Freedom to Read Act

law books, library, rows of books-291676.jpg

Freedom to Read Act

What is the Freedom to Read Act or the Right to Read Act?  It is state law in Illinois, legislation in other states, and federal legislation, all proposed by American Library Association.  The laws might withhold government funding from libraries that remove or block books deemed by librarians to be about diversity and inclusion but that parents deem to be inappropriate for schools per the 1982 United States Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico that allows for removal of such books.  The laws might block the First Amendment right of parents to challenge books, exempt librarians from obscenity laws, and provide librarians with a right to sue parents.

The Freedom to Read Act (or the Right to Read Act)

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

  • In the Sixties, the American Library Association [ALA] changed its “Library Bill of Rights” to make children have the same rights as adults to read any material whatsoever using the foreign political belief that parents have no authority over their children. Abolition of the family is a foreign political goal served by giving children the same rights as adults. To effectuate this, ALA created the “right to read” to take away power from parents and school boards by creating a legal right of children to read whatever they like. ALA then worked with authors like Judy Blume to increasingly expose children to material their parents would oppose them having in public schools. It his progressed well over a half century to the point where school librarians now brag about pushing inappropriate material on school children without their “not modern” parents knowing, even write books about it like “That Librarian, The Fight Against Book Banning in America” and schools are awash with reading material that contains and graphically displays material so inappropriate for children that librarians are forced to seek exemptions from obscenity statutes just to continue to provide children with such material, news stations cannot show it under the FCC law, parents are not allowed to read it at school board meetings, and parents are labeled as domestic terrorists and surveilled with helicopters by the Department of Homeland Security.
  • The “Freedom to Read Act” (also named “Right to Read Act” or “Libraries For All Act”) is written by ALA then promoted to state legislatures to take its “Library Bill of Rights” and turn it into state law. The Library Bill of Rights nullifies the US Supreme Court 1982 case of Board of Education v. Pico by claiming age may not be used as a reason to keep children from reading anything they wish. If passed into law, the Freedom to Read Act will make it the law that the Pico case no longer applies anywhere, it’s nullified by a librarian group in Chicago, IL, and parents nationwide will lose their First Amendment rights and rights under their state constitutions to seek redress of governments when their school children are given inappropriate material by school librarians having MLIS/MLS degrees where ALA requires “equity, diversity, and inclusion” to be “infused” “throughout the standards.”
  • State legislators take the ALA’s proposed legislation and modify it to fit local legislative practices, then claim as ALA claims that they are acting to protect the rights of children and librarians. They say parents are overly zealous to seek the removal of inappropriate material from public schools because, as ALA says, kids need to see themselves in what they read and horrible things happen to kids so they all need to learn about these things from the safe distance of a public school library. As ALA’s “Intellectual Freedom Manual” 10th Ed. reads, “What better place for a student to encounter new ideas—some of which may be disturbing—than in the supportive environment of a school library?” Maybe a home? A home environment is not even considered. Cutting out the parents is a feature of school librarians, not a bug. Besides, the parents are called extremists who are homophobic and racist. So legislators who support the ALA view and its legislation tacitly admit they oppose the very parents they represent.
  • ALA creates, funds, and maintains local groups to give the impression that locals support the loss of rights by the parents and the exposure of children to inappropriate material in schools despite the law. Its principal means of doing this is by first creating separate organizations for legal reasons but ones that works hand in hand with ALA and created by ALA members. It named these organizations EveryLibrary and EveryLibrary Institute. EveryLibrary has multiple web sites set up to create, fund, and maintain astroturfed local support. For example, in Prattsville, AL, ALA, via its EveryLibrary subgroup, set up four separate local groups to pressure the government to keep inappropriate material in the children’s section of the library, and fund raisers and letter writing web sites created by ALA’s EveryLibrary are raising funds and writing letters and emails for this astroturfing effort. They know this community organizing effort frequently overwhelms local parents who have no equivalent benefactor and organizational entity. They have done this so successfully and so broadly that they have finally publicly admitted to the support they provide to create and maintain local groups that support the ALA, ALA used to hide them, and they urge others to jump on board. This can result in crowds so huge that the complaining parents are too intimidated to ever again attend public meetings, such as happened in Glen Ridge, NJ. Locals who would support such parents are outmaneuvered for speaking spots, so the relevant authority never hears the side of parents who haven’t been astroturfed by ALA. ALA even gets school children politically activated and involved for the sympathy factor. One school librarian in New Jersey gave kids ten dollar gift cards for Dunkin’ for learning how to call for anything goes in school books in public school board meetings. It’s like traffickers getting child victims to recruit more children to be victimized.
  • ALA also gets directly involved in letter writing campaigns to legislators, via its EveryLibrary subgroup, using the various web sites and resources used again and again across America. So ALA writes the legislation, gets the legislators to propose it, gets the local populations to organize to support it, provides the platform to do this, gets local media to write stories that support it, then shepherds the entire process. Illinois, ALA’s home state, has already passed the Right to Read Act explicitly setting the Library Bill of Rights as Illinois law. Local parents who oppose such legislation are bullied and vilified as censors, homophobes, and racists, and they have only rag tag organizational efforts by family groups to oppose the legislation. There’s nothing comparable to what ALA does to community organize. Remember, it’s current president, upon winning the presidency of ALA, tweeted and later deleted that she “just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary. I am so excited for what we will do together. Solidarity!” What the Freedom to Read Act is and how ALA is shepherding through to completion in states nationwide is the wielding of collective power for a better world, and to ALA a better world is one where parents have no authority over their children, as expressed in their “Library Bill of Rights.”
  • The legislation sets into law the very organizations responsible for drafting school library policy throughout the states, and those organizations invariably support the ALA legislation. ALA’s EveryLibrary directly supports those organizations, even to the point of including their acronyms into the URLs of the astroturfing sites used to pressure the legislators into compliance. For example, NJ’s S2421 Section 4(b) requires school boards to adopt the model policies created by the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, NJASL, while ALA’s astroturfing web site URL for S2421 is http://www.SaveSchoolLibrarians.org/NJASLBookBans. Bias cannot be more clear as it is quite literally staring you in the face.

 

The Freedom to Read Act is proposed legislation that if enacted would deny communities control over their own schools and ensure harmful outside influence becomes the legislated standard.  Parents need the rights over schools that the Freedom to Read Act would take away.  

 

To understand the seriousness of the need for parental rights, listen to this mom who lost her daughter Yaeli due to a school denying her parental rights and secretly transing her daughter, resulting in the child kneeling before a train:

Landon Starbuck:  What would you say to parents that don’t understand the very serious result that can happen by not taking action to protect their children.

Abigail M.:  What I will say is not to trust the school, the principal, the school psychologist because now they are working on this agenda.  So I will ask the parents to get involved in school.  Go inside and ask them what, what are they reading, because now it’s not math, it’s not science, it’s not, uh, English, it’s going to this ideology.  This ideology is killing our kids.

Robby Starbuck:  Do you think more people need to speak up to protect kids like your daughter?

Abigail M.: Yes, I do.

Robby Starbuck:  Because if they pretend this is all normal or they’re just afraid of somebody being upset at them, or whatever it is, whatever reason they’re using to be silent, isn’t it just helping evil people do this to kids?

Abigail M.: Yes.

