Washington library wins suit to leave filters on

Washington library wins suit; it can filter porn
A rural Eastern Washington library system may continue to filter the Internet to block porn and gambling sites, a federal court judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Edward Shea of the Eastern Washington Federal District Court ruled that the North Central Regional Library (NCRL) is not violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by filtering some adult Internet content on library computers.

The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Seattle which argued that the library’s filtering was overly broad and illegally censored material based on content.


This is bad news for the ALA's OIF propaganda machine. Oh, before the ad hominem attacks fly my way, said propaganda machine has been exposed in a third of American public libraries by none other than the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act. So the following may be of interest:
Fed Court Proves Not Censorship to Block Porn from Public Library Computers; Dean Marney and North Central Regional Library Prove ACLU Wrong in Bradburn v. NCRL
CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children's Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected

Regarding that later story, in about 2 months no library media has touched it. That kind of confirms it right there, does it not?

And in the present story, the Court even approves of libraries taking time to decide whether or not to unblock a site. Oh, this is so s-w-e-e-t! And it has to be for a purpose compliant with library policy! YYEESSSSS!!!

so you would prefer that the government has the authority to dictate what people read?

filtering websites is equivalent to burning books.

there isn't even conclusive proof that a kid walking by a computer with a naked person on it is harmful to the kid.

using government as a replacement for responsible parenting may not be the most ethical way raise your children.

Don't argue with Dan. He doesn't respond to logic based arguments.

The law is already set on filters. I simply did not respond because the questions I was asked were moot in light of US v. ALA and now Bradburn v. NCRL. Yes, the arguments were logic based, but at this point in time they are now moot. Filters are perfectly legal and so is a library applying library policy before unblocking requested web sites. Attempts to relitigate what has already been decided will fool a few people but not enough to make a difference.

In short, it is perfectly legal to leave blocks in place if porn or other non-policy material is being requested. In short, constitutionally protected material may be legally blocked in public libraries in the right circumstances. Read: no porn.

But hey, one "anonymous" after another "anonymous" can keep attacking me personally and not address the issues so as to mislead people. Who knows, maybe if 1000 "anonymouses" keep repeating I don't respond to logic-based argument, perhaps that will convince people filtering porn in public libraries really does violate the First Amendment after all.

It appears to me the Courts are holding the very things I have been advising communities, and the opposite of what the ALA has been advising communities. I wonder if that's why I use my name to sign these posts and all you "anonymouses" use "anonymous" or some pseudonym.

Come to think of it, there's a reason the library media has ignored the CIPA author saying the ALA misleads a third of American community libraries. There's a reason the Bradburn v. NCRL case is not getting a lot of play. The freedom of speech people simply do not want people to know the law allows them to filter porn out of their libraries. So much for a commitment to freedom of speech, eh?

If only the court case was about porn. It's about restricting access to constitutionality protected material.

"The lawsuit had been brought by the ACLU of Washington in 2006 on behalf of Sarah Bradburn, who was prevented from using NCRL computers to research an academic assignment about youth tobacco usage; Pearl Cherrington, a photographer who was prevented from using NCRL computers to research art galleries and health issues; Charles Heinlen, who was prevented from using NCRL computers to access his blog on MySpace, as well information relating to fine arts, firearms use by hunters, and “other lawful information;” and The Second Amendment Foundation. (The NCRL has blocked access to the Foundation-sponsored magazine Women & Guns.)"

There is no mention of porn whatsoever. It's misleading to continue to act like this is access to porn when it's not. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are asking for access to legal adult material.

On the bright side, it means that I could block access to the safelibraries.org website on my library's computers because as a librarian I can determine that it is not within my library's collection policy. You could protest and say that I'm censoring you but all I have to do is indicate that there is a collection policy in place and that your site is outside of it. I don't even need to give a reason or offer any decision transparency.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Anonymous, nice try. And you are a librarian threatening my free speech and thereby threatening the violation of the intellectual freedom of others? Shame. No wonder you stay anonymous.

Your trying to silence my speech is substantially similar to Library Journal and American Libraries (and LISNews) not reporting that the CIPA author said over two months ago that the ALA effectively misleads a third of American communities into not protecting children with CIPA.

But, I need not relitigate here. I'll simply point to a video of NCRL Director Dean Marney speaking about how it is COMMON SENSE AND LEGAL TO BLOCK CONSTITUTIONALLY AVAILABLE MATERIAL IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES, INCLUDING PORN (and by the way "privacy screens" do not work):

Today's Topic: Libraries and Pornography with Library Director Dean Marney; A Conversation with Publisher Rufus Woods

Further, note it is I who has broken the news that the SAF and Women & Guns sites are NOT blocked, weren't then, aren't now, and were never intended to be blocked.

I love how Dean Marney said library directors everywhere will be examining the case and start blocking porn. Bye bye, porn in public libraries!

Using THAT logic (?), any library that doesn't purchase every book printed also has an acquisitions policy "equivalent to burning books."

