Open Letter to Illinois Legislators RE: HB 1727 and ILA Misinformation
Thursday, May 10, 2007
By Dan Kleinman
- SafeLibraries.org
Dear Illinois Legislators,
Regarding HB 1727 testimony before the Illinois House Judiciary/Civil Law Committee on March 14, 2007 and subsequent communications, members of the Illinois Library Association [ILA] and others made serious misrepresentations and omissions of fact. I will specify the most egregious of such instances, then provide the truth directly from source documentation.
The ILA Miscasts the Bill's Language
Kip Kolkmeier of the ILA said, "In US v. ALA, ... two of the five [Justices] in the majority opinion stated that it would be unconstitutional if adult library patrons were required to explain the legitimate reason for a site to be unblocked. That is precisely what this bill does." Kip Kolkmeier is wrong. That is not what the bill does.
Let's look at the bill:
But let us all admit the language "upon an adult's request to use the computer for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose" can be confusing. It may make it appear to some, because of the immediate juxtaposition of the concepts, as if the adult is required to give a legitimate reason. But that is not the case precisely because, of the two ways to read the language, US v. ALA makes it clear that one of those ways is unconstitutional.
Requiring a person to provide a reason is unconstitutional. They need only ask and the librarian will act accordingly. Only if it is later determined the request was made for an unlawful purpose can the filter be reapplied, and this is totally consonant with US v. ALA. I urge all legislators to read US v. ALA if they have not already done so--do not rely on the ILA to do this for you.
HB 1727's language cannot be interpreted in a way inconsistent with the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Children's Internet Protection Act. Therefore, the ILA's reading of the language cannot be correct under principles of statutory construction. Kolkmeier's claim that "precisely what this bill does" is unconstitutional is 100 percent false.
Perhaps it may be wise to separate the two concepts, but they are both totally appropriate and constitutional. For example, the following language could be substituted therefor: "disablement of the technology protection measure for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose by an employee of the public library upon an adult's request to use the computer." This was accomplished merely by repositioning the phrase "for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose." The resulting language is much clearer and obviates any concern that the bill's language may eventually be found unconstitutional.
Local Library Control is Often Impossible Making HB1727 a Necessity
Moving on to the testimony of Tamiye Meehan, the president of the Illinois Library Association [ILA], we will see that the ILA, through Meehan, provided the Legislature with completely incorrect information again and again. It is a shame she could not make arguments to support her case that were truthful. It would be more of a shame for legislators to base decisions on HB 1727 on such false information based on the mistaken belief that the ILA is the most reliable authority. Again I will specify the ILA falsehoods, provide the truthful information, and the sources for that information, some of which may be shocking.
The ILA's main argument is that HB 1727 is not needed since libraries are under local control and a state law usurps local control. It is an argument that makes sense if it were true. Unfortunately, and again as a result of the ILA/ALA's own actions, many libraries are not under local control with respect to the issue HB 1727 seeks to address.
Local control is often impossible. Literally impossible. Literally as a direct result of the ALA's directives and even direct intervention. HB 1727 as a result is the only way that local control can be returned to local libraries. Should HB 1727 become law, citizens can get what they have expressly requested that has be stymied again and again by the librarians adhering to ILA/ALA policy instead of adhering to local control. Should HB 1727 fail, libraries will remain under the control of the ILA/ALA and citizens will have no recourse. None. Literally, the libraries have policies that explicitly and specifically require librarians to follow ALA policy, not community policy. HB 1727 is therefore required to return local control to local citizens.
Those statements I just made are pretty strong and sound hyperbolic. Sadly, they are not. I will now provide the specific details to back up each and every claim. Let's start with Oak Lawn, IL, the reason SafeLibraries.org was formed in the first place. Now I will try to make a long story short, and again it is only long because of the Oak Lawn Public Library's acts and omissions.
Mark Decker, decency advocate from Oak Lawn, was in the library and was shocked to see Playboy magazine being read with children nearby. Indeed the library's policy is to make Playboy magazine available to children, although they must ask for specific pages which will then be photocopied. [Sources linked HERE]
Decker asked the library to remove the magazine. The library refused. He obtained the signatures of hundreds of people. The library still refused. He obtained an independent survey showing the public by 87 percent wanted it removed. [Source linked HERE]
Finally, the Village of Oak Lawn itslef issued a letter to the public library. The library still refused. Why? The library's director is an ALA Council member who claimed that Mr. Decker and other "censorship" people were "embellishing their own heroic image as defenders of public virtue."