Source: The War on Children – Documentary. Starbuck Studios, 2024. https://thewaronchildren.com/.

The Freedom to Read Act would seriously impinge on parental rights.  There would be no way to “go inside and ask them what, what are they reading.”

 

The Freedom to Read Act is never written by legislators.  It is copied by legislators from American Library Association sources.  Those sources say legislators should be systematically misled, as the serious issue of harm to children is “reframed” to one of diversity and inclusion.  Further discussion of this appears below:

Librarians are trained before bills like S2421 are introduced, sustained messaging should reframe known inappropriate material as DEI
Librarians are trained before bills like S2421 are introduced, sustained messaging should reframe known inappropriate material as DEI, and that’s what S2421 does

It is literally foreign to every state other than Illinois, the only state where it has become law, the home of the American Library Association.  Here are a few sources showing librarians have been working to writing law to cut back on parents complaining about the inappropriate books librarians now make available to children as they remove the classics to make space:

Librarians, the people to whom FRA gives the sole power to decide what’s appropriate in libraries, cover up child p@rnography crimes in libraries.  Here’s one such coverup:

Library records child p@rnography viewing and also records that it did not call the police
Library records child p@rnography viewing and also records that it did not call the police

American Library Association evens arranges for “Intellectual Freedom Awards” for librarians who cover up child p@rn crimes.  See: “University of Illinois’ GSLIS Gives Award for Defending Child P@rnography“

 

As American Library Association’s great leader Judith Krug said:

“A librarian is not a legal process,” Krug said. “There is not [sic] librarian in the country — unless she or he is a lawyer — who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child p@rnography.

Source:  https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/libraries-vs-police-in-a-suit-sparked-by-porn-1093410.php

Even librarians themselves cannot be trusted, yet FRA sets them up as the gold standard.  They practice “fugitive pedogogy,” the technique of providing Marxist training without telling parents, communities, or school board members as described here: “Fugitive Pedagogy Comes to Florida: Socialist Teachers Actively Break State Law in the Classroom.”  Specifically as to librarians, American Library Assocation’s award winning and funded school librarian Amanda Jones, who just wrote a book called, “That Librarian,” spoke on a popular podcast for school librarians on how she purposefully pushes Marxism on her middle school children without parents and the public knowing: 

AMANDA JONES:  Another program that I started that happened over the summer with all of the the social unrest and the issues in the news, um.  I am in southern Louisiana, and had to be very delicate about this because I don’t wanna be, let me just say my district is (pause) not modern (laughs), for the, I don’t know how to say it, and by district I don’t mean my school, I mean my community, and some of the thinking, and, um, where there’s some of the thinking is still back in the fifties, and so I know that I wanted to teach my students some things but I couldn’t outright say it, this is what I’m teaching, so I developed a program called, “The MESH Society,” to incorporate media literacy, which we all should be teaching anyway, but ethics, sociology, and history, but infuse, um, some social justice in there without outright sss- teaching social justice, if you read between the lines of what I’m saying.  Uh.  So I created a program called the MESH Society, and our students, um, I think a modern school library, you don’t focus on leveling books and pushing, um, accelerated reader, and you have to read these songs[?] and you have to read so many points and test, I think I’m a modern school librarian pushes things like graphic novels and audio books and social justice, and, and, and you focus on the, the what you’re reading and not how many, so the MESH Society program, it encourages, and it’s completely optional, it encourages the students to read one book from each of those categories, and, then they have to do a flip grid and, um, tell me what they’ve learned.  What have, what ideas have changed from reading these books.  So, did they learn about microaggressions when they read about New Kid, I mean what they read New Kid.  Did they learn about, um, consent when they read Maybe He Just Likes You.  Because I can’t teach outright teach s@xual harassment and consent at a fifth grade school, my community would, just, you know, even though it needs to be taught, but they can read Maybe He Just Likes You, by Barbara Dee, which is written on a level four, the age group of my students, and I can encourage them to read that, and they can tell me what they have learned themselves.

 

AMY HERMON:  I think that’s amazing.  I think that you have found a way to thread the needle and do it in a way that gives your students the benefit of, of all of the resources you can bring together, and do so in a way that is not going to agitate and stir up, uh, the, and rile up your, your parent base, and, you know, and you do so in a way that is, it allows the kids to do some of this learning on their own.  So I think that’s fantastic.

 

Source: Jones, Amanda, and Amy Hermon. 118 Modern School Library Programs. Podcast. Vol. 118. School Librarians United. Minute 39:11, 2021. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Ayn51zR6f6vzi852UFMo5.

Listen to more about school librarians Amanda Jones and Amy Hermon, who they are, what they said together above, from a father sued by Amanda Jones, namely, Michael Lunsford of Louisana.  He sees what’s going on.  These are the librarians the Freedom to Read Act says at 4(a)(7) are “professionally trained” and another reason why, if enacted, such a law would harm communities and especially children.  They are professionally trained to indoctrinate children on the taxpayer’s dime and keep the community from knowing, they were just “CAUGHT: Louisiana Librarian Pushing Social Justice on Kids.”  Follow Mr. Lunsford @NewLouisiana.

 

 

The American Library Association itself is led by a Marxist whose first message after becoming President was to promise to wield collective power, that’s the reason state library commissions and school librarian associations are dropping out of ALA, and that’s the essence of the Freedom to Read Act, the wielding of collective power over state legislatures and the public generally.  S2421 effectively incorporates Marxist goals into state law:

Emily Drabinski brags that a Marxist has become President of the American Library Association and promises to wield collective power for solidarity
Emily Drabinski brags that a Marxist has become President of the American Library Association and promises to wield collective power for solidarity

Analysis of the Freedom to Read Act as Exemplified in NJ S2421 2024

The Freedom to Read Act is a law that denies communities control over their own schools and ensures harmful outside influence is standardized.  For example, in NJ S2421, the proposed legislation includes:  

  • 2(a): “The freedom to read is a human right, constitutionally protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution….”  
  • 2(c and d): The Tinker and Pico US Supreme Court cases hold school children have the “right” to “ideas” (Tinker) and use of a school library is “free choice” and “wholly optional.” (Pico)
  • 2(e): “School libraries and public libraries … promot[e] democracy by providing service to all regardless of … age….”
  • 2(h): “school library media specialists and librarians have been targeted, harassed, and defamed for providing young people access to library material.”
  • 2(i): “Therefore, it is necessary and proper … for school libraries and public libraries to acquire and maintain materials without external limitations …, and to protect school library media specialists and librarians from unnecessary and unwarranted harassment and defamation for performance of their duties.”

So essentially, the Freedom to Read Act is a law that makes it age discrimination to keep children from inappropriate material and sets up “school library media specialists and librarians” as the sole arbiters of what’s appropriate reading for children in public venues.

 

To enforce this view, the law constrains Boards of Education to act accordingly.  Boards of Education:

  • 4(a): “shall adopt a policy on the curation of library material within a school library”
  • 4(a): “shall review the model policy established by the Commissioner of Education”
  • 4(a): “shall have control over the content of the policy, except”:
    • 4(a)(2): “require student access to age- and grade-appropriate diverse and inclusive material”
    • 4(a)(6): “prohibit[] the censorship of library material”
    • 4(a)(7): “acknowledge that a school library media specialist is professionally trained”
    • 4(a)(8): “establish a procedure for a school library media specialist to review library material within a school library”

And where does the Commissioner of Education get its model policy?  That is specified as well:

  •  4(b): “the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian and the New Jersey Association of School Librarians….”