C'mon, man....

(1) The NCRL has a policy in place in which the library evaluates websites from unblock requests and determines whether they are within library collection policies. This allows them to accept or reject sites like online gambling. It also allows them to refuse access to other sites such as youth tobacco use, art galleries, and a MySpace blog. Why? Because these sites fall outside the policy.

If my library adopted the same policy you are pushing here, I could look at any number of sites and disqualify them for lack of educational merit and falling outside of the library mission. Creationism, global climate change, abortion (both sides), ex-gay or gay recovery, and websites about how the ALA practices could be scrutinized under such a policy and rejected for lacking academic rigor.

I'm not threatening your free speech because your website is available from other non-library venues. I'm not preventing you from expressing your opinion. As you are supporting this decision that a library can collect websites just like books, it's not a violation of intellectual freedom; it's merely the library's prerogative of collection development. If you want to continue down this line of reasoning, it means that the library not buying every book or movie that comes out is a violation of people's intellectual freedom.

You quoted Dean Marney who said it was common sense and legal to block constitutionality available material, but then throw a fit at the suggestion that your site might not pass muster under a library policy which applies librarian scrutiny to website access in alignment with collection development policies. So, which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it here. "Those other sites are bad but my site is good" is not a rationale for an objective librarian examining a resource (whether it be a book, movie, magazine, or in this case, a website), evaluating the educational and academic merits, and then rendering a decision.

Before you float over the "librarians are out to get me" line, please keep in mind that the vast majority of librarians don't have a clue as to who you are. The amount of librarians online is significantly less than the total number in the profession.

(2) As there are many media outlets, Library Journal, American Libraries, and LISNews do not possess a monopoly on library world journalism. It is available from other outlets that are read by more than just librarians (most notably, taxpayers). The news media in general ignores stories all the time, including ones that people feel are important. Should there be a mechanism in place in order to compel news organizations to report news that seems to have slipped through the cracks? (We'll set aside the free press stuff for the moment.) Also, there are more news outlets that could be approached about this story than the three listed above. Did you submit the story to them? And since this is the age of citizen journalism, have you tried breaking the story yourself beyond your own blog?

Also, are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy in place to suppress this news? If so, who is doing it and what evidence do you have to prove this? (Evidence like the legal kind, not the "because I think so" kind.)

(3) Why do you keep mentioning porn when the sites listed that are part of the litigation are not porn? (Minus the gun ones since you object to their inclusion. That still leaves the others to be resolved.)

(4) If you are a champion of intellectual freedom and expression, then you really shouldn't have a problem with my right to remain anonymous. Arguments of convenience ("You have a right to remain anonymous except when I don't like it") fly in the face of such principles. So, pick which it is and stick with it.

There's a reason Anonymous stays anonymous. Based on the previous comment, that reason is complete and total obfuscation on the issue of porn in public libraries.

I said to listen to the Dean Marney interview I linked to get the story directly from him. Anonymous chose instead to attack the messenger, me, and completely ignore what Dean Marney said.

I am not going to respond to Anonymous's personal attacks. They are irrelevant and voluminous. I will respond to the continuing obfuscation on porn, however.

Anonymous said, "Why do you keep mentioning porn when the sites listed that are part of the litigation are not porn?" Why? Remember, I am just the reporter, not the news maker. The news maker is Dean Marney. As I already told Anonymous that he obviously purposely ignored, Dean Marney discusses the case here:

"Today's Topic: Libraries and Pornography with Library Director Dean Marney; A Conversation with Publisher Rufus Woods"

Click the link for the video. This is the video Anonymous does NOT want you to see since he apparently makes believe I did not already cite it as my source. Go see what is politically incorrect to see. Go watch Dean Marney and the interviewer start out talking about porn, then kept talking about it the whole way through. Watch it now.

Porn is the essential element in the case. Porn drives the conversation. Porn drove the case. The issue is porn. The CIPA law issue is porn. The law is PORN MAY BE LEGALLY EXCLUDED FROM PUBLIC LIBRARIES, EVEN LEGAL PORN. That's the law despite any efforts Anonymous and those like him will make to claim otherwise.

Porn in a library may be legally blocked. That's Dean Marney's focus. That's the case's focus. It's porn and the great win Dean Marney experienced after 6 YEARS of fighting this issue, so he is the man to go to, not Anonymous.

And than came Anonymous. He says again and again despite evidence to the contrary that porn has nothing to do with the case. Nothing. "Why do you keep mentioning porn when the sites listed that are part of the litigation are not porn?" And that's the main reason why Anonymous wants to stay anonymous. He wants to obfuscate on the issue of porn so that people will continue to be misled by the ALA on that issue, as the CIPA author himself explained over two months ago.

Too bad. Watch Dean Marney. Read Bradburn v. NCRL. Read US v. ALA. Porn, even legal porn, may be legally filtered out of public libraries. It's over for porn in public libraries. What remains is to get out the word to the communities so they will demand libraries comply with the law, not with the ALA.

