projecting your experience to equal everyone's experience. "If it happens here, it must happen everywhere." No.

Just because you can't look at DVDs doesn't mean that the whole system is wrong.

Okay, let's set aside the ad hominem comments of that one Anonymous who regularly sidetracks people with ad hominem attacks. Let's ignore her and not feed the troll further.

Now where were we. Oh yes. "From NPR: American Library Association, Barnes & Noble Called 'Facilitators Of Porn'"

What can be done to stop the ALA from facilitating porn?

First, people should know exactly how ALA does this. Here are a few examples:

  • Ernest Istook, the author of the Children Internet Protection Act, says its by misleading communities into not availing themselves of the protections of CIPA.
  • Dean Marney, the library director who won the Washington state and federal filtering cases, says its by using dogma to mislead people. Indeed, when Barbara Jones of the ALA OIF was confronted with statements by Dean Marney, she admitted filters work, no longer block health-related information, and blocking breast cancer is an old excuse.
  • Will Manley pointed out how the ALA makes it appear librarianship is the only profession that wants to push porn on children.
  • The Annoyed Librarian says the ALA sounds like smut peddlers.
  • A school superintendent in Kalida, OH, says ALA book reviews cannot be trusted to describe content that may be inappropriate for school children.

Next, what are the means to stop the ALA from doing this?

1) Most important is for librarians to get up the pluck to stand up to the ALA OIF. The ALA and librarians used to protect children from inappropriate material. Along came ACLU 3 year Illinois state leader Judith Krug who singlehandedly changed that, then enforced it into the ranks. Well, she's gone now. Is there anyone willing, finally, to stand up and admit the ALA should not be about promoting the facilitating of inappropriate material to children? Are librarians still afraid of speaking up, as Will Manley described?

2) Next, the librarians who are finally speaking up need to force the ALA OIF to stop its porn facilitation behaviors. There are so many so I won't list them here. But basically it boils down to the OIF using bully power to force its way on communities. Is there anyone who is proud that ALA now recommends libraries start to consider including porn in their book collections, for example?

3) Next, just like the OIF does, send word out to the state library associations that librarians will start making common sense decisions regarding children and sexually inappropriate material. I don't want to hear of any more cases of library directors yelling at maintenance men who stop 6 year olds from watching porn. Or library directors who order librarians to cover up for child porn viewers.

4) Include in this effort stopping the ALA OIF from advising libraries to destroy digital data that can and should be used to investigate criminals who prey on children. A women in Lincoln, NE, was attacked by a child porn viewer and, thanks to the ALA, the library would not help her. She went to the police. Thanks to the ALA, the police would not help her either. You see, they already knew from experience that that library follows ALA diktat and destroys all digital data. So they didn't even waste their time. So the lady got attacked by the porn viewer, right in front of her child, then got double screwed by the ALA's OIF. We ready need to stop this. To this day, the child ducks down in the car when passing the library. What a disgrace.

Okay, that's plenty for now. Let's get this ball rolling. (And, by the way, those are some of the very things the ALA OIF does not want discussed in public, so it uses censorship and ridicule to silence opposition.)

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You don't understand the role of the ALA in the library world. You have an ax to grind for reasons unknown. This is what to expect from a person who thinks there is only one definition of the word "lusty" to mean something sexual, not another definition such as strong, hearty, and boisterous. Your agenda clouds your mind.

Enjoy your future tinfoil hat discussions with yourself.

This just in, courtesy of ALA's OIF porn facilitation policy:

"R-Rated Libraries," by Janie B. Cheaney, World Magazine, 6 April 2013.

Excerpt from the article: But picture a mom who has dropped off her kids at the sparkling new branch while she runs to the mall for two hours of shopping. On her return, while waiting for her children to use up their allotted computer time, she pages through the books her 12-year-old has already checked out. Some shocking words jump out from the text: Can you say that, in a children’s book?

Response: I would disagree with a parent dropping the kid off at the library and leaving them unattended. In many states a 12 year old is old enough to be left alone but my concern is that the creepy pervs using the library Internet. By supervising your kids you can monitor what they check out and make sure they are not checked out by the creepy Internet pervs.

If you want to monitor what media your child consumes, maybe try NOT treating your public library like it's a daycare center.

The library is a place for information. Free information means that there may be materials that you do not agree with. The idea that a library is "safe" (or do you mean "Christian"?) is an odd concept that seems very dated to me. A good library should be neutral, with access to all sorts of subjects and materials. Not everyone will be offended or effected by the same materials.

Stop using fallacious arguments against the library, because some people want to read things that you think should be hidden from the world.

The ALA OIF's response to the national news that it is a leading porn facilitator has been criticized by yet another librarian:

"On 'Filtering and the First Amendment,'" by Garren Hochstetler, Words, Ideas and Things, 3 April 2013.

Seriously, ALA has no control or say in how libraries are run.
Each and every single public library system has their own set of rules and regulations. The ALA can say whatever they want, public libraries do not have to pay any heed to them, much like people shouldn't pay any heed to you and your nuttiness.

CIPA author Ernest Istook wrote, in a piece neither the Library Journal nor American Libraries reported, that the ALA effectively misleads a third of American communities into leaving their own communities exposed to the very harm it is legal to protect themselves from. If I had to choose between Ernest Istook and this latest "Anonymous" for accurate information, I'd go with the CIPA author. And, to be sure we stay on topic, the evidence for the ALA's facilitation of porn as reported by NPR, as this LISnews post is titled, comes in part from Ernest Istook. On CIPA, there is no more authoritative voice. That LJ nor AmL reported it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.