The proposed law also requires schools have book reconsideration policies, and that school boards may decide what they like, except for required provisions that include explaining why the board decided to set aside the “review committee’s” “recommendations”:

  • 5(a and b): “A board of education shall adopt a policy establishing a procedure regarding a request for removal of library material within a school library.  The board shall have control over the policy, except that the policy shall, at a minimum:”
    • 5(b)(1): limit removal requests to only those with “a vested interest,” limited to teachers in the school, students at the school, and parents having a child in the school
    • 5(b)(2): “require the principal or principal’s designee to appoint a review committee” that must include:
      • 5(b)(2)(a and g): at least one person selected by the principal or the principal himself
      • 5(b)(2)(b): “the school library media specialist or a teaching staff member similarly trained”
      • 5(b)(2)(c): a Board of Education representative
      • 5(b)(2)(d): a teacher, other than one who submitted the request
      • 5(b)(2)(e): a parent, other than the one who submitted the request
      • 5(b)(2)(f): a student (if challenge arises in grade 9-12), other than the one who submitted the request
    • 5(b)(3): the challenged material must remain available to students “until there is a final decision reached by the board of education”
    • 5(b)(4): the “review committee” must “report its recommendations” “within 30 school days”
    • 5(b)(5): “require the board of education to review the committee’s report and make a final determination” and “shall provide a written statement of reasons for”
      • 5(b)(5)(a): “removal or non-removal of a library material”
      • 5(b)(5)(b): “any final determination that is contrary to the recommendations of the review committee.”

The proposed legislation then provides its main purpose, to force school boards to ensure school children have access to all materials without restrictions of any kind, by using the words “diversity” and “inclusion” that mean one thing to ordinary people but mean something completely different to librarians, and specifically states this new law trumps all other laws:

  • 6(a): “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a board of education shall ensure that each school in the district includes diverse and inclusive material as part of its library material.”
  • 6(b): “A board of education shall allow a student to reserve, check out, or access any age- and grade-appropriate library material, including diverse and inclusive material.”

The legislation then takes a giant leap to further ensure everyone gets the message that librarians may act and do whatever they like by making it illegal to challenge the decisions of librarians.  Further, if the decisions of librarians are challenged in a way that makes the librarians feel uncomfortable, they are given the right to sue the parents, and the punitive right to force the parents to pay for her attorneys.

  • 7(a): a librarian “shall be immune from criminal and civil liability”
  • 7(b)(1): a librarian “shall have a civil cause of action for emotional distress, defamation, libel, slander, damage to reputation, or any other relevant tort, against any person who harasses” her.
  • 7(b)(2): a librarian who wins such a cause of action “shall be entitled to an award of any reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred, and any injunctive relief as the court may deem necessary to avoid the defendant’s continued violation.”

Section 8 of the law defines the terms used in a manner most favorable to a librarian’s newly legislated right to sue parents.  “Diverse and inclusive material,” for example, is defined in a way that excludes nothing, so anything goes.  “Harassment” is defined as a “singular act” that causes a librarian “emotional distress.”

  • 8: “‘Diverse and inclusive material’ means material that reflects any protected group …; material produced by an author notwithstanding the author’s membership in a protected group…; and material that contains the author’s points of view concerning contemporary problems and issues, whether international, national or local.”
  • 8: “‘Harassment’ or ‘harasses’ means a singular act that is severe or pervasive, or a series of acts over any period of time directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose and would cause, or has caused, a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.”

It is notable that New Jersey school librarian Martha Hickson “said she has been the subject of harassment …, ‘the camera zooms in on Hickson’s face as foreboding music plays in the background.’ ‘It felt very threatening,’ said Hickson….”  Prediction: there are going to be frivolous strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) galore should S2421 or the like become law.  In full disclosure, I myself am currently named in a defamation lawsuit by a New Jersey school librarian against parents.

 

Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 are substantially similar to the above, only they apply to public libraries, not school libraries.

 

Section 13 rewrites an obscenity statute to add legal protections for librarians who would otherwise violate the obscenity law that was designed to protect children under 18.

  • 13: “N.J.S.2C:34-3 is amended to read as follows: 2C:34-3. Obscenity For Persons Under 18.”
  • 13(d)(3)(a): “It is an affirmative defense … that the defendant is a [school librarian]”
  • 13(d)(3)(b): “It is an affirmative defense … that the defendant is a [public librarian]”

Section 14 rewrites an employment discrimination law to protect librarians from being fired for defying school boards or public library boards by making educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar material available to children.

  • 14: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice, or, as the case may be, an unlawful discrimination”
  • 14(a): “For an employer, because … of the refusal of a school library media specialist or teaching staff member to remove library material from a school library …, or because of the refusal of any staff member of a public library, including a librarian, to remove library material from a public library … to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge or require to retire … from employment….” 
  • 14(t)(5): “Comparisons of wage rates shall be based on wage rates in all of an employer’s operations or facilities. For the purposes of this subsection, “member of a protected class” means an employee who has one or more characteristics, including … the refusal of a school library media specialist, teaching staff member, librarian, or any staff member of a public library to remove library material from a school library or a public library….”

Section 15 says the law takes effect in a year after enactment but school and library boards may be told what to do sooner:

  • 15: “This act shall take effect one year following the date of enactment, but the Commissioner of Education and State Librarian may take such anticipatory action as may be necessary for the implementation of the act.”

A “STATEMENT” then follows the body of the proposed legislation.  It summarizes the bill but not in a way that clarifies what’s going on and why.  For example:

  • “This bill, entitled the ‘Freedom to Read Act,’ establishes requirements for library material in public school libraries and public libraries and establishes protections for school library media specialists and librarians against harassment.”

It concludes:

  • “It is the sponsor’s intent that the Legislature protect the freedom of New Jersey’s residents to read, for school libraries and public libraries to acquire and maintain materials without external limitations, to recognize that school library media specialists and librarians are trained to curate and develop collections, and to protect school library media specialists and librarians from unnecessary and unwarranted harassment and defamation for performance of their duties.”

What’s left out is what’s going on and why.  What’s going on is this bill is an improved version of the previous bill that failed.  It was called the “Right to Read Act.”  It specifically incorporated by reference into law the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights.”  Such legislation has already become law in Illinois, home state of the American Library Association. 

HB2789 tasks the Illinois State Librarian and the Illinois State Library with adopting the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, statewide. This bill of rights indicates that reading materials should not be proscribed, removed, or restricted because of partisan or personal disproval. Illinois libraries would only be eligible for state-funded grants if they adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights.

See:  Gov. Pritzker Signs Bill Making Illinois First State in the Nation to Outlaw Book Bans

 

The same law was proposed in New Jersey as the “Right to Read Act.”  But the incorporation of the “Library Bill of Rights” from an organization with which state library commissions, state school libary associations, and public libraries are dropping membership was too much and the bill died.

 

Along comes the “Freedom to Read Act” to replace the failed “Right to Read Act.”  The new legislation removes any mention of American Library Association but it achieves every single goal of the American Library Association.