When you are on a date, do you ever find yourself saying, "Well, that's enough about me. Let's talk more about me."?

There you go. Now you have a personal attack. Since I'm the bigger person here, I'll ignore the meanings that you have attached to my statements in terms of motives and meanings. Why? Because this is the internet. You are welcome to your opinion, but not your own set of facts. (Of the latter, I am still waiting for some.)

Ignoring my points will not make them go away. Shouting them louder will not make them go away. Changing the topic will not make them go away. I can't figure out why you won't answer my points. I could guess that you either don't have an answer, find the truth of the counterargument uncomfortable, or find that it's another chance for you to repeat what you said before.

The point you are missing is this: sure, you can filter porn, even legal porn. Fine, great, have a parade. BUT the lawsuit stems from access to other non-porn material. The library has taken a stance that it can choose which websites to allow access to in regard to the library's collection development policy and mission statement. The courts have agreed with the library. Translation: not only can the library filter porn, it can filter non-porn sites as well. Based on that ruling, in theory a library could block the Drudge Report and Fox News websites because the librarians don't feel that those websites fit within the educational and principle guidelines. And if you objected to that, all the library would have to do is tap on the policy and point to the now established caselaw. They have a policy *and* a legal standing to do it.

You can pretend that the ruling on pertains to porn, but it doesn't. It means that any website can be blocked if it falls outside the library's collection policies. That's the sort of action you are enabling. You try to drape yourself in the mantle of intellectual freedom, but you only want it for some people. I feel bad for you.

@Anonymous, no one cares what I think are the facts. I get my facts from reliable sources and I link those sources. I pointed you twice to NCRL library director Dean Marney to get the facts, gave you a link, but you continue to refuse to do so, choosing instead to repeatedly attack me. Yawn, it's getting old.

Here are more facts for everyone else, as Anonymous will not read them and will continue to make the laughable claim that porn has nothing to do with this case. Facts, by the way, that support what I have said 100% and what Anonymous has said anonymously 0%, which is why he stays anonymous:

"Ruling on Porn Filtering in Libraries Makes Common Sense," by Rufus Woods, The Wenatchee World, 19 April 2012.

"ACLU Fails to Establish Right to Porn; Ruling Preserves Libraries’ Mission of Offering Safe Learning Environment," by Robert Knight, The Washington Times, 19 April 2012.

(1) One is an opinion piece and the other is commentary. That's not objective reporting. Anyone can write an opinion piece and cite (or fail to cite) facts as they see fit to prove their point. You might be familiar with the latter of these techniques since you are determined to include only thing with validate your worldview. (Don't fret, that phenomena is more common than you think.)

(2) You keep using that term "personal attack". I do not think it means what you think it means. Personal attacks are not when people have differences of opinion. Personal attacks are not when people question your sources or ask for actual proof. Personal attacks are not even telling you that you are wrong. But yet you do exactly that when faced with reasonable opposition.

This is why the librarians I know who actually know who you are (and there aren't many, sorry) don't take you seriously. You make a statement, you're asked to clarify, and then you call foul. The discussion dies. End of story.

Anonymous, I take this statement of yours as just one of your personal attacks: "When you are on a date, do you ever find yourself saying, 'Well, that's enough about me. Let's talk more about me.'?"

Here's another: "Don't argue with Dan. He doesn't respond to logic based arguments."

Now what is the purpose of such argument? Why of course, ignore the issues!

Here's the issue you continue to ignore: 1) Porn may be legally blocked from public libraries AND 2) libraries may apply library policy to unblocking requests as opposed to simply unblocking anything and allowing people to view porn, like in library after library following ALA diktat.

You do have a slippery slope argument though. It's that everything can be blocked, therefore nothing should be blocked. Nice argument. Why have I not addressed it? In my first response to you or the other Anonymous I said, "The law is already set on filters. I simply did not respond because the questions I was asked were moot in light of US v. ALA and now Bradburn v. NCRL. Yes, the arguments were logic based, but at this point in time they are now moot. Filters are perfectly legal and so is a library applying library policy before unblocking requested web sites." Your slippery slope argument is moot. I am not going to let you rehash it. The courts won't either.

Your side lost and lost big. Give it up already. No one cares about me or what I think. What they care about is the law. The law says 1) you may filter out porn, and 2) you do not have to unblock porn.

Indeed, perhaps the issue may also be that porn is now illegal in public libraries. If US v. ALA says libraries are quasi public fora from which porn may be blocked, not open public fora where anything goes, and if the library is being run like an open not a quasi public forum, there's a good possibility that library is being operated outside the law, ultra vires, without legal grounding, however you want to put it. The government can then step in and require the library to act within the law. And do so without violating the library's shield of autonomy, no less. And if the government fails to act to force compliance with the law, it might be that the government leaves itself liable for damages resulting from its library acting outside the law.

