Welcome..... Wissup??

WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP


Copyright (c) 2009 Ginny Maziarka. All rights reserved.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Ex-husband of Library Board president disagrees with organizations that help to protect children



Bob Deters (ex-husband of Library Board President, Barb Deters, at Library Board Meeting on 06/01/09)

Note received from Bob on 6/4/09:

"I find it hypocritical and even bizarre that you would object to people with expertise in this area, just because they came from a different community. Every part-- with no exception -- of your campaign came from internet sources from other localities, usually in the South. You got your idea for challenge from PFOX. And considering your stance on the School Board harassment issue it would be laughable for anyone to believe that you weren't a frequent visitor to PFOX and Americans for Truth About homosexuality long before February of this year.You got your complaint letter that also asked for ex-gay literature from PFOX. It was obvious that you even cut and pasted it because when you added one sentence-- the typeface didn't match. Your book lists and quotes came from Texas Library Patrons and most of your quotes came from "Parents Protecting the Minds of Children" which in turn had copied the quotes from a Fayetteville, Arkansas movement. You even confessed to it by posting links to Texas Library Patrons, myppmc.com (the site that provided the Arkansas info.) You made obvious your hatred for anything to do with the American Library Association by posting a link to "Safe Libraries." The Safe Libraries site treats the ALA as if it were the Great Satan of the ApocalypseSo, there you have it. Everything that was presented by Ginny Maziarka to the public came from internet sources. There was not one thing unique to West Bend. You could have inserted any city into the blank on her complaint letter-- cities like Hartford or Germantown, or Springfield. IL; Dayton, OH; or Wichita Falls, TX.Everybody knows that your movement isn't local-- not one bit. It is 100% internet, so stop being a hypocrite when other people who are experts in their field assist the beleaguered citizens of West Bend. "~Bob Deters

_____________________________________________________________

Thanks for writing, Bob. It gives me an opportunity to see where you have, perhaps, assumed some things, and also point out where you are correct. Dialogue is very helpful in situations such as this.

Let me first address my objection to national organizations, especially the http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/04/response-to-ala-president-and-oif.html" ALA/OIF, "http://wlaweb.blogspot.com/2009/06/west-bend-library-board-rejects-request.html" WLA, and "http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/04/uw-m-library-school-misleads-west-bend.html" UW-M ignoring the legal means - see "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=539&invol=194" US vs ALA –among others, to protect children and, instead, impose their broad-based ideals on small cities, towns and villages, browbeating them into submission. That is the issue, Bob.

With that said, instead of engaging in ad hominem rhetoric, let’s just address the issue.

In "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=539&invol=194" US vs ALA, the ALA lost monumentally. Here, let’s take a look…

The American Library Association [ALA], has opened the doors wide to the sexualization of children in public libraries, and believes "http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/qandaaccesselectronic.htm" it is "age" discrimination for a librarian to make a decision about the appropriateness of material for children. On the other hand, the US Supreme Court said in a case the ALA lost in 2003, "http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html" US v. ALA: “The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.”

So who is in control here? The Supreme Court? Or the ALA? Guess we all know the answer to that one.

Let me also point out another national organization that is exercising intimidation tactics, stating they are "http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2009/March_09/03112009_03.asp" watching us” – the ACLU. Now, here is an interesting item. Though libraries could do well by applying for CIPA funds, purchasing filtering software with the help of this funding, the ACLU states this: "http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14938res20030801.html" "Our recommendations for libraries -First and most importantly, libraries should consider turning down the federal funds and refusing to install blocking software. Obviously, that is our first preference. Libraries should also lobby at the local, state, and federal level to repeal blocking software requirements."

So here you have it. In a nutshell:

ALA defies legal means to protect children and maintains that all ages should be able to access all materials.

ACLU pushes libraries to refuse government assistance by rejecting CIPA funding and refusing to install filtering software on public computers.

WLA is a “mini-me” of the ALA. Sort of a “ditto” of ALA policy.

Now I’ll move on to your ad hom. statements, just to confirm and clarify a few things.