 

It is either a super coincidence that state legislators designed a detailed, comprehensive bill that exactly mirrors the goals of the American Library Association and its subgroups like Unite Against Book Bans and EveryLibrary (where the connection to American Library Association is intentionally hidden), or the legislation itself was written by a political advocacy group from Chicago, Illinois.  That group is losing memberships precisely because it has a certain political agenda that no longer adheres to American standards.  The “Freedom to Read Act,” if applied in New Jersey or other states, will take the views of librarians in Chicago, Illinois, and make them the law nationwide.  That law makes it illegal for parents to challenge any materials whatsoever in schools, and if they do, they are punished with lawsuits.  It is relevant to know that American Library Association trains librarians to file defamation lawsuits against parents precisely to silence them, drain them of up to $500K, and send the message to other parents not to challenge any books.  That’s exactly the message of the “Freedom to Read Act.”  Here is a librarian’s note from American Library Association training in Illinois given December 17, 2013 (and to see it in context, click here for the entire FOIA response).  Notice it says, “Defimation [sic] Attorney costs up to 5 hundred thousand,” in the context of getting support from American Library Association against parents who challenge books:

ALA Training: "Defimation Attorney costs up to 5 hundred thousand"
Notes from ALA Training: “Defimation Attorney costs up to 5 hundred thousand”

What Laws Does the Freedom to Read Act Violate?

The Freedom to Read Act is law or legislation that denies communities control over their own schools and ensures harmful outside influence becomes the standard.  The proposed legislation violates multiple laws, the most significant being the First Amendment of the United States that guarantees the right to seek redress of the government.

FRA Violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights holds, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  FRA abridges the freedom of speech via a number of means including punitive lawsuits.  FRA entirely eliminates or seriously impedes the ability to seek redress of the government.  Grandparents will be precluded by law from acting to protect their grandchildren in schools.  The US Constitution was written to protect “We the People” from governmental overreach.  The Freedom to Read Act was written to protect the government from claimed overreach of the people.  FRA is unconstitutional.

FRA Violates Article I of the 1947 New Jersey State Constitution

Article I, Paragraph 18 of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution holds, “The people have the right freely to … make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.”  FRA abridges the freedoms provided by Article I, Paragraph 18 by silencing parents for fear a librarian might become upset and sue for defamation so they will be silenced.  In Martha Hickson’s school a parent brought a challenge against a book, that parent was sent a letter threatening a defamation lawsuit, and the parent never again asserted her rights nor appeared before the Board of Education.  Passage of the FRA will magnify that silencing effect many times until people simply stop challenging books in schools.  But that is the whole purpose of the law, and as such it violates Article I, Paragraph 18 of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution.  FRA is unconstitutional.

FRA Violates Article IV of the 1947 New Jersey State Constitution

Article IV, Section VII, Paragraph 9 of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution holds, “The Legislature shall not pass any private, special or local laws,” and Clause 7 holds, “Providing for the management and control of free public schools.”  Given that the Freedom to Read Act provides for the management and control of free public schools individually, not just the libraries but how the boards of education must manage and control school functions, and given that this is specifically prohibited by the New Jersey Constitution for “private, special or local laws” but that this general law would essentially be a local law for each of the hundreds of school districts, it appears FRA is dead in the water and cannot be amended in any way to make it constitutional.  The only way S2421 / A3446 can be passed into law is if the New Jersey Constitution is ignored, amended, or abrogated, or if this legislation that if enacted will act locally is deemed a general law.  Besides, FRA can be considered a private law as it would enacted for the benefit of a particular individual or small group, namely the American Library Association and the local librarians who enforce it anything-goes policies.

Essentially, FRA is indeed a private law.  It is indeed enacted for the benefit of  a small group.  A small group has been working towards the goals accomplished by the FRA.  That small group is called Unite Against Book Bans.  It was created by American Library Association in response to many parents successfully getting Gender Queer removed from schools via application of the Pico case.  That group now consists of many partners including librarians (ALA and its subgroups: AILA, APALA, ARSL, Banned Books Week, BCALA, CALA, FTRF, REFORMA), teachers (AFT, NCTE, NEA), publishers (Abrams, AAP, Baker & Taylor, Bloomsbury, Candlewick Press, Charlesbridge, DK, Greystone Books, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Haymarket Books (leading publisher of Marxist content), Lee & Low Books, Lerner, MacMillan Publishers, Penguin Random House, Rosen Publishing, Sage, Scholastic, Simon & Shuster), political advocacy groups (ABFE, ACLU, Color of Change, CBLDF, FIRE, GLAAD, GLSEN, HRC, Interfaith Alliance, PEN America, People for the American Way, PFLAG, SAA, Trevor Project) and many similar groups.  These groups “share our core principles and would like to work together to defeat censorship.”  See https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/partners/.  

The Freedom to Read Act defines and enables those core principals.  It was written by them.  It is promoted by them.  It is a private law for them.  They just happen to consist of huge organizations like the major teachers unions, but it is essentially still a private law enacted for the benefit of a small group called Unite Against Book Bans.  Parents have nothing close to counter this behemoth.  Only legislators stand in the way of Unite Against Book Bans imposing its will on the nation, and its will is to s@xualize and indoctrinate as many children nationwide as possible, and the Freedom to Read Act will be the private law used to accomplish that very goal.  FRA is essentially a private law accomplishing the goal of Unite Against Book Bans.  And only the New Jersey Constitution stands in the way of what this behemoth is doing.

FRA Violates Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Board of Education v. Pico , 457 U.S. 853 (1982) is the 1982 US Supreme Court case that pertains to school libraries.  It ruled books may not be removed because of the ideas they contained.  However, the parties stipulated and the Justices accepted that materials that are “educationally unsuitable” or “pervasively vulgar” may be removed immediately.  Books like “Gender Queer” may be removed immediately under Pico.  Some argue such books may not be removed because of the ideas they contain, but that is a fallacious argument as it essentially nullifies the case, and US Supreme Court cases are not to be interpreted in a way that nullifies them.

The provisions of the Freedom to Read Act legislation either violate the US Supreme Court case or would force a violation of the case, depending on how you look at it:

2(a): “The freedom to read is a human right, constitutionally protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution….”   False.  The Pico case allows for the removal of educationally unsuitable and pervasively vulgar materials in the context of schools; the First Amendment does not protect a child’s freedom to read educationally unsuitable and pervasively vulgar materials in schools.  Besides, the “freedom to read” was a concept made up by the American Library Association precisely to deprive parents and school boards of their rights.  See: 

 

Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442.

 

2(d): “The … Pico US Supreme Court cases hold … use of a school library is ‘free choice’ and ‘wholly optional.'”  Perhaps, but that is an intentional twisting of the case to ignore the part that destroys the Freedom to Read Act legislation, namely, that educationally unsuitable and pervasively vulgar materials may be removed and removed immediately.

2(e): “School libraries and public libraries … promot[e] democracy by providing service to all regardless of … age….”  False.  That is what Chicago’s American Library Association wants us all to think.  But again, Pico held educationally unsuitable and pervasively vulgar materials may be removed and removed immediately, and suitability for age very much becomes part of that calculation.  FRA adheres to American Library Association diktat and represents the opposite of what the US Supreme Court has ruled.  Passing FRA will lead to an annulment of Pico, and the New Jersey Legislature does not trump the US Constitution.