Lastly, you talked about "objective reporting." Funny! The ALA gets repeaters repeating them all the time without a shred of objective reporting by reporters. That, I'm sure, you have no complaint about. They are repeaters, not reporters.

Case in point. Reporting on the 2011 Top 10 challenged books list. The ALA lists The Hunger Games in position 3 this year whereas it was position 5 last year. That gets, what, hundreds of stories, thanks to the success of the movie. Not a single repeater actually reported the actual number of times The Hunger Games was challenged for the 2011 list or the 2010 list. None of them. Not even the former law clerk for the SCOTUS Justice who just took what the ALA said as gospel and suddenly there was a censor behind every corner. Hundreds of stories repeating what the ALA said, none, not a one, reporting the actual numbers. Result? The "jump" from 5th to 3rd could be as faked as the books and numbers were on the previous year's list--the 2010 list-leading book was challenged only 4 times all year while the ALA said dozens. Top book, 4 times--a non-story no one would report if the ALA were honest and said 4 times instead of dozens.

Oh I get that the goal is to get people to read. Great. But you don't do that by fudging the numbers. I mean honest people don't.

And not a single repeater actually reported the truth, the whole truth. As Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School was reported to have said just today/yesterday, you have to "tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

But I get a different standard. Suddenly "objective reporting" is deemed lacking. Right. You apply that double standard to me. Go ahead. I'll simply ignore you and continue to advise people as follows:

The law says 1) you may filter out porn, and 2) you do not have to unblock porn. If your library allows porn, it may be violating the law. If your library policy says it adheres to the ALA's Library Bill of Rights, then your library is expressly saying it will not adhere with the law. If your town government does not act to require the library to follow the law, it may be liable for damages as well, and it has deeper pockets.


What a coincidence, just yesterday the Birmingham Public Library settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with two librarians or library employees who were sexually harassed repeatedly as a result of the library's refusal to jettison ALA diktat that violates the law. Imagine what the damages were there!

So long as I have you on record being pro-filter (which is at odds with being for intellectual freedom, but I'll let you work that out in your head), the point you are STILL missing is that the library in question (NCRL) has a policy in place in which a librarian can deny a request to unfilter a non-porn website because they feel it falls outside of the library collection development policies. While you love to point out how this stops porn (which I couldn't care less about but you insist on making it the issue), it also stops a lot of other websites. Yes, some websites get unblocked but others that are non-porn and perfectly legal are blocked due to this arbitrary policy. That's what those ACLU defendants were suing over but yourself and Dean keep raising the porn specter.

That's just plain dishonest to malign their grievances.

The other slippery slope here is saying that porn is illegal in libraries. I'll just toss out my romance and human sexuality book sections. Why? Because someone will see those books as pornographic. It won't matter what the community standard is, it only matters that one person doesn't like naughty words or pictures. That's been shown time and time again by people stealing books from libraries because they didn't want someone else (generalized as children) to see it. If a library can block a website because it deems it to be pornographic, then the same standard could be applied to other materials. Your position leads to that book banning, plain and simple. You talk a great deal about libraries having community standards, but you sure seem hell bent on applying your own values onto others.

Also, who determines what is pornography? I'm sure I can find a bunch of ones that dwell in a grey area for objections. Websites with men and women in very very very tiny swimwear. Practically naked. But it's a body building website and those people pictured are competitors. But you can't help but noticed how little skin is covered. Someone might get aroused by the vast amount of skin or have a thing for people who bodybuild. Is that pornography, which is defined by sexual stimulation, even though the website is not designed for that purpose? What about the underwear section of department store websites? If I wanted to buy my husband a pair of thong underwear, would that be objectionable? Or if I wanted to buy my wife a bra from Frederick's of Hollywood or Victoria's Secret? Those are shopping websites, not meant to stimulate sexual arousal, but I'm sure people look at them for just that. Is that pornography? Are you going to limit certain forms of e-commerce at the library? You can say that they shouldn't be buying such things at the library, but it is not illegal. But here we are due to those court rulings.

Your court victories are coming at much larger and greater expense than you realize. You got porn, but you also swept up a lot of other things with it.

Anonymous said, "That's what those ACLU defendants were suing over but yourself and Dean keep raising the porn specter. That's just plain dishonest to malign their grievances." Great, so besides attacking me, now Anonymous is calling NCRL Director Dean Marney "just plain dishonest."

The desperation with which Anonymous twists and turns and attacks tells me he has something to hide and I have hit the nail on the head -- and so has Dean Marney.

To respond to Anonymous's false and/or already asked and answered arguments, I have a gift for Anonymous, and the other readers here:

"Librarians Library Porn Problem Detailed by the Library Journal's Annoyed Librarian," about the Annoyed Librarian writing in the The Library Journal about arguments substantial similar to those Anonymous faults me for not answering.

You really can't answer counter arguments, can you? If my logic is so faulty and erroneous, it would be a slam dunk to answer. But, no, you just change the topic back to what you want to talk about. Your logic is an ever moving target which squirms every time someone sets their sights on it.