Bob, you are absolutely correct that I used the help of Internet form letters to aid me in originating my complaint. You are incorrect, however, in stating that is where my complaint originated. It actually began, as I have stated publicly, when I learned one of my children had inadvertently brought a sexually explicit book from the library into our home and shared it with us, as she was upset about the content she came across. One does not have to reinvent the wheel to make a complaint; therefore, I was thankful for the assistance of such organizations asAmericans for Truth, who had done solid research and had a helpful list of books that offered balance on the controversial subject of homosexuality. Asking for more information, not less, was included in our first letter, representative of our First Amendment rights for such.Using a form letter to assist one in filing a complaint is quite common, as you know. Being an attorney yourself, you must realize the importance of such documents in the legal field and understand that the additional work implied in recreating each and every document is simply a waste of one’s time. I chose to use my time wisely by going to sources that had been down this road before.Using a form letter and calling out national organizations to pressure the parents in my community are two separate issues and obviously do not lend comparison.

Our library board, to it's credit, has never come under criticism in our community, and would have done well to respond to the concerns we originally filed by dialoguing with us from the start. Instead, they chose to bring attention to themselves by kowtowing to outside influences who do not represent the West Bend community. Then, by refusing to honor their own policy, as stated in "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=539&invol=194" US vs. ALA, :

“Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. Appellee ALA's Library Bill of Rights states that libraries should provide "[b]ooks and other ... resources ... for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves." 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (internal quotation marks omitted). To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons. Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide "universal coverage." Id., at 421. Instead, public libraries seek to provide materials "that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community." Ibid. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have "requisite and appropriate quality." Ibid. See W. Katz, Collection Development: The Selection of Materials for Libraries 6 (1980) ("The librarian's responsibility ... is to separate out the gold from the garbage, not to preserve everything"); F. Drury, Book Selection xi (1930) ("[I]t is the aim of the selector to give the public, not everything it wants, but the best that it will read or use to advantage"); App. 636 (Rebuttal Expert Report of Donald G. Davis, Jr.) ("A hypothetical collection of everything that has been produced is not only of dubious value, but actually detrimental to users trying to find what they want to find and really need").

The citizens and parents expect our West Bend Community Memorial Library to not only seek out materials that would be the greatest direct benefit to our community, but also respect the community standards brought before them by the parents and taxpayers of West Bend.

Separating the gold from the garbage is the bottom line we are asking for.

"I try to look into my boyfriend's eyes WHILE I'm sucking. It seems to get him off faster. I also lick and suck his balls, but not too hard. If my mouth gets tired I use my hand to jerk him off for a little while until I can suck again. Don't suck too hard - I try to make my mouth feel soft but tight."

Bob, do you or do you not approve of such material for children in our public library?

Thank you for allowing me to lend some insight into your comments, Bob.

10 comments:

SafeLibraries said...

I was not at the meeting and do not know why he was so worked up. That said, it seems he did not address the relevant issues. Instead he talked about abuse, lies, malice, mean spiritedness, his inferences about child pornography, then he demanded apologies.

I look forward to seeing how he responds to your blog post.

Bob, if you are reading this, please respond to the substantive issues raised. For example, why do you believe the material in Ginny's petition is not appropriate for West Bend?

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Posted on behalf of "Nancy" who is having problems with getting post through..

"Bob Deter--husband of library board president shows how far afield we have come from the 1st Amendment and its real intent.

From my understanding the
1st Amendment was to allow for political dissent and not a debate on sexually explicit materials for children. The words "child pornography" were incorrect by the law. Maybe those wanting decency for children should have said "adolescent porn" rather than child pornography. This gets to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Deter has shown how words have meaning. Just wonder what the meaning is in the books he defends!

Words sow thoughts. Thoughts sow actions.

Actions sows behavior. Behavior sows community standards.

Just wonder what community standards Mr. Deter wants for innnocent chidren. It certainly isn't decency of mind -heart and soul for the those reading library "filth"-- NANCY

Concerned West Bend Citizen said...

Ginny: In what format did Bob Deters send you that message? Was it an e-mail, or a letter? Did he consent to you posting the contents of a personal communication online?

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

I don't believe I need intervention from a self-appointed blog administrator. Bob Deters knows the form in which he sent this note. Hmm?

Robert said...