2(i): “Therefore, it is necessary and proper … for school libraries and public libraries to acquire and maintain materials without external limitations….”  False.  The Pico case is indeed a limitation on the contents of school libraries.  Thanks to the Pico case, books have been successfully removed from New Jersey public schools.  The passage of FRA would put an end to Pico.  FRA is simply unconstitutional.

4(a)(6): “prohibit[] the censorship of library material.”  False or true, depending on how one looks at it.  To a librarian, removal of anything is censorship.  To Pico, removal of anything is not censorship.  It is not censorship to remove materials in accordance with Pico, and many schools have already done so legally.  FRA is an attempt to sidestep Pico.  That is unconstitutional.

5(a): “A board of education shall adopt a policy establishing a procedure regarding a request for removal of library material within a school library.”  False.  This provision requires (“shall’) that school library material be reviewed by a committee.  That is unconstitutional as it takes away the existing power of a superintendent to immediately remove material in accordance with Pico.  For example, in Arizona, an eight year old girl brought home a book from a school library that featured squirting sperm. The parent advised the superintendent who immediately removed the book from the library.  Such action would become illegal under the Freedom to Read Act.  Simply put, school children do not have the freedom to read squirting sperm books in schools.  See: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/05/school-removes-squirting-sperm-book.html. Similarly, FRA takes away the right and proper practice of school librarians removing materials they too find inappropriate.  FRA would require them to pass the material through an unnecessary review process.  An Executive Board member of American Library Association’s Freedom to Read Foundation and of the Texas Library Association named Dorcus Hand spoke about a book a father brought to her attention.  She’s no “censor” and she even trains librarians to use personal phones, devices, and emails precisely to keep parents from learning how school librarians work together to keep kids reading inappropriate material their parents would oppose if they only know.  See: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/12/school-librarians-train-to-violate-foia.html.  But even a librarian like that knows when to remove inappropriate material, and she did, and she removed it immediately without any review committee the FRA would require, and she speaks about it here: https://anchor.fm/texas-library-association/episodes/Banned-Books-Week-2022–part-I-e1m8rvv.  So FRA imposes overly broad restrictions on librarians and on superintendents in a manner that violates the Pico case.  Again, FRA is unconstitutional.

Further, “review committees” are a tool used to keep school children reading inappropriate material.  In one Texas town, for example, while the books remain on the shelves, one school will take 22.5 years to review the books currently being challenged, and this is obviously intentional:


Notice the demands and specifics for “review committees” in the Freedom to Read Act don’t come from state legislators, rather they come directly from the American Library Association in Illinois.  For example, notice below American Library Association “guidelines” require books to stay on the shelves until for the full review process is completed, for example, “Challenged materials should not be removed from the collection while under reconsideration.”  Compare with language of the Freedom to Read Act legislation supposedly from state legilators but really from Chicago, Illinois: “5(b)(3): the challenged material must remain available to students ‘until there is a final decision reached by the board of education.'”  ALA just made up that language to make inappropriate book removal slower and more likely to fail, yet state legislators are urged to pass it into law without discussion of what it means, how it harms children in the state, how it takes aways powers of a board of education, and how common sense, community standards, and the law would otherwise require such language not become law.  So here are just a few of the numerous times American Library Association set up the “review committee” process to ensure inappropriate books for children are viewed as “intellectual freedom” and removed as little as possible:


American Library Association. “Guidelines for Reconsideration Committees.” Text. Intellectual Freedom Manual 10th Ed, December 18, 2016. https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/reconsiderationcommittees.

American Library Association. “Reconsideration Committees.” Text. Intellectual Freedom Manual 10th Ed, December 26, 2017. https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/committees.


American Library Association. “Formal Reconsideration.” Text. American Library Association, December 25, 2017. https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/formalreconsideration.


American Library Association. “How to Respond to Challenges and Concerns about Library Resources.” Text. Intellectual Freedom Manual 10th Ed, December 8, 2016. https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/respond.


6(b): “A board of education shall allow a student to reserve, check out, or access any age- and grade-appropriate library material, including diverse and inclusive material.”  Again, this provision is out of alignment with the Pico case.  It’s not “any” material since what is excluded by Pico is educationally unsuitable and pervasively vulgar material.  One can tell this is another effort to sneak past Pico since if doing so wasn’t necessary, all it would need to say is, “A board of education shall allow a student to reserve, check out, or access any material as it has already been allowed under the school’s book selection policy, barring any material a parent within their right may restrict.”  That shows respect for parental rights.  That’s missing.  Only the anti Pico point is made.  Again, FRA is unconstitutional.

8: “‘Diverse and inclusive material’ means material that reflects any protected group …; material produced by an author notwithstanding the author’s membership in a protected group…; and material that contains the author’s points of view concerning contemporary problems and issues, whether international, national or local.”  Nope.  That’s too violates Pico.  This term is designed to circumvent Pico.  Pico cannot be circumvented.  FRA is unconstitutional.  You see, “diverse and inclusive material” as defined by FRA includes educationally unsuitable and pervasively vulgar material.  That can be seen in the super broad wording: “material that reflects any protected group.”  So books like Gender Queer that have already been successfully removed from New Jersey (and other) school will now be viewed as “material that reflects [a] protected group,” so Pico will no longer apply.  With that FRA language, anything goes; Pico is no bar anymore.

Just to be very clear what we are talking about, let’s look at what the American Library Association’s top lawyer and leader of its Office for Intellectual Freedom and its Freedom to Read Foundation said, and she said this specifically and explicitly in the context of this Freedom to Read Act legislation and the information legislators received that would cause then to think legislation like FRA was good legislation.  So she misled them.  Here’s what she said:

But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s@xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody’s right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library.

So librarians know the materials are s@xually inappropriate for kids but they “reframe” that as “diverse and inclusive material,” the very wording of the Freedom to Read Act legislation.  Librarians are trained this way.  Now FRA wants to make librarians the sole arbiters of what goes in school libraries.  The Freedom to Read Act is a danger to New Jersey children or to any children where American Library Association has successfully fooled a state legislature.

Here is what United States Senator Mike Lee had to saw after displaying that video quoted above at a US Senate Hearing on “Banned Books”:

Okay, so, I think what we saw here right now is someone saying the quiet part out loud, acknowledging what the goal is.  There is a goal here, and the goal is to s@xualize children, to provide minors with s@xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.  Hide it by changing the messaging, avoiding the heat by saying, “no, no, these are not the droids you’re looking for, this is not about s@xually explicit content.  This is about equality!  This is about justice!  This is about what’s right and wrong.  Has nothing to do with s@x.”  Well of course that’s what someone would do if they were gr@@ming your child, if someone were trying to s@xualize your child.  And make no mistake that is what’s happening.

“Make no mistake that is what’s happening.”  The significance of Senator Mike Lee saying that in the US Senate is that what was said illustrates gr@@ming and s@xualizing children is what it is, and when parents say school librarians are g@@ming children, it’s not an aspersion, rather it’s what a US Senator said in the US Senate after displaying jaw dropping evidence previously hidden from the public.  As such all the punitive parts of the Freedom to Read Act essentially silence people from speaking the truth.