I was wondering when you'd get around to the "something to hide" line. You have to be the premiere conspiracy theorist of the library world. The ALA doesn't engage you so they must be afraid of something. The media doesn't report something so it must be a cover-up. A rebuttal to you must be a rebuttal to all your sources so therefore I am attacking everyone. That's quite a paranoid fantasy you have cultivated for yourself there.

You do realize that conspiracy theories consist of circular logic, right? The proof that is exists is that there is no proof. Circumstantial evidence becomes an immutable fact that you crusade on. So, how far does this library conspiracy go? It can't stop at the ALA. It must be the Illuminati or Opus Dei or the Freemasons that control the ALA. And who controls them? Capitalists? The New World Order?

Does that Annoyed Librarian know that they are listed as one of your Watchdogs? Did you approach them for permission to be included? Or did you just slap their name up there and hope no one would notice?

Anonymous, your arguments are false, and I will not let you drag me down the silly tit for tat race designed to distract from the real issues.

The real issues are that porn may be legally excluded from public libraries. All ALA documents and guidance saying otherwise must be changed accordingly forthwith. The Library Bill of Rights, for example, that makes it "age" discrimination to keep inappropriate material from children, is now quite clearly legally false and has been for years.

Yes, I have been saying the ALA is misleading communities in a manner that fools people into leaving their children at harm, the very harm CIPA was designed to stop. Yes, to you, the guy who says library director Dean Marney is "just plain dishonest," I am suffering from a "paranoid fantasy."

In the real world, CIPA author Ernest Istook himself said just over two months ago that the ALA is misleading a third of American communities into ignoring the benefits of CIPA. That backs up what I have been saying about the ALA 100%. 100% what I have been saying, only I did not realize the scale was so bad. It's no "paranoid fantasy." It's a sad fact communities will have to address.

And this is just in days ago: Ernest Istook discusses how the ALA misleads people on censorship, etc. Boy, you have to hear what he says about the ALA. Things will be changing for the ALA.

So I've been providing hard evidence to back up my "paranoid fantasy." The evidence includes statements from the Annoyed Librarian, the CIPA author Ernest Istook, the Bradburn v. NCRL library director Dean Marney, etc.

I love being in good company. Many other librarians do as well, and more are willing to speak out now with major wins like Dean Marney just experienced in Bradburn v. NCRL. That's why I'm building the Library Watchdogs.

The ALA has the opportunity to lead on this issue, but if does not, others will work to make it happen. The safety of children far outweighs the anything-goes policies of the ALA that began with ACLU leader turned ALA leader Judith Krug. The ACLU lost in Bradburn v. NCRL and in US v. ALA. Anything-goes doesn't go any more. Game over.

You believe that a library is within its rights to block content, even if that content is not pornography and it is constitutionally protected. That's the essence of the NCRL ruling. You don't seem to have a problem with this which is something I think is way more disturbing. The collateral damage for blocking porn is that adults seeking lawful non-porn material for lawful purposes can be denied due to a library collection policy.

You are not a protector of intellectual freedom. You are a intellectual subjugator.

You also want to apply CIPA more broadly than the law allows. Communities can make a decision to either accept the federal e-rate (and CIPA restrictions with it) or not. If they do, they have rules to play by. If they don't, there are consequences (like higher internet rates). What are you suggesting is compelling the government to trump over the decisions of communities to reject the federal e-rate and the accompanying CIPA requirements. This is all done "in the name of the children", a fear reflex tactic that is not supported by any research or study. All you have is anecdata from random incidents which does not prove correlation or causation beyond circumstantial. If there is actual research on this topic, I have yet to see it. In the meantime, you use fear tactics to bolster your flimsy position.

You're not paranoid. You're delusional.

"You" appears 11 times in your 4 paragraphs. I am not the issue. Putting words in my mouth does not make me the issue either. The persistence/desperation with which you target me personally is remarkable/telling.

Congratulations, you passed basic math. Have you ever used that in court? Sorry, judge, but the plaintiff used the word 'Defendant' over 100 times. Clearly, they are the issue.

I have see this other SafeLibraries defense before: when faced with arguments that cannot be refuted, change the subject to saying that the person is attacking, that SL is not the issue, and then comment on desperation.

It's a good thing I am anonymous since the other defense is for SL to harass my workplace, email my superiors, and make outlandish claims and demands. There's a trail of bodies for this tactic.

Anonymous, you have inadvertently revealed your identity to me. I will not now reveal who you are, but I will reveal a number of facts that may help people make up their own minds as to your identity. Who cares, normally, about the true identity of an Anonymous, but this is not normal. Given your position in real life and your false claims here, the most significant of which were those made against the NCRL director who after six years has successfully won Bradburn v. NCRL, your behavior here appears unprofessional and contemptible, and it may expose your employer's media business as being highly biased and untrustworthy.