The ALA's President, Michael Gorman, said,
To permanently record the ILA's misinformation, included below is the entirety of the ILA's "ACTION ALERT" dated 10 April 2007 entitled, "Last Chance to Mobilize Opposition to House Bill 1727, Mandatory Internet Filters on All Public and School Library Computers."
The ILA's main point is that "local control" would be "overruled" by HB 1727. As discussed previously, local control is literally impossible, such as in the Village of Oak Lawn's failure to have its public library remove Playboy magazine and stop children from being able to access the magazine while the very top members of the ALA got involved to ensure children retained their access to Playboy. Essentially, HB 1727 returns control from the ILA/ALA to the local governments. That local control is why the ILA is willing to mislead to protect and ensure its own control over public libraries like in Oak Lawn. Why? To follow the ALA official policy:
The Remainder of the ILA Arguments Are Similarly False and Misleading
Filters hurt libraries. The truth is libraries following ILA/ALA policy are turning down hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to maintain unfiltered Internet access.
The truth is as a result of such unfiltered Internet access, besides the loss of significant federal funding year after year, children are being raped and molested nationwide. Illinois legislators need look no further that the investigative reports produced by CBS and reporter Dave Savini.
The truth, is libraries like in Oak Lawn are defying local control and exposing the entire community to potential liability for allowing ILA/ALA control to prevent the use of filters that may have saved children and even adult victims from harm caused by the criminals attracted to the unfiltered computers. When that potential Oak Lawn victim finally sues, is the Village government's fear of ALA/ACLU lawsuit enough to justify why the Village took no further action to protect its citizens from the ILA/ALA's grip over the local population? HB 1727 will the very bill needed to avoid these very problems. Claiming filters hurt libraries because HB 1727 is an "unfunded mandate" without providing the truth is misleading at best.
Filters do not work. This ILA/ALA claim is just plain knowingly false. The ILA specifically states, "Study after study has demonstrated that filters consistently block important information on science, health, political, and social issues and regularly allow objectionable material to get through," then claims this is another liability risk. This is knowingly false. Either the ILA is providing knowingly false information, or the ILA is behind the times. Either way the ILA cannot be considered authoritative. Is that some recourse for people who knowingly provide false information to Illinois state legislators?
The ACLU's own expert, in a federal case decided in March, said essentially that filters are about 95 percent effective and they no longer block out breast cancer and other health information. And the judge agreed! Indeed, COPA, the Children's Online Protection Act, was found unconstitutional precisely because Internet filters had much improved and where deemed the preferable means to protect children on the Internet! This is in ACLU v. Gonzales from March 2007, yet a month later the ILA is telling people to call the legislature in droves to tell you filters do not work? Either the ILA has seriously misinformed the legislators or the ILA has purposely lied to the legislators, but either way the ILA must not be considered authoritative.
Filters are expensive is misleading. They are not. But even given the ILA's figures of $3,000 per year, that is less than the money turned down in otherwise available federal funding but for the library's adherence to ILA/ALA policy to avoid filtering the Internet despite CIPA, US v. ALA, and community request.
Filters are inflexible. This claim assumes the legislators to totally clueless. "Filters don't know if the person using the computer is 5, 21, or 65." Well no kidding! That is why HB 1727 allows patrons to ask for the filters to be temporarily disabled! Being able to disable the filters is why the US Supreme Court found CIPA to be constitutional and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found COPA to be unconstitutional. Is the ILA more authoritative then those Courts? That is what the ILA wants legislators to believe, and it what you would have to believe to follow the ILA's advice regarding HB 1727.
Filters are biased. Can you believe the ILA is making this argument? Have the filters become anthropomorphic? Again, the ILA is behind the times. They must be aware of what the cases have been saying but choose to mislead you into thinking filters are biased because they are made by software companies protecting trade secrets. Is there any other way to make a filter? Has not the courts already asked and answered this concern? Of course they have, and of course the ILA is simply attempting to mislead you, again.
Filters hurt the poor. Really? Are poor people more entitled to the material HB 1727 seeks to block than rich people? Will poor people be unable to use a public library as it was designed to be used and as the courts allow it to be used because filters will block out inappropriate sites 95 percent of the time? Exactly what is the ILA saying about poor people? More importantly, exactly how much reliance can Illinois legislators place on the ILA's guidance when the ILA is so blatantly exploiting poor people?