 Watch Senator Mike Lee speaking and displaying the jaw dropping video I first found and reported (and of the five, three are American Library Association representatives or members, including the child):

FRA Violates United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003)

There’s a second US Supreme Court case the Freedom to Read Act ignores, and it’s one where the American Library Association and the ACLU lost big.  United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), is a plurality case not directly related to school libraries (except perhaps with respect to Internet usage).  Still the case is instructive because the Freedom to Read Act sidesteps the very point on which all Justices agree: “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.”  FRA is written as discussed above regarding the definition of “diverse and inclusive” so that anything goes, there are no limits on what may be in a school library, and librarians, having been made the sole arbiters by FRA of what goes in a school library, will never remove a single book.  Nothing will ever be deemed “material inappropriate for minors.”  Anything goes.  To pass FRA into law is to willfully ignore a second US Supreme Court case.

FRA Violates Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)

There’s a third US Supreme Court case the Freedom to Read Act ignores, namely, Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).  That case found  

 

No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools; local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support for public schools and to … quality of the educational process. See Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia, 407 U.S., at 469 . Thus, in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 50 (1973), we observed that local control over the educational process affords citizens an opportunity to participate in decisionmaking, permits the structuring of school programs to fit local needs, and encourages “experimentation, innovation, and a healthy competition for educational excellence.”

To pass FRA into law is to willfully ignore a third US Supreme Court case because FRA standardizes how school boards operate around the standards of the American Library Association from Chicago, Illinois.  FRA removes local control.  Oh yes it calls for minimums then give boards the autonomy to do what they like.  “5(b): “The board shall have control over the policy, except that the policy shall, at a minimum: ….”  But the “minimums” make multiple demands that essentially force schools to shape their policies to match American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights,” a document that is not a Bill of Rights, that is a mere “aspirational creed” of librarians, that a court of law found means “nothing,” and that makes it age discrimination to keep any material whatsoever from children because radical 60s man Edgar Friedenberg got it added.  For details, see here: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/04/librarians-attempt-to-legislate-1960s.html.

 

FRA Violates Codes of Ethics for School Board Members, Such as NJS 18A:12-24.1

There’s such a thing as codes of ethics for school boards.  For example, see N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 Code of Ethics for School Board Members.  That code includes, “I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups….”  The biggest special interest or partisan political group in school libraries is American Library Association.  Should the Right to Read Act become law, this section of state law would become effectively nullified and schools nationwide will become standarized on the anything goes views of a Marxist-led organization from Chicago, Illinois.  (The American Library Association President is an avowed Marxist who bragged about becoming President and who has said at the recent Socialism Conference in Chicago that libraries need to be converted into sites for socialism organizing.  See: https://karlyn.substack.com/p/exclusive-recording-american-library.)

The outside influence of American Library Association from Chicago, Illinois, is massive.  Looking at the Hunderdon County – Voorhees High School in Annandale, NJ, USA, here is a non-exhaustive list of the influence:

  • The school has material removable under Pico that is educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar despite efforts to remove the material.
  • The school superintendent requested the material be removed but the school librarian refused.
  • The school librarian jumped over the heads of her own administration to reach out to American Library Association and other outside groups to bring pressure on the school board after a parent complained.  Note the school board code of ethics that applies only to the school board states, “I will refer all complaints to the chief administrative officer….”  There might be something equivalent so the school librarian should be reaching out for help from the proper channels, not from a political organization in Chicago, Illinois.  “When the challenges began in September 2021, Hickson was shocked to hear a parent at a North Hunterdon–Voorhees Board of Education meeting accuse her of gr[–]ming children and promoting p[-]rnography.  Right away, Hickson notified her union and groups like ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC).  She also reactivated a network of community supporters that she built in 2015, when Fun Home was first challenged.”
  • After a parent complained that parent was sued for defamation and as a result has dropped her opposition and no longer attends school board meetings.
  • American Library Association trains librarians to sue parents for defamation to drain them of time, reputation, and up to $500,000.
  • American Library Association funds librarians who sue parents.
  • American Library Association raises funds to empower more librarians to sue more parents and to enable them to continue suing even after they repeatedly lose such as in the Amanda Jones case in Louisiana, a case now going to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
  • American Library Association created a lobbying arm called Unite Against Book Bans after so many parents successfully used the Pico case to get “Gender Queer: A Memoir” removed from public schools.
  • “Gender Queer: A Memoir” was an obscure book for adults for two years until it was found and given two awards, including one for children, by the American Library Association.
  • The school librarian at the school has been given multiple awards by American Library Association and that cames with tens of thousands of dollars in rewards.
  • The school librarian used the money to buy $10 Dunkin’ gift cards as a bribe to get the school children to listen to her training them in political agitation for continued access to the material.
  • The school library has a huge foamcore sign featuring the school librarian Martha Hickson and the 2022 “Lemony Snicket Prize for Noble Librarians Faced With Adversity” she was awarded for keeping “Gender Queer: A Memoir” stocked in the school library despite the request of the school superintendent.  American Library Association branding is included on the sign.
Massive Martha Hickson and American Library Association book award sign in school library
Massive Martha Hickson and American Library Association book award sign in school library
  • The school library has a showcase window to display library-related items to students merely passing by in the hallway next to the school library.  The showcase contains multiple iterations of the viewpoints of the American Library Association, again with American Library Association branding on each of the 16 of 17 panels, each with the American Library Association federally registered service mark, “LIBRARIES TRANSFORM,” a trademark for “promoting public awareness of the value, impact and services provided by libraries and library professionals.”  These 16 panels can be found on an American Library Association website called I Love Libraries here: https://ilovelibraries.org/librariestransform/toolkit/
School library hallway display case features only slogans of the American Library Association and the Libraries Transform registered trademark
School library hallway display case features only slogans of the American Library Association and the Libraries Transform registered trademark
 
Trademark of American Library Association that appears on 16 of 17 panels in school library hallway display case.
Trademark of American Library Association that appears on 16 of 17 panels in school library hallway display case
  • The school librarian goes to other school board meetings in other towns, including one where the school librarian is suing parents for defamation (and the World Library Association Executive Director is named in the lawsuit) and hands out little flyers with the American Library Association federally registered service mark, “FREE PEOPLE READ FREELY,” a trademark for “[p]romoting public awareness about rights under the First Amendment, and censorship with regard to books and reading materials; initiatives to support the rights under the First Amendment and to oppose censorship; initiatives to support libraries to collect and individuals to access information.”
School Librarian Martha Hickson Hands Out Cards in Roxbury Touting Trademark of American Library Association.
School Librarian Martha Hickson Hands Out Cards in Roxbury Touting Trademark of American Library Association
  • The school librarian trains others to leap over the heads of her own administrations and boards.  Most significantly in this statement below by school librarian Martha Hickson is her saying to reach out for help from the New Jersey Association of School Librarians.  The significance is NJASL is the very organization charged by the legislation with making “model policy” for school boards.  In 4(b): “the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian and the New Jersey Association of School Librarians….”  So if NJASL is the go to source for a model policy, and Martha Hickson calls it a go to source for going over the heads of the school board and administration, then the game is fixed and S2421/A3446 is fatally flawed.  When asked “for ways to stand strong in the face of anti-intellectualism,” Martha Hickson responds: 

First, don’t go it alone. …. Reach out for support to the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the National Council of Teachers of English, EveryLibrary.org, and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, all of which have online forms to make it easy to report your case. Also get in touch with your local library organizations at the county and state level. For me that was the Hunterdon County Library Association, the NJ Library Association, and the NJ Association of School Librarians. And don’t forget school and community partners, including your union, your colleagues, parents, clubs, organizations, and most importantly students. People will want to help; you just need to tell them what you need.  Source: https://comminfo.rutgers.edu/news/standing-strong-against-censorship.

