tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post8693493191077760871..comments2023-10-30T03:14:52.933-05:00Comments on Library Stories: Libraries & Librarians in the News: Book Reflection - Books on TrialAdrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00725007436340764187noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post-65390393888440331552007-12-30T21:24:00.000-06:002007-12-30T21:24:00.000-06:00Adri, I'm reading that link you gave me. It's Ada...Adri, <BR/><BR/>I'm reading that link you gave me. It's <A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200209/ai_n9088077/print" REL="nofollow">Adamson herself detailing the details</A>, and it's even worse (as in containing more damning details) than the complaint.<BR/><BR/>People, go read it.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post-5043805609014824412007-12-30T14:14:00.000-06:002007-12-30T14:14:00.000-06:00Excellent post, again. Based on what you said, I ...Excellent post, again. Based on what you said, I may buy that book. <BR/><BR/>In the meantime, see if "<A HREF="http://www.fflibraries.org/The_Internet_And_the_Seduction_of_the_American_Public_Library.html" REL="nofollow">The Internet and the Seduction of the American Public Library</A>" is of any value to you, your work, and the subject generally.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post-27381593861908462332007-12-30T13:41:00.000-06:002007-12-30T13:41:00.000-06:00:)Individuals can be ill-prepared in a myriad of t...:)<BR/><BR/>Individuals can be ill-prepared in a myriad of things. And as my grandpa says, "Some folks will cut their nose off to spite their face". I contend the administration in the case you bring up <EM>was</EM> ill-prepared in so much that they couldn't see how their utopian vision of access to information fitted in to the reality of a particular public library's deviant patron behavior.<BR/><BR/>Actually it goes hand in hand with what <EM>Books on Trial</EM> revealed of those who worked for the 1930 - 40s US Communist Party. In <EM>Books on Trial</EM> the CPUSA members held on to the purist ideal of communism and how it could help the working man hit hard during the Depression, as well as, the blacks faced with Jim Crow laws in Oklahoma and throughout the US -- many turned a blind eye to, didn't criticize, and or couldn't comprehend the oxymoron-ness of the CPUSA affiliation to the Stalin Soviet Union. In fact of all the tried individuals (save for 1) eventually left the CPUSA but continued their works for the public good. And while the CPUSA members turned a blind eye to Stalin those prosecuting them in the OKC legal system turned a blind eye to the witch-hunt, violation of civil rights, unlawful trial conduct, etc that they were engaged in...both sides got lost in their zealousness.<BR/><BR/>Please don't think I'm comparing ALA to the CPUSA (although I'm sure some view them of the same ilk) -- instead I'm trying show that, at times, individuals on both sides of an issue let their ideologies get the best of them and sometimes it takes an EEOC lawsuit or an unjust trial of innocent individuals to encourage everyone to make a reality check.<BR/><BR/>And thank you for the comments – I always enjoy a lively exchange of ideas! Oh and I do agree 'Just think for yourself about the issues I raise and whether they might be even partially valid.'Adrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00725007436340764187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post-26350185799184246862007-12-30T11:55:00.000-06:002007-12-30T11:55:00.000-06:00Yes, that is the story to which I was referring. ...Yes, that is the story to which I was referring. The new news being that the civil complaint has been placed online in the past few weeks. This was done by David Burt of US v. ALA fame and more. I merely took his PDF version of the complaint, converted it to HTML, and placed it online without changes. Even the original grammatical errors are included. You can't get more unbiased than that.<BR/><BR/>Read the complaint through. You will quickly get the impression that this was not a case of an "administration ill-prepared to handle the situation." On the contrary, the impression I got was that this was an administration superbly prepared to do exactly what it did, namely, use any means necessary to suppress local control over the library. Three years this carried on. Only the EEOC's intervention prevented this from dragging on forever as it does in numerous other communities.<BR/><BR/>And look at paragraphs 52 and 53 to illustrate the steamrolling of local interests by the ALA/ MnCAC bigwig, Mary Lawson, emphasis mine:<BR/><BR/>52. MPL and Lawson were notified of the terrible impact the policy of unfettered Internet access was having on the staff and patrons as soon as the problems began to manifest themselves. As noted above, on April 10, 1997, Nancy Corcoran sent to Lawson a memo specifically raising concerns about the policy. Ms. Corcoran's memo described in detail the conduct of the "regulars" set forth above. It described clearly what she saw to be the issue of workplace harassment. In her memo she set described her own emotional distress in dealing with conduct of these patrons, the concerns of staff that administration will not support them if the staff confront the hard-core pornography users, and <B>requested that MPL become a leader in upholding "standards of public decency and protecting its employees from such harassment."