Wausau Library Censors Movie - Defies ALA Policy

In an odd twist of fate, the Wausau Library has been in the midst of a battle concerning the use of a meeting room for a movie. Thanks to the Pro-Life Thomas More Society lawyers, the victory actually went to the taxpayers.

While here in West Bend our librarians were so afraid of a parent's request to protect minor children from porn that they called in the ALA themselves, in Wausau they are doing just the opposite!

Dan Kleinman, Safelibraries.org, states:

Public library meeting room policy apparently depends on the political whims of library directors. Contrast two recent incidents. In Litchfield, CT, a library refused to prevent a talk by an anti-Semitic speaker. On the other hand, in Wausau, WI, a library canceled the showing of an anti-abortion movie.

West Bend says, "All things for all people, regardless of age."

Litchfield, CT, says, "All things for all people, unless it doesn't fit our political agenda."

Wausau says, "Ditto what Litchfield says."

Or is that what West Bend was saying all along? YOU decide.

Deborah? Wherefore art thou, Deborah?

Censorship - a bunch of "Non Cense"

I read this interesting court case today about censorship called Ginzburg v. United States.  It supports what I have been saying all along about protecting children from inappropriate materials.  Someone who claims to be against censorship tried using this court case to support his viewpoint.  If one didn't do the research, he would almost be believable!  


Censorship-Free Libraries seems to be confused about the usage of this case to lend credibility to his cause.  Or is he?  

He posts this much of the case HERE:

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand. So it is that the Constitution protects coarse expression as well as refined, and vulgarity no less than elegance. A book worthless to me may convey something of value to my neighbor. In the free society to which our Constitution has committed us, it is for each to choose for himself."

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

In his dissenting opinion, Ginzburg v. United States

383 US 463 (1965)

HTTP://CENSORFREELIB.BLOGSPOT.COM

Here is the interesting thing about this post on a blog that opposes "censorship."  (I oppose censorship, too, by the way!  When it comes to protecting children from inappropriate materials, we know that even the Supreme Court has lent it's support in acknowledging it to be "legitimate and even compelling" to do so.)


Non Censor (the blog owner) fails to provide the footnotes to the quote!  Why?  Because the footnote indicates and affirms that the quote does not support the opposition of censorship! 


Read the footnote for yourself:

[ Footnote 1 ] Different constitutional questions would arise in a case involving an assault upon individual privacy by publication in a manner so blatant or obtrusive as to make it difficult or impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it. Cf. e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 ; Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 ; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 . Still other considerations might come into play with respect to laws limited in their effect to those deemed insufficiently adult to make an informed choice. No such issues were tendered in this case.



Look at the last two sentences:  "Still other considerations might come into play with respect to laws limited in their effect to those deemed insufficiently adult to make an informed choice. No such issues were tendered in this case."

Non Censor makes the point again and again that keeping inappropriate material from children is censorship.  In this blog post he says nothing, but presents a quote.  The quote makes it appear, indirectly, that keeping inappropriate material from children is censorship and Non Censor is correct.  But he leaves out the footnote.  That footnote specifically exempts the case of "those deemed insufficiently adult to make an informed choice."  Non Censor deliberately left that part out.  If Non Censor were a real lawyer, this kind of thing might be called malpractice, and worse.

What a disgrace.  What a fraud.


Now let's turn the tables a little and take a look at the American Library Association's (ALA's) own Deborah Caldwell-Stone.


The tactics appear, well, similar if not identical.  Misleading, fraudulent, false misrepresentation.  Caldwell-Stone practiced her stratagem on the citizens, parents and taxpayers of WEST BEND, WISCONSIN.  We will not forget.


Here's a tidbit from Dan Kleinman at SafeLibraries.org discussing that issue:

"Lest anyone think it is always censorship to move or remove books in a public library, and if Caldwell-Stone's own comments aren't convincing enough in the context of moving books, consider what the former de factoALA leader said in the context of removing books: "On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there." Get it out of there! If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there! Censorship! The ALA believes in censorship!

So the ALA president wrote a totally misleading and propagandistic piece in an effort to fool the West Bend government into doing what the ALA wanted, not what the community wanted."


Kleinman goes on to state "You know what is really outrageous about this? The ALA continues to push its policies on local communities despite having lost on this very issue in the US Supreme Court in 2003. What once used to be a theory that might have been legitimate lost its legitimacy when the ALA lost on the issue six years ago. Yet the ALA continues to insist that anything goes.

In US v. ALA, the US Supreme Court said, "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."

Contrast that with the ALA and Deborah Caldwell-Stone. They say the exact opposite. They say protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is not legitimate and not compelling. They say it is actually censorship.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, though, does it?  Just take a look at how Caldwell-Stone's, and Non Censor's, activities mimic the battle cry of the former (now deceased) leader of the ALA, Judith Krug, who once stated ""Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"

ALA ACLU CENSOR Miami School Board over Cuban Book - LOSES BATTLE IN SCHOOL LIBRARY

From the mouths of babes.


It appears the ACLU, with it's cohort ALA (American Library Association), were pounding on a Florida school in order to keep a book that the school board wanted removed from the school library, citing it "presented an inaccurate picture of life in Cuba." The original complaint was filed by a former political prisoner of Cuba.  Whether this information about the book itself is true or not, I can't say, but I find it ironic that the very same organizations that came into West Bend, demanded their version of FREE SPEECH, then CENSORED community standards, has taken their battle to Miami to do the same - AND LOST.  




School board members in Miami have won their battle to remove a children's book from the shelves of Miami-Dade school libraries because they said the book presented an inaccurate picture of life in Cuba.
...
The board majority said the book was inaccurate and contained several omissions about life in Cuba under Fidel Castro....
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida had appealed to the high court to overturn the 11th Circuit decision.
...
The action lets stand a 2-1 ruling by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals that the school board's decision to remove the book was not censorship in violation of the First Amendment. Instead, the Atlanta-based appeals court said the school board was seeking to remove the book because it contained substantial factual inaccuracies.


He (ACLU Exec. Dir. Howard Simon) added, "If that is to become the new standard for censoring books from public library shelves, the ACLU may be immersed in censorship battles for years to come."


Bring it on!


I think Cuba would gladly welcome the ACLU and ALA.  Perhaps they should consider relocating.


Here is the ALA commentary:


Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, told American Libraries,“Naturally we are disappointed with this decision. The book ban is unconstitutional, and we will continue to support the ACLU’s efforts to return the books to the shelves of the Miami-Dade school libraries.” ALA’s Freedom to Read Foundation had filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF file) for the plaintiffs in ACLU of Florida v. Miami-Dade School Board, along with Reforma and other groups.

Source: "Appeals Court: Miami-Dade Book Ban Isn't Censorship," by ALA, American Libraries, 11 February 2009.