First, a little background. CIPA. The Children's Internet Protection Act. That was and is a major law in the library world. The ALA spent a huge amount of money on that losing case. It was Judith Krug's crowning achievement, other than her changing how librarians approached children that has forever brought strife to local communities, and she was lauded for getting the ALA to finally spend big money on something, on proving CIPA wrong. CIPA dominated the library news in 2000 when President Clinton signed it and in 2003 when the US Supreme Court found it constitutional, among other times. It still gets press in many ways, such as when Arizona recently passed a state CIPA law substantially modeled on CIPA.

The Library Journal gushed with its love and admiration for Judith Krug, particularly for her efforts regarding CIPA. Sample: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA606394.html Search LJ for "CIPA" and you will find many from the past.

But not the present. At present the LJ has a number of comments from me on the AL's blog about CIPA, and perhaps one other story, kind of buried under "Industry News": http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/industry-news/washington-library-allowed-to-filter-cour...

More background. Over two months ago CIPA's author revealed the ALA had effective control of a third of American libraries in that it fooled people into voluntarily turning aside from the protections of CIPA. One would think the CIPA author speaking on the ALA thwarting CIPA would be front page news, given how much CIPA was always in the news, in LJ as well, in the past.

Here's where the interesting part starts. As time went on I saw LJ had zero stories on this. None. Doesn't to this day. CIPA was such a huge story, even in the LJ. Now it is not. The author of a federal law reveals the losing party in a constitutionality case before the US Supreme COurt is effectively nullifying the law by convincing people not to avail themselves of the law. That is a MAJOR story in and of itself. And, that law happens to be CIPA, right in the LJ's bailiwick! One would think the LJ would have this amazing statement featured on its cover page!

Instead silence. I waited. I waited. No story. Time flew by. I decided to pick up the phone and call the LJ. I called Francine Fialkoff, the Editor-in-Chief. I wanted to be sure she knew about this major story, as my tweets to @LibraryJournal obviously had no effect. I got her on the phone and we spoke. Not being Anonymous I immediately identified myself. Just as immediately Fialkoff suddenly realized she had to get off the phone immediately and she apologized and got off the phone. I had the feeling I got the brush off, but I brushed that off and wrote her an email saying, among other things, "I understand about the seminar and you had to get off the phone ASAP, no problem, that's why I asked if you had the time." The letter I wrote was extremely polite, as is my habit and training. I'll save us all the trouble of publishing it here, but I will if requested, but the gist is I advised her of this major CIPA story about the CIPA author speaking out against the ALA.

No return call or email was ever received by me.

I felt the story was so big that I suppose days or a week or so later I called her boss, LJ Publisher Ian Singer. I left a voice mail about my attempt to speak with Fialkoff and mainly about the major CIPA story.

No response.

To this day the story in not in LJ. FYI, here is my writeup on the story, and it's the only one from any library media source: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/cipa-author-exposes-ala-deception.html

Okay, that's the background. Back to the present and the means for my identification of Anonymous who had attacked the NCRL director here.

Look at Anonymous's continued false attacks on me. It says I leave a trail of people I harass. No, I harass no one, though some like Fialkoff may view my phone call to her and the followup email and the call to her boss as harassment, though I am harassed by people such as the ALA when it investigated my background then used that information as an excuse to repeatedly block me from a class to which the ALA was legally required to allow me to attend by Pennsylvania Court Rules. And I am being harassed by Anonymous now. So I sense Anonymous's false claims about me are partly due to psychological projection.

Her comments also say, "It's a good thing I am anonymous since the other defense is for SL to harass my workplace, email my superiors, and make outlandish claims and demands."

Now I have never harassed anyone, much less emailed their superiors. But there is one person in the world, and only one person, who knew that I called Fialkoff, emailed her, then phoned her boss, and about a topic the LJ has not yet published, and I apparently did get the brush off--perhaps my conversation was viewed as harassment. And that occurred just weeks back.

Now along comes Anonymous here on this LISNews blog post in comments, someone with obvious disdain for the Bradburn v. NCRL case and the NCRL director, and she says, "I am anonymous since the other defense is for SL to harass my workplace, email my superiors, and make outlandish claims and demands."

Oh yeah, it's real outlandish to ask the Library Journal to cover a major story about the CIPA author exposing the harm done to a third of American communities by the ALA. Actually, what's outlandish is that the LJ has not then and still has not covered this major story. That's outlandish. That's propaganda to hide stories you don't want people to hear. As Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated recently, "suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral

Hmm, I just called Fialkoff at work, wrote her an email, then called her boss. That sounds substantially similar to what Anonymous said in the previous comment. And as I do not harass people or call their bosses, the similarity is just too much for me not to notice a very distinct pattern.

I add that strong pattern up with a number of other factors and I am now 100% certain of the identity of Anonymous. But I'll leave it to others to think for themselves.