A note to Nancy and to all in this anti-library movement. This is a feature of your movement that has bugged me from the very beginning. And it comes from my training and 30 years experience as a lawyer. I didn't make up my own definition of "child pornography." Your elected legislators did. The definition is found in the laws of the State of Wisconsin. It seems that many of the advocates of the anti-library petition are unaware of the law. When they are told what the law is-- they don't understand it. And in those very rare circumstances where they know the law and understand the law-- they don't like the law and don't seem inclined to follow it. The feeling that the law is wrong and that your idea or movement is above the law is extremely frightening.
One of the scariest comments of all at the June 2 meeting was from a man who said that man's law was wrong and that we should be following "God's law." Not now, not yet, not that man-- but when that line of thought is extended and taken to the extremes that is the mind set and attitude of misplaced righteousness that leads to criminal behavior. It is that mind set--carried to extremes-- that leads to lawlessness. I know I'll be misquoted and my comment taken out of context. It's your style. I accept that your group isn't at that point of lawlessness. But it is that attitude that leads to the murder of doctors in their church by those following their own interpretation of "God's law."
I'm limited in space on these comments, but I am preparing one or two posts to show that one basic premise of your entire campaign is improper, is against the spirit and letter of the law and is unfair. And that is-- you can't use isolated quotes to judge a book. But when I do this, you won't understand it, you won't like it, you won't obey it, and it most probably won't change your behavior or attitudes one tiny bit.

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Thank you for your comments, Bob.
Encouraging and requesting one's library to follow local law, SCOTUS, common sense and community standards does not make one
"anti-library." In fact, it shows a great interest in the integrity of what one invests in via taxation and patronage.

Our family has used the West Bend
Community Memorial Library for many, many years. It is one of our very favorite places in our city to spend time and acquire free information and entertainment! Our librarians have always acted professionally with us and we
have no complaints with them on any personal basis.

In keeping with your obvious support of the ALA standard (supported by the ACLU, as well), which dictates that it is age discrimination to keep children from accessing inappropriate material, it appears that you, Bob, are pro-ALA, pro-ACLU and anti-West Bend children.

Outside of any library, the law clearly dictates that it is forbidden and prosecutable to give inappropriate materials to children. Why, then, would we
give the thumbs up to librarians to do so??

Is it because the ALA and the ACLU
say so?

Our community standards are much higher than any ALA policy dictates.

Why are you afraid to do the right thing, Bob?

Robert said...

Anybody can set any standards that they choose to decide what is right for them to read. They can decide that books are bad if they discuss homosexuality, or contain sentences that they find too explicit. They may condemn a book if it has too many semicolons or if it has a yellow cover. Pick any criterion at all. That is the essence of the First Amendment-- the right to choose-- and the right to read. But that particular right is held by each individual privately. Your freedom to choose-- is just that --- your own. No one can take it away from you. AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM ANYONE ELSE, either. But there are over 100,000 people in Washington County. Whose standard are we to use? What limitation is the goverment allowed to place on the freedom to speak-- or to read in a public forum where all thoughts, all ideas all values are allowable--- except those which society has chosen not to protect. That protection exists for all material except that which is obscene, material harmful to children, or child pornography. And not one thing in the West Bend Community Library fits those definition.
Each person doesn't get to choose their own definition of obscenity or "harmful to children" or child pornography. The community does that through the law. Community standards come in to play when "The AVERAGE person, applying contemporary community standards, would find appeals to the prurient interest IF TAKEN AS A WHOLE. Wis. Stats. 944.21(2)(c)(1) So, the standard isn't based on any one person-- just an average person. And that person is not allowed to decide whether the material in fact appeals to a prurient interest unless it is TAKEN AS A WHOLE. When the law says the work must be "taken as a whole" (and repeats it FOUR TIMES in the Statute regarding obscenity)-- you stubbornly refuse to listen to that part, or acknowledge it or obey it. It can be told to you a hundred times and your tactic of using short excerpts will not change. Your group hasn't challenged a single whole book yet. Not one. All that has been done is that sentences and passages have been copied from websites. Let's say it again. You can't use isolated quotes. You can't follow just one portion of a sentence in the obscenity statutes, either, and ignore the rest.
Yes, I am on the side of the ALA and the ACLU. And I am on the side of the law and of fairness. And the First Amendment and the Constitution and the American way of government. And I care about children and their moral upbringing. But these books don't leap off the shelves and attack people. They are not "landmines in a playground" as stated by one speaker on June 2.They are works of literature and education, with serious merit.
I was a trial lawyer for 30 years. I saw hundreds and hundreds of witnesses take an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Your use of tiny portions of the laws, and picayune passages from books are blatant half-truths. There is another name for a half truth-- and that is --lie. Your distorting excerpts that ignore the material as a whole (Did I say yet that you can't judge a book using only excerpts?), that don't address whether the material lacks serious Artistic, literary, political, educational, or scientific value make a mockery of the law-- and of fairness.
I'll address the issue of prosecution for unsafe materil to children in another post. Stay tuned.
P.S. To the Maziarkas. Will we ever know why you used the term "child pornography" three times in your petition?