  • Speaking of New Jersey Association of School Librarians being the source for model policy per FRA 4(b), know that NJASL fully supports S2421.  It urges people to testify in favor of the legislation.  There will be no objectivity from an organization that supports one side and astroturfs for support.  As I said:

Oh look, more astroturfing for the Chicago Way, this time from the New Jersey Association of School Librarians, the very organization S2421 / A3446 charges with creating model policies for school boards to adopt, “the commissioner shall consult with the State Librarian and the New Jersey Association of School Librarians….”  Don’t expect any model policy to defend any parental rights or protect any children from harm in the slightest—just another reason why the Freedom to Read Act is flawed.

Source: “Librarians Suddenly Care About Parental Rights: Freedom to Read Act NJ S2421 A3446“

NJASL post politically agitating for people to testify in favor of S2421.
NJASL post politically agitating for people to testify in favor of S2421.
  • The choice in the Freedom to Read Act of New Jersey Association of School Librarians to set policy is flawed for a major reason.  It does what American Library Association wants and is subservient to American Library Association and its policy and also subservient to New Jersey Library Association [NJLA] in which New Jersey Association of School Librarians is a suborganization.  This is why American Library Association wrote the Freedom to Read Act to make its acolytes the authorities.  Evidence is a February 21, 2019, email NJLA sent to the superintendent of North Hunderdon-Voorhees Regional High School District asserting ALA policy and not its own, saying: 

“As President of the New Jersey Library Association I am writing to you in order to express our concern about the removal of the graphic novel Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel from high school libraries in your district.  ….  We affirm and support the principles of Intellectual Freedom as laid out in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as well as in the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights.  In light of these concerns, we urge you to respect your students’ constitutional rights and reconsider your position.  Sincerely, Leah Wagner.” (Link here, underline in original.) 

  • The school librarian trains other school librarians nationwide how to make materials reconsideration forms more stringent so as to minimize the number and success of those filed.  Very significantly, notice S2421/A3446 seeks to enact what she is training.  Also notice the training includes materials reconsideration forms actually provided by parents, with names and signature, even one from her own school.  Did she get permission to collect and reveal that information or is she leaping over the heads of her administration again?  See:
    • Hickson, Martha. “NJASL Spring Preso: Katy, Bar the Door.” New Jersey School Library Association, June 2023. https://www.canva.com/design/DAE6gx11MF4/IOoZrNigGdxux2f51L4lSA/view.

       

    • Future Ready Librarians Webinar: Reconsideration Process – From Complaint to Conclusion, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uurlO-ng6sY.  In this video, among other things, Martha Hickson is openly antagonistic to school administration (at 15:47): “The administrators in my building were not supportive, in fact they were actively accusatory and antagonistic asking me things like how can we have books but with language like that in our school as they clutched their little pearls.”  S2421/A3446 makes it law that defiant school librarians like Martha Hickson get what they want while school administrators get to clutch their pearls.
  • The school librarian uses the school/government website to promote the American Library Association, and as the means to stop parents from challenging school books.  Indeed she says, “Often the [Materials Reconsideration Form] alone can be enough to discourage a challenge.”  This librarian, Martha Hickson, who calls parents “censors” who “strike,” and guides librarians to go over the heads of their own employers and do so secretly, is the lead librarian pushing the New Jersey “Freedom to Read Act” legislation.  So the legislation is quite literally to silence parents and allow librarians free rein to act at will without “strikes” by “censors.”  Parents don’t need legislation to protect librarians from parents, they need the freedom under existing law to act to protect their children from predatory librarians who brazenly collude together on government websites to silence parents:
Hickson, Martha. “Challenge of Challenges: Challenge Emergency Kit.” North Hunterdon High School Library Media Center, November 27, 2023. https://libguides.nhvweb.net/c.php?g=1035323&p=7505173.  On April 27, 2024, Martha Hickson got that page removed; it was visible in the morning but not the afternoon.  But it can be found at an archiving site called the Wayback Machine here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230319215109/https://libguides.nhvweb.net/c.php?g=1035323&p=7505173  

 

 
 
School librarian Martha Hickson uses school/government resources to smear parents and guides out-of-district librarians to American Library Association resources, even secretly.
School librarian Martha Hickson uses school/government resources to smear parents and guides out-of-district librarians to American Library Association resources, even secretly.
Kleinman, Dan. “Tennessee Walking Horses – TN Parents Astroturfed by ALA Use High Stepping Lies to Overwhelm Rutherford County Library Board; It’s an ALA Pattern Nationwide.” SafeLibraries® (blog), December 15, 2023. https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/12/tennessee-walking-horses.html.

 

 

Chicago ALA's Legislation Across USA Shows It's From ALA, Not State Legislators

  •  See also:
    • American Library Association. “Pro-Library Legislation in 2024.” EveryLibrary, January 17, 2024. https://www.everylibrary.org/positivebills.
      • Notice it’s called “Pro-Library Legislation” and “positivebills” so we know ALA wants this legislation and is the driving force across America, not state legislators.
      • Many of these bills specifically call for the inclusion into law of “American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights.”  Many of this bills use the exact same language.  They were all written in Chicago, Illinois, then shaped to fit the local circumstances.

United States of America

California

Colorado

  •  Senate Bill 24-049, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1675009
    • “The bill establishes a process by which a student, parent, or member of the community may object to a library resource in a school or public library. Each library resource that is reconsidered pursuant to the process must be evaluated based on standards applied by a committee for school libraries and a director of a public library. Members of the committee for school libraries are appointed by the superintendent of the school district, and the committee covers reconsideration requests in all schools in the district. For public libraries, the director is selected by the library’s board of trustees and covers the library or libraries in the library district. A library resource may not be removed while a request for reconsideration is pending. A principal, librarian, media specialist, other employee, contractor, or volunteer may refuse a directive to remove a library resource if such an individual has a good faith belief that the directive conflicts with law or policy established pursuant to the bill, and such an individual may not be subjected to retaliation. The bill prevents the state board of education from waiving the requirements of the bill as they are applied to public schools, district charter schools, and institute charter schools. The bill specifies that it is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for anyone to discriminate against anyone in the selection, retention, reconsideration, or display of a library resource.”
    • Zialcita, Paolo. “Bill That Aimed to Make Banning Books from Libraries Harder Fails in Committee.” Colorado Public Radio, February 27, 2024. https://www.cpr.org/2024/02/27/proposed-bill-making-banning-books-harder-opposed-by-colorado-school-boards/.

Connecticut

  • Senate Bill 00148, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1706071
    • “To prohibit publishers of electronic books and digital audiobooks from including certain restrictions in contracts or license agreements with libraries in the state.”
  • House Bill 05417, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1719088/
    • “To require local and regional boards of education to state a reason for removing or restricting access to public school library materials and prohibiting such boards from removing or restricting access to such materials for certain reasons.”
    • “No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board; (2) An author’s race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views; (3) Personal discomfort, morality or political or religious views of a member or members of the board; (4) An author’s points of view concerning current events, whether international, national or local; (5) The race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views of a protagonist or other characters or as otherwise represented in the library material; or (6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships.”