Despite Mollifying Words, the ILA is NOT Concerned for the Safety of Children, As Evidence By Its Own Actions
"One of the primary concerns of the library community is the safety of children." This is not true. Yes, almost all local librarians want children to be safe, but the library community largely adheres to the dictates of the ILA/ALA. When the 40 year de facto leader of the ALA got involved in the Oak Lawn matter to ensure children maintained access to Playboy magazine, she said, and I quote, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children. I am adult. I want available what I need to see." See "Oak Lawn Library Vows to Keep Playboy on Shelf" by Jo Napolitano, Chicago Tribune (23 June 2005).
The top leader of the ALA's top office for ensuring "equal access" for children says this in Oak Lawn, and we are supposed to believe the ILA when it says it is concerned for the safety of children? If it were so concerned, it would use all available, legal tools at its disposal, such as Internet filters. But it does not. Instead the ILA merely wants children to be trained to make the proper judgments for themselves, a solution that totally ignores the issue of the criminals preying upon the children, as Dave Savini and other investigative reporters have shown again and again.
And that is precisely why HB 1727 is so urgently needed--to protect the children from harm caused by a lack of local control over public libraries due to the direct involvement of interested groups including the ILA and the ALA.
Conclusion
Please, Illinois legislators, consider well what I have presented for your edification. Think about the ILA's influence and how its misinformation is spread into community after community. [E.g., St. Charles Public Library;
Kankakee Public Library; Geneva Public Library]
Do what you think is best, not for me, and not for the ILA, but for the citizens you represent, the citizens powerless to control their own public libraries but for the intercession of HB 1727. The ILA has only itself to blame for the need for a bill like HB 1727 in the first place. As Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune said, "This is a parent empowerment act, which would help create a safer environment for their children when they are in their libraries."
Respectfully submitted,
Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries.org
 |
Dear Illinois Legislators,
Regarding HB 1727 testimony before the Illinois House Judiciary/Civil Law Committee on March 14, 2007 and subsequent communications, members of the Illinois Library Association [ILA] and others made serious misrepresentations and omissions of fact. I will specify the most egregious of such instances, then provide the truth directly from source documentation.
The ILA Miscasts the Bill's Language
Kip Kolkmeier of the ILA said, "In US v. ALA, ... two of the five [Justices] in the majority opinion stated that it would be unconstitutional if adult library patrons were required to explain the legitimate reason for a site to be unblocked. That is precisely what this bill does." Kip Kolkmeier is wrong. That is not what the bill does.
Let's look at the bill:
Section 15. Public library Internet safety policy. Each public library must create and enforce an Internet safety policy that provides for the:The bill does not require a person to give any explanation whatsoever. It simply requires that only library employees may disable the filters. The bill also requires that filters may be disabled "for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose." This is in total consonance with US v. ALA.(2) disablement of the technology protection measure by an employee of the public library upon an adult's request to use the computer for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose.
But let us all admit the language "upon an adult's request to use the computer for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose" can be confusing. It may make it appear to some, because of the immediate juxtaposition of the concepts, as if the adult is required to give a legitimate reason. But that is not the case precisely because, of the two ways to read the language, US v. ALA makes it clear that one of those ways is unconstitutional.
Requiring a person to provide a reason is unconstitutional. They need only ask and the librarian will act accordingly. Only if it is later determined the request was made for an unlawful purpose can the filter be reapplied, and this is totally consonant with US v. ALA. I urge all legislators to read US v. ALA if they have not already done so--do not rely on the ILA to do this for you.
HB 1727's language cannot be interpreted in a way inconsistent with the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Children's Internet Protection Act. Therefore, the ILA's reading of the language cannot be correct under principles of statutory construction. Kolkmeier's claim that "precisely what this bill does" is unconstitutional is 100 percent false.
Perhaps it may be wise to separate the two concepts, but they are both totally appropriate and constitutional. For example, the following language could be substituted therefor: "disablement of the technology protection measure for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose by an employee of the public library upon an adult's request to use the computer." This was accomplished merely by repositioning the phrase "for legitimate research or some other lawful purpose." The resulting language is much clearer and obviates any concern that the bill's language may eventually be found unconstitutional.
Local Library Control is Often Impossible Making HB1727 a Necessity
Moving on to the testimony of Tamiye Meehan, the president of the Illinois Library Association [ILA], we will see that the ILA, through Meehan, provided the Legislature with completely incorrect information again and again. It is a shame she could not make arguments to support her case that were truthful. It would be more of a shame for legislators to base decisions on HB 1727 on such false information based on the mistaken belief that the ILA is the most reliable authority. Again I will specify the ILA falsehoods, provide the truthful information, and the sources for that information, some of which may be shocking.