</B><BR/><BR/>53. <B>Lawson's reply emphatically rejected any effort to remedy the situation. She specifically rejected the idea of public decency playing any role in Library policy, declaring "The public library's foundation rests on support of the First Amendment, the free flow of information not on upholding standards of public decency..." She further flatly refused to adopt a policy that would comply with Minnesota law regarding criminally obscene material. She stated "I cannot agree, however, that a written policy outlawing obscene material in the library or the uses of screening software for the Internet is appropriate for the Library."</B> Lawson in formulating her policy position, choose to ignore the fact that the Minnesota legislature had already declared "obscene" material to be illegal.<BR/><BR/>Based on that, and based on Mary Lawson's high positions in those self-arrogated censorship police organizations, I do not buy the argument that Lawson's was an "administration ill-prepared to handle the situation." Rather, she was superbly prepared to flout community standards and even state law, and she did so for years.<BR/><BR/>Further, for all those years this dragged out in the public, no one not once took Lawson aside and helped her not to be "ill-prepared"? Three years of being "ill-prepared"? The ALA did not have the resources to help her even as it reported on the story from time to time?<BR/><BR/>Understandably, you are being very generous to assume MPL administration was "ill-prepared" for the situation. I do not expect you to make any public statements otherwise. Just think for yourself about the issues I raise and whether they might be even partially valid. <BR/><BR/>Here was Mary Lawson flouting Minnesota law in 1997. In 2001, Judith Krug of the ALA's OIF decried a Florida librarian's flouting the law when she turned a 9/11 terrorist's presence in a library into the police despite Florida library privacy laws. [ "A Nation Challenged: Questions of Confidentiality; Competing Principles Leave Some Professionals Debating Responsibility to Government" by David E. Rosenbaum, <I>The New York Times</I>, 23 Nov 2001. ] The ALA cannot have it both ways. <BR/><BR/>Flouting the law is not an administration being "ill-prepared." To what? Ill-prepared to follow the law?SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post-87128395336691568912007-12-30T10:04:00.000-06:002007-12-30T10:04:00.000-06:00Thanks for the comment!I believe this article, by ...Thanks for the comment!<BR/><BR/>I believe this article, by Adamson, is the situation you are talking about.<A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200209/ai_n9088077/pg_1" REL="nofollow">Click here for article from 2002</A><BR/><BR/>If what Adamson states in her article is correct then the administration was ill-prepared to handle the situation. And the staff didn't feel empowered to make their work environment a safe place for themselves or their patrons. A sad statement if true. (since I haven't read all the court records I'm working on partial info so share links if you got them - the more unbias the better)<BR/><BR/>When I was a brand new librarian - probably a month on the job I had a stituation where a patron would come to my 2nd floor collection to use the computers to look at graphic pr0n. After I had the unfortunate experience of viewing a rather large "money shot" I didn't hesitate to take action. I walked up to him and told him the collection (gov't docs) could be used by Minors at any given point in time and it would be illegal (according to state statutes) for minors to see what he was viewing and he really needed to take his recreational activities elsewhere. And he left. End of story.<BR/><BR/>Of course maybe I was just stupid, grew up around too many males, protected by the ivory tower of academia, or perhaps I was censoring him (I'm sure there are folks who will say that) -- <BR/><BR/>But I would do the same thing today if confronted with the same situtation. There's a time a place for everything -- and a gov't docs collection isn't for that -- well unless it the Monica Lewinski transcripts.... :)Adrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00725007436340764187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6092918.post-58849929572134121712007-12-30T09:19:00.000-06:002007-12-30T09:19:00.000-06:00What an interesting post. I think the ALA's Offic...What an interesting post. I think the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom has tipped too far in the other direction. Nowadays, you do as the OIF directs or you are personally attacked. The self-arrogated censorship police will even use censorship themselves to force their own views on communities.<BR/><BR/>Consider, for example, the case of the twelve Minnesota librarians who sued the library for which they worked and won in the EEOC, then the library settled the civil suit for $435,000, the limits of the library's insurance coverage.<BR/><BR/>The civil complaint in that matter was just made public in the past month. The main character in that story, the library director, was an ALA intellectual freedom big wig and Minnesota Coalition Against Censorship bigwig. You have got to read the complaint to see the shocking facts on which I based my statements.<BR/><BR/>Please read <A HREF="http://www.safelibraries.org/Adamson/" REL="nofollow">Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library</A>.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.com