If I am correct, given her position and her false claims, the most significant of which were those made against the NCRL director who after six years has successfully won Bradburn v. NCRL, the behavior exhibited here, if attributable to whom I believe it is, is unprofessional and contemptible, and it may expose her employer and the library media outlet itself as being highly biased and untrustworthy. A publication cannot suppress material with which it disagrees and expect to be taken seriously.

It is my opinion the top leaders in a major library media outlet have evidenced clear bias against revealing what the CIPA author said about the ALA, at a minimum, and may have seriously damaged the outlet's credibility. Perhaps that explains why Anonymous attacked the winning library director and comes back after me time after time after time with increasing desperation each time. I thought the conversation was finally over with my previous comment, but I have to come back yet again to defend myself from personal attacks.

These personal attacks only tell me my linking to various reliable sources to evidence the legality of blocking porn from public libraries has been extremely effective, as least in the mind of Anonymous. And if she is who I think she is, I'm even more impressed that someone in her position would feel the need to have to nullify my argument by targeting me for personal and persistent ridicule.

I will accept a SafeLibraries blog on a certain library media outlet's web site as evidence of sincere contrition should she ever realize that a library media outlet suppressing information such as the CIPA author's statements makes this matter ever more egregious than it might be for almost any other media outlet. Besides, then that outlet need not write about stories it finds distasteful, need not self censor, need not propagandize with silence.

Of course all this is my opinion. Right, Anonymous?

Wow, you really are quite the psychological masterpiece. There's a fatal flaw in your CIPA reasoning. I'll copy directly from the site so that you don't misunderstand. Here's the first part from the FCC site.

"The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers. CIPA imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding for Internet access or internal connections from the E-rate program – a program that makes certain communications technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the FCC issued rules implementing CIPA." (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act)

Here's a good summary that same point from Wikipedia. (Sorry you can't edit it out since you got banned for outing other editors.)
"The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that K-12 schools and libraries in the United States use Internet filters and implement other measures to protect children from harmful online content as a condition for the receipt of certain federal funding."


"This act has several requirements for institutions to meet before they can receive government funds. Libraries and schools must ‘provide reasonable public notice and hold at least one public hearing or meeting to address the proposed Internet safety policy’ (47 U.S.C. § 254(1)(B) ) as added by CIPA sec. 1732). The policy proposed at this meeting must address the following: (a) Measures to restrict a minor’s access to inappropriate or harmful materials on the Internet; (b) Security and safety of minors using chat rooms, email, instant messaging, or any other types of online communications; (c) Unauthorized disclosure of a minor’s personal information; and (d) Unauthorized access, such as hacking, by minors. CIPA does not require the tracking of Internet use by minors or adults"

I emphasized some of the passages so that you understand the simple thing: communities can take it or leave it when it comes to the e-rate. If they take it, then they MUST be CIPA compliant. If they don't, then they are NOT obligated to follow the law. The law is CONDITIONAL on taking the funding. It is NOT mandatory. The ALA can advise libraries all they want to disregard the e-rate and keep their internet freedom. What a concept!

You and Earnest can demand that libraries take the federal money and put filters on, but no community is required to take it. Questioning their motives for not taking the money is rather insulting as it blankly states that you (the remote citizen) know better than Johnny Local (the people who live there) about what they want in their community. If you think that's reasonable, I'll be sure to hop in my car and drive cross country to vote during your school budget ballots. Of course I'm going to vote to raise taxes to cover the school budget! This is FOR THE CHILDREN, right? You wouldn't want THE CHILDREN to go without an education. And since you're not voting the right way (aka the way I think you should), I have to step in. Hell, I don't even need to vote, I'll just demand that the government step in FOR THE CHILDREN.

I'll give you that point about taxpayers asking for filters. They can ask for that. The community can talk about filtering their library computers and come to a decision weighing the pros and cons. Democracy in action. Amazing.

If you really thought this was a big story, why didn't you contact other bigger press organizations? The New York Times? The Washington Post? Fox News? The World News Daily? (On that last one, I can see that having your "big" story run next to a story about how Obama faked his birth certificate might diminish from the magnitude of your story, but life is unfair that way. Just like people who have chosen to ignore a law because they don't want the odious requirements that go with it.)

Oh, and that hilarious demand for a blog on a "certain library media outlet's site"? That made me giggle the whole time I wrote this reply. Sorry, I don't see how the "certain library media outlet's site" could host two satire blogs at one time. Besides, based on the nature of the other writer's blog, I'm better qualified for the job.

I'm still anonymous.

Finally we get to substantive issues. Phew! Still, it came packaged with more attacks on me, and new ones, this time on the Annoyed Librarian at LJ and on "Earnest." You even attacked another media source, WND. Nice! I'm in good company, namely, NCRL Director Dean Marney, CIPA author Ernest Istook, LJ's Annoyed Librarian, and WND.

As to your CIPA argument, of course you are correct that CIPA does not require a library to filter. Also, you are correct that the ALA "can advise libraries all they want."