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Bob,

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the understanding of our First Amendment. I do agree with you that all adults can, and do, have the right to make choices concerning what they read, in the manner you indicated below.

Let me go back to the SCOTUS, US vs. ALA case where it states "Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it
inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to
heightened scrutiny...."

This means it is not an open public forum and anything does not go.

Despite admitting you are "pro-ALA," clearly you have not read US v. ALA, where the ALA lost monumentally.

The issue is not so much with obscenity as it is what is inappropriate for minors; therefore, using excerpts is acceptable, and not considered lying in any sense of the word.

I liked the way Owen stated this on B&S when commenting on Sund. v City of Wichita Falls http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/sund_v._city_of_wichita_falls/: "I am not a lawyer. At the same time, I think that the law and the Constitution
were drafted to serve regular people and that we the people are perfectly capable of reading the plain language of the law and the Constitution and making judgments about it. Second, I believe that we all have a responsibility to
uphold the Constitution and just because someone has a different opinion about a Constitutional issue, it doesn’t invalidate someone else’s opinion - even if one of those people is a lawyer or a judge.

We’re all people and are subject to
the same faults, so while I put more weight in a lawyer or a judge’s opinion when it comes to these matters, I don’t abandon my own capacity to think for myself."

While you have every right to embrace the ALA, I doubt that West Bend would choose the ALA over the Supreme Court.

Robert said...

I'm tired. I think I'm through with this. I cannot argue the law with non-lawyers. They get it so maddeningly and frustratingly wrong- wrong -wrong. No, Owen. Your opinion on the Constitution is NOT as good as a judges. We elect or appoint judges because they know the law and the legal process. If everyone's opinion about the Constitution were as valid as everyone else's (judge or not judge) then all you have is anarchy. There is no rule of law if there are no standards or rules-- just individual opinions. A judge's opinion about the Constitution is binding upon all citizens. Your individual opinion binds no one. A judges opinion has the force of law. Your opinion has only the force of air that activated your vocal cords.
Here is another major- major problem with any of you non-lawyers quoting legal opinions. You get it wrong. Every time. There is a concept in the law that language in an opinion that is not directly related to the ruling is something called "dicta." "Dicta" is the legal equivalent of fluff. It is not really what the case is about. Judges, and especially Appeals Court judge, get extremely angry when "dicta" is cited as being the heart of a case. it is not. You cite "dicta" from the ALA case that is really about an extraneous matter. You keep saying the ALA got beaten in the CIPA case, but the Court's ruling was so limited in its application that the net effect was an ALA win. Remember, the ALA had won the two previous cases in our conservative Supreme Court where the Online Decency Act and the Children's Online Protection Act were both thrown out and found unconstitutional. And CIPA would have been unconstitutional also if all libraries were mandated to follow it, rather than just using it for limited funding purposes.
There were several lawyers-- including Library Board member James Pouros who spoke on behalf of the library on June 2. It says something about the correctness of your legal stance that no one who knows anything about the law-- agrees with you or is on your side. There are so many lawyers out there. Can't you find just one lawyer that can try and help you present a legal case that makes sense? Is there not even one knowledgeable person in this area that agrees with you? Because your legal arguments are gibberish.
P.S. I see you are still pushing your failed petition. Can you explain to me why it still repeatedly contains the vile term "child pornography" in it? In my comments on June 2, I thought your inclusion of the term might only be attributable to arrogant ignorance. But your continual use of it with full knowledge of its legal import now has crossed into the realm of malice. And I am still waiting for that apology.

SafeLibraries said...

Robert, do realize you sound as arrogant as you do?

And you are just plain wrong, and provable so. It's particularly bad when you say, "I cannot argue the law with non-lawyers. They get it so maddeningly and frustratingly wrong- wrong -wrong."

Okay, let's look at your statements. "You keep saying the ALA got beaten in the CIPA case, but the Court's ruling was so limited in its application that the net effect was an ALA win."

An ALA win, you say. Okay, would the Library Journal be a sufficient authority to prove just how full of total hubris you are? Let's look:

Regarding the CIPA case, "The legal triumph was small, but the victory for principle was huge." Again, years later: "The legal triumph was small, but the victory for the principle was enormous."

Great. Spend over a million dollars, the legal gain is "small," and Robert calls that a win for the ALA.

Need anything else be said about how Robert is fooling people into thinking black is white?