Dear Legislator,

I am a member of SafeLibraries.org, along with Mark Decker. I have been working for over six years to educate the public about the activities of the American Library Association [ALA] that may harm children. This started when my kindergartner was given a sexually inappropriate book on the fourth day of public school by an ALA librarian using an ALA list of books recommended for kindergartners. Mark Decker has been involved for at least two years regarding his effort to stop the Oak Lawn Public Library from making Playboy magazine available to children for copies. It still does.

The purpose of this letter is to support HB1727 introduced 2/22/2007 by Rep. Kevin Joyce, appending 30 ILCS 105 /5.675 and 805/8.31, entitled the "Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act." More importantly, I wish to bring to your attention important issues that may help you decide whether or not to support HB1727.

Respecting your time, I will try to keep this short.

Considerations that support the "Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act":

1) Knowing similar laws have failed to pass again and again, you must also know times have changed. Now the US Supreme Court expressly allows for such filters. It says they are constitutional. Says they do not violate First Amendment rights. Says they are not censorship. Says they may be used to wrap existing book selection policies around the Internet. Says the public library is not an open public forum where anything goes. If you hear otherwise, like that filters are censorship or they may violate people's rights, that is not the law. YOU MUST READ US v. ALA TO UNDERSTAND ISSUES ALREADY ASKED AND ANSWERED. Get it here

2) Dave Savini's multiple news reports show crimes in progress in Illinois libraries, and show the library is actively engaged in preventing the involvement of the authorities regarding various crimes in progress. Further, the libraries thwart efforts of the police to investigate crimes. The use of the Internet filters takes that out of the hands of the librarians so potential crimes are significantly precluded. Representation of the people, not only library associations, is what government does. Passage of the proposed law allows the government to act on behalf of the public, not the special interests.

3) The American Library Association is headquartered in Chicago, IL. It sets the agenda nationwide in many public libraries in fact, though it says it does not. The effect of the ALA's home state Legislature passing an Internet filtering law will send a powerful message nationwide that US v. ALA is more important than the American Library Association's claims in denial of US v. ALA, a case it itself lost, and a message that the ALA is not more powerful than the people of the state.

4) The American Library Association is a well oiled machine expert in the ways of leading legislators to advance the ALA's interests instead of the public's interests. For example, the ALA or its state entities will send out emails to all of its thousands of members to apply pressure to legislators, while the general public has no such machine/representation. Result? Legislators are misled as to the true nature of the problem and the public's hope for a solution. For example, see www.plan2succeed.org for an Illinois Library Association email to "several of our email lists." It features the head of the ILA urging all members to oppose filtering legislation using specifically suggested false information. No doubt this has occurred again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Don't be fooled again.

Oh wait, you *are* being fooled again! WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE! Compare the above from about two years ago with this from right now: http://capwiz.com/ila/callalert/index.tt?alertid=9457886 IT'S THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE, AND IT'S FALSE, KNOWINGLY FALSE! DO NOT BE MISLED! HOW CAN YOU TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY?

5) You, the Legislature, you are the only hope of the public. Local control of libraries is impossible. SafeLibraries.org was founded to stop the taxpayer-supported provision of Playboy magazine to children. Mark Decker asked the library to remove it. No. He got over seven hundred signatures from one newspaper advertisement. No. He got an independent survey showing 87 percent of people did not want Playboy in the library. No. The Village of Oak Lawn itself even asked the library to reconsider. No. Each time either an ALA Councilor, the ALA President, or the de facto forty decade leader of the ALA got directly involved to ensure ALA policy triumphed. To this day, Oak Lawn, IL still has Playboy available for children. And the Mayor is afraid to act further for fear of litigation costs. The point? Local control is impossible. The ILA makes "local control" its top "talking point," and it's just that, talk, no action. You, the Legislature, must act to protect citizens from similar fears and similar ALA control. Passing the proposed law is the right remedy in the right way at the right time following the right case, namely, US v. ALA.

6) Please, do I have to say there is no right to p()rn in the public library? The ALA says there is, the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA says there isn't. Do you follow the ALA or the US Supreme Court? Yes, libraries must disable filters upon adult request, but that does not mean viewing p()rn must be allowed in libraries. US v. ALA points out filters may be used to stop this very problem.

7) Finally, let us be clear this is not a left/ right, conservative/liberal issue. Politicians of all stripes are both for and against filtering software. Do not let the political persuasion of those making arguments color your view of what is being said and what is actually right and wrong for the people of Illinois.

In summary, passage of the "Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act" is 1) ripe in light of US v. ALA, 2) keeps many crimes the libraries are not reporting according to investigative news reports from occurring in the first place, 3) sends a powerful message nationwide that ALA power is limited even in its home state, 4) demonstrates that the Legislature does not appreciate the same misinformation being used year after year despite its being incorrect, 5) returns true local control to the taxpayers despite claims taxpayers already have it, 6) illustrates Internet p()rn is not acceptable in public libraries, and 7) comports with the wishes of people from all political persuasions. Please consider well what I have said, as well as the hyperlinked documents, and especially, US v. ALA.

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries.org

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format