But that is not the issue. We expect the ALA to advise libraries. The issue is that the ALA intentionally misleads communities to push them not to filter. It lies to them. That's what we don't expect. That's the problem.

Oh don't deny it. You know that guy you slandered above, that library director, the one who just won the Bradburn case you can't stand? He had the chance to take on the ALA's OIF directly and guess what, he forced the OIF to admit it had been lying about the breast cancer excuse for a long time. You know, the one where the ALA tells people they will not be able to research breast cancer because of filters? When confronted by Dean Marney's comments on the issue, Barbara Jones backed down and admitted the breast cancer excuse is old and, get this, filters work: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/ala-admits-library-filters-work-barbara.html

No wonder the ALA refuses to confront me directly and you stay anonymous. When confronted directly, they back down.

And that's just one way the ALA lies about filters.

By the way, did the LJ report on the OIF Director saying filters work and breast cancer is an old excuse? Of course not. One Sided Library Journal--that would be a more accurate name for the Library Journal. Don't report on the OIF saying filters work, don't report on the CIPA author saying the ALA misleads a third of communities on CIPA, don't report on Bradburn v. NCRL accurately, etc.

So that's the problem with the ALA I am calling out, then the CIPA author called out. Flat out misleading communities with flat out false information.

"The community can talk about filtering their library computers and come to a decision weighing the pros and cons. Democracy in action. Amazing." Right, but not when they are fed a bunch of lies, then reach the conclusion the ALA wants. It's a propaganda technique called "conversion." You get the people to think what you want them to think by lying to them or otherwise manipulating them, then they think they are making an informed decision for themselves that you don't otherwise have the power to force them to make. No, that's a misinformed decision. And it's not democracy in action. It's dishonesty in action.

Why did I not call that other media? Well, before this happened, I respected the Library Journal and knew it had the biggest circulation in the library community. I wanted the LJ to have the scoop, so to speak, on the story. I literally thought I was doing it a favor by bringing a major story to its attention. I did not know then that it had the same ideological bent as American Libraries magazine. If I did, I would not have bothered in the first place. I did not bother with American Libraries, for example. I haven't thought to call the other media, and I did not think the library world is on their radar anyway. Besides, I work on this in what little spare time I have. I don't have an "Office for Intellectual Freedom" fully staffed and obtaining major funding from the likes of the Playboy Foundation and George Soros.

When I work to inform communities, it will be to inform them, not misinform them. There's a difference. If you pare away the false information from the ALA and add in the true information from US v. ALA and Bradburn v. NCRL (sometimes even from the ALA), I am certain communities will decide to place filters on all computers.

It's already starting to happen. Consider, for example, the Los Angeles Times devoting two editorials to pointing out the usual false library filtering disinformation, then demanding filters for all computers: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/12/la-times-supports-filtering-porn-from.html

Or Salt Lake City: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/03/salt-lake-library-votes-to-filter-all.html

Or the entire state of Arizona: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/04/arizona-computer-access-by-minors.html


Go on. Continue to mislead or hide stories. People are seeing it for what it is and they are demanding filtering as a result. Keep it up.

Filters work the same way fracking works. You get what you want to catch but other things get in there. I've been at the public library when the filter flags a story about people fighting against human sex trafficking. Or a celebrity sex scandal. The breast cancer example may be old and outdated by upgrades in filtering software, but it still overblocks. Filters are a crappy solution to make politicians and people like yourself feel like they are making the world safer. And people can get around them with proxy servers and other workarounds.

How is your position that libraries should accept CIPA money and filtering software any better than the ALA one? You use isolated examples of incidents at libraries and the fear mongering line of "we must protect the children". Telling libraries that their computers are a ticking bomb for something to happen is just as misleading with less factual information is just as dishonest.

Again with the story reporting! Have you thought for a moment that an opinion piece from the Heritage Foundation may not be news? It's one man's opinion with no cited sources. That's not news, that's one man being very sad that the world doesn't share his perspective. If this same person wrote that the libraries of the world should be staffed by robots and collect nothing but gardening books, would that make it news? No, you just want your opinion injected into the library media world. You make demands on a realm that you have offered nothing but expect everything.

Try linking to some primary sources. Linking to your blog does not count.

You must be another Anonymous. You said, "It's one man's opinion with no cited sources. That's not news, that's one man being very sad that the world doesn't share his perspective."

One very sad man. Not news.

Do you realize you are talking about the author of the CIPA bill calling out the ALA for thwarting application of CIPA in a third of American libraries?

"It's one man's opinion with no cited sources. That's not news, that's one man being very sad that the world doesn't share his perspective."

Do you stand by that now that you know? You must be another Anonymous.

If it will make you feel better, I'll edit what I wrote.

"It's the guy who wrote CIPA's opinion with no cited sources. That's not news, that's the guy who wrote CIPA being very sad that the world doesn't share his perspective so he's going make wild negative guesses about why libraries aren't filtering computers and blame it on the ALA."

Is that better?

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.