The ILA's main argument is that HB 1727 is not needed since libraries are under local control and a state law usurps local control. It is an argument that makes sense if it were true. Unfortunately, and again as a result of the ILA/ALA's own actions, many libraries are not under local control with respect to the issue HB 1727 seeks to address.
Local control is often impossible. Literally impossible. Literally as a direct result of the ALA's directives and even direct intervention. HB 1727 as a result is the only way that local control can be returned to local libraries. Should HB 1727 become law, citizens can get what they have expressly requested that has be stymied again and again by the librarians adhering to ILA/ALA policy instead of adhering to local control. Should HB 1727 fail, libraries will remain under the control of the ILA/ALA and citizens will have no recourse. None. Literally, the libraries have policies that explicitly and specifically require librarians to follow ALA policy, not community policy. HB 1727 is therefore required to return local control to local citizens.
Those statements I just made are pretty strong and sound hyperbolic. Sadly, they are not. I will now provide the specific details to back up each and every claim. Let's start with Oak Lawn, IL, the reason SafeLibraries.org was formed in the first place. Now I will try to make a long story short, and again it is only long because of the Oak Lawn Public Library's acts and omissions.
Mark Decker, decency advocate from Oak Lawn, was in the library and was shocked to see Playboy magazine being read with children nearby. Indeed the library's policy is to make Playboy magazine available to children, although they must ask for specific pages which will then be photocopied. [Sources linked HERE]
Decker asked the library to remove the magazine. The library refused. He obtained the signatures of hundreds of people. The library still refused. He obtained an independent survey showing the public by 87 percent wanted it removed. [Source linked HERE]
Finally, the Village of Oak Lawn itslef issued a letter to the public library. The library still refused. Why? The library's director is an ALA Council member who claimed that Mr. Decker and other "censorship" people were "embellishing their own heroic image as defenders of public virtue."
The ALA's President, Michael Gorman, said,
"Dear Jim:And Judith Krug, the 40 year de facto leader of the ALA, Mayor Dave Heilmann yourselves to learn just how little the ILA/ALA cares about local control. Mayor Heilmann;s telephone number is (708) 499-7740; sorry Mayor but the legislators need the truth for such an important decision.
Please convey to the President and members of the Oak Lawn Public Library Board my admiration of, and thanks for, their principled stance against would-be censors and self-appointed arbiters of what may not be read and viewed by the patrons of your library."
To permanently record the ILA's misinformation, included below is the entirety of the ILA's "ACTION ALERT" dated 10 April 2007 entitled, "Last Chance to Mobilize Opposition to House Bill 1727, Mandatory Internet Filters on All Public and School Library Computers."
The ILA's main point is that "local control" would be "overruled" by HB 1727. As discussed previously, local control is literally impossible, such as in the Village of Oak Lawn's failure to have its public library remove Playboy magazine and stop children from being able to access the magazine while the very top members of the ALA got involved to ensure children retained their access to Playboy. Essentially, HB 1727 returns control from the ILA/ALA to the local governments. That local control is why the ILA is willing to mislead to protect and ensure its own control over public libraries like in Oak Lawn. Why? To follow the ALA official policy:"ALA affirms the right of youth to comprehensive, sex-related ... materials...; affirms the active role of librarians in providing such; and urges librarians and library educators to re-examine existing policies and practices and assume a leadership role in seeing that information is available for children and adolescents...."Are you beginning to understand why HB1727 is essential for returning local control back to the citizens?
The Remainder of the ILA Arguments Are Similarly False and Misleading
Filters hurt libraries. The truth is libraries following ILA/ALA policy are turning down hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to maintain unfiltered Internet access.
The truth is as a result of such unfiltered Internet access, besides the loss of significant federal funding year after year, children are being raped and molested nationwide. Illinois legislators need look no further that the investigative reports produced by CBS and reporter Dave Savini.
The truth, is libraries like in Oak Lawn are defying local control and exposing the entire community to potential liability for allowing ILA/ALA control to prevent the use of filters that may have saved children and even adult victims from harm caused by the criminals attracted to the unfiltered computers. When that potential Oak Lawn victim finally sues, is the Village government's fear of ALA/ACLU lawsuit enough to justify why the Village took no further action to protect its citizens from the ILA/ALA's grip over the local population? HB 1727 will the very bill needed to avoid these very problems. Claiming filters hurt libraries because HB 1727 is an "unfunded mandate" without providing the truth is misleading at best.
Filters do not work. This ILA/ALA claim is just plain knowingly false. The ILA specifically states, "Study after study has demonstrated that filters consistently block important information on science, health, political, and social issues and regularly allow objectionable material to get through," then claims this is another liability risk. This is knowingly false. Either the ILA is providing knowingly false information, or the ILA is behind the times. Either way the ILA cannot be considered authoritative. Is that some recourse for people who knowingly provide false information to Illinois state legislators?
The ACLU's own expert, in a federal case decided in March, said essentially that filters are about 95 percent effective and they no longer block out breast cancer and other health information. And the judge agreed! Indeed, COPA, the Children's Online Protection Act, was found unconstitutional precisely because Internet filters had much improved and where deemed the preferable means to protect children on the Internet! This is in ACLU v. Gonzales from March 2007, yet a month later the ILA is telling people to call the legislature in droves to tell you filters do not work? Either the ILA has seriously misinformed the legislators or the ILA has purposely lied to the legislators, but either way the ILA must not be considered authoritative.
Filters are expensive is misleading. They are not. But even given the ILA's figures of $3,000 per year, that is less than the money turned down in otherwise available federal funding but for the library's adherence to ILA/ALA policy to avoid filtering the Internet despite CIPA, US v. ALA, and community request.
Filters are inflexible. This claim assumes the legislators to totally clueless. "Filters don't know if the person using the computer is 5, 21, or 65." Well no kidding! That is why HB 1727 allows patrons to ask for the filters to be temporarily disabled! Being able to disable the filters is why the US Supreme Court found CIPA to be constitutional and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found COPA to be unconstitutional. Is the ILA more authoritative then those Courts? That is what the ILA wants legislators to believe, and it what you would have to believe to follow the ILA's advice regarding HB 1727.
Filters are biased. Can you believe the ILA is making this argument? Have the filters become anthropomorphic? Again, the ILA is behind the times. They must be aware of what the cases have been saying but choose to mislead you into thinking filters are biased because they are made by software companies protecting trade secrets. Is there any other way to make a filter? Has not the courts already asked and answered this concern? Of course they have, and of course the ILA is simply attempting to mislead you, again.
Filters hurt the poor. Really? Are poor people more entitled to the material HB 1727 seeks to block than rich people? Will poor people be unable to use a public library as it was designed to be used and as the courts allow it to be used because filters will block out inappropriate sites 95 percent of the time? Exactly what is the ILA saying about poor people? More importantly, exactly how much reliance can Illinois legislators place on the ILA's guidance when the ILA is so blatantly exploiting poor people?
Despite Mollifying Words, the ILA is NOT Concerned for the Safety of Children, As Evidence By Its Own Actions
"One of the primary concerns of the library community is the safety of children." This is not true. Yes, almost all local librarians want children to be safe, but the library community largely adheres to the dictates of the ILA/ALA. When the 40 year de facto leader of the ALA got involved in the Oak Lawn matter to ensure children maintained access to Playboy magazine, she said, and I quote, "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children. I am adult. I want available what I need to see." See "Oak Lawn Library Vows to Keep Playboy on Shelf" by Jo Napolitano, Chicago Tribune (23 June 2005).
The top leader of the ALA's top office for ensuring "equal access" for children says this in Oak Lawn, and we are supposed to believe the ILA when it says it is concerned for the safety of children? If it were so concerned, it would use all available, legal tools at its disposal, such as Internet filters. But it does not. Instead the ILA merely wants children to be trained to make the proper judgments for themselves, a solution that totally ignores the issue of the criminals preying upon the children, as Dave Savini and other investigative reporters have shown again and again.
And that is precisely why HB 1727 is so urgently needed--to protect the children from harm caused by a lack of local control over public libraries due to the direct involvement of interested groups including the ILA and the ALA.
Conclusion
Please, Illinois legislators, consider well what I have presented for your edification. Think about the ILA's influence and how its misinformation is spread into community after community. [E.g., St. Charles Public Library;
Kankakee Public Library; Geneva Public Library]
Do what you think is best, not for me, and not for the ILA, but for the citizens you represent, the citizens powerless to control their own public libraries but for the intercession of HB 1727. The ILA has only itself to blame for the need for a bill like HB 1727 in the first place. As Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune said, "This is a parent empowerment act, which would help create a safer environment for their children when they are in their libraries."
Respectfully submitted,
Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries.org