Delaware

  •  House Bill 299, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1687718/
    • “Delaware Libraries for All Act.  It explicitly adds public libraries to the definition of place of public accommodation for purposes of Delawares Equal Accommodations Law.  It also directs the Delaware Library Consortium to develop and adopt common policies concerning collection, development, and other topics in order to ensure equitable access and the right to read for all Delawareans.”
    • “Amend § 8733, Title 29 of the Delaware Code [to add]: … (d) The Delaware Library Consortium shall develop and adopt common policies concerning collection, development, and other topics in order to ensure equitable access and the right to read for all Delawareans.”

Florida

  • House Bill 1355, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1661045
    • “Revises provisions relating to certain trainings & instruction, school district procedures & requirements relating to parental notification, classroom instruction, instructional materials, school personnel training, BOG reviews, state university performance-based incentives, required instruction, DEI program, & general education core courses; repeals provisions relating to personal titles & pronouns.”
  • Senate Bill 1414, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1660457
    • “Citing this act as the ‘Freedom to Learn Act’; repealing provisions relating to prohibited training or instruction in specified concepts which constitutes discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex; prohibiting school districts from adopting a procedure that compels or authorizes school personnel to share certain information with a parent under certain circumstances; requiring instruction in LGBTQ history in public schools, etc.”

Georgia

  • Senate Bill 458, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1698274
    • “AN ACT To amend Chapter 5 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to libraries, so as to require the board of regents to adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.”

Illinois

  • Senate Bill 3900, 2022; https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3900&GAID=16&GA=102&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=138986&SessionID=110
    • “Right to Read Act”
    • “Creates the Right to Read Act. Provides that the State Board of Education shall offer support: to each public school district to select evidence-based core reading instruction programs and implement them using structured literacy instruction; and to each early childhood, elementary, and special education teacher, reading specialist, literacy coach, and administrator to complete evidence-based training in teaching reading. Requires the State Board of Education to annually compile and post on its website information on the steps it has undertaken to support school districts to deliver high-quality, evidence-based literacy instruction, including a list of any Early Literacy Grant recipients, documentation of how the recipient allocated the funding to support improved literacy, and what evidence-based literacy curricula the recipient is utilizing. Amends the School Code. In provisions concerning educator testing, requires applicants seeking specified licenses to pass a test in reading foundations, which shall include assessment of the applicant’s understanding of phonological and phonemic awareness, concepts of print and the alphabetic principle, the role of phonics in promoting reading development, word analysis skills and strategies, vocabulary development, application of reading comprehension skills and strategies, and methods for assessing reading development. In provisions concerning minimum requirements for educators trained in other states or countries, provides that an applicant who has successfully completed a reading foundations test of at least comparable rigor to the Illinois reading foundations test is not required to complete a reading foundations test. Makes other changes. Effective immediately.”
  • Senate Bill 2243, 2023; https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GAID=17&GA=103&DocNum=2243&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=112&LegID=147129&SpecSess=&Session=
    • “Literacy and Justice for All Act”
    • “Amends the School Code. Provides that, in consultation with education stakeholders, the State Board of Education shall develop and adopt a comprehensive literacy plan for the State on or before October 1, 2023. Effective immediately.”
  • Senate Bill 2789, Public Act, 2023; 
    • “Freedom to Read Act”
    • PASSED INTO LAW: Public Act 103-0100 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=103-0100
    • “Amends the Illinois Library System Act. Provides that it is the policy of the State to encourage the improvement of free public libraries and to encourage cooperation among all types of libraries in promoting the sharing of library resources, including digital resources, and to encourage and protect the freedom of public libraries and library systems to acquire materials without external limitation and to be protected against attempts to ban, remove, or otherwise restrict access to books or other materials. Provides that the State Librarian shall prescribe rules concerning the development of a written policy declaring the inherent authority of the public library or library system to prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources. Provides that, in order to be eligible for State grants, a public library or library system shall develop a written policy prohibiting the practice of banning books within the public library or library system. Makes other changes.”

(75 ILCS 10/3)

Sec. 3.E. adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of
Rights that indicates materials should not be proscribed or
removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or, in
the alternative, develop a written statement declaring the
inherent authority of the library or library system to provide
an adequate collection stock of books and other materials
sufficient in size and varied in kind and subject matter to
satisfy the library needs of the people of this state and
prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources.

(75 ILCS 10/8.7 new)
Sec. 8.7. State grants; book banning. In order to be
eligible for State grants, a library or library system shall
adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of
Rights that indicates materials should not be proscribed or
removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or, in
the alternative, develop a written statement prohibiting the
practice of banning books or other materials within the
library or library system.

Kansas

Maryland

  • Passed into law.
  • Senate Bill SB738, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1691878
  • House Bill HB785, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1691869/
    • “Freedom to Read Act”
    • “Establishing the State standards for libraries for the operation of each library that receives funding from the State; altering the duties of the State Library Board, the State Library Agency, and regional resource centers to incorporate the State standards for libraries; making funding for certain libraries contingent on adoption of a written policy consistent with the State standards for libraries; authorizing the State Comptroller to withhold funding from libraries under certain circumstances; etc.

Massachusetts

  • House Bill 4005, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1639250
    • “For legislation to encourage the improvement of free libraries and library systems. Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development.”
  • House Bill 4229, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1656172
    • “Relative to the right of students to freedom of expression in public schools. Education.”
    • “such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights“
    • “, including the Library Bill of Rights.”
  • House Bill 4235, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1656778
    • “For legislation to further regulate access to certain library materials. Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development.”
    • “The board shall implement standards adopted by the American Library Association, including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights, and shall, subject to appropriation, appropriate funding to support the expansion of access to library materials as necessitated by said standards.”
    • “in accordance with standards adopted by the American Library Association including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights.”
    • “, which shall include, but not limited to, adhering to the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights. If a town or city does not follow these criteria and if the city or town takes action to ban materials and library access, they lose access to the State Aid.”
    • “To expand access to resources. The board shall adopt and offer guidelines consistent with the standards adopted by the American Library Association including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights.”
    • “including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights“
    • “The board of library commissioners shall promulgate rules and regulations to: (i) implement the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights“
  • Senate Bill 2528, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1655672
    • “For legislation relative to free expression. Education.”
  • Senate Bill S2447, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1642388/
    • “The board shall implement standards adopted by the American Library Association, including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights, and shall, subject to appropriation, appropriate funding to support the expansion of access to library materials as necessitated by said standards.”

Minnesota

  •  Senate Bill SF3567, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1706028
    • “A bill for an act relating to education; modifying provisions for prekindergarten through grade 12 education including general education, education excellence, teachers, literacy, charter schools, nutrition, health and safety, early learning, and education partnerships and compacts; requiring reports; amending Minnesota Statutes….”

Missouri

New Jersey

  • Senate Bill S2421, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1687931
  • Assembly Bill A3446, 2024;  https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1689776/
    • “Freedom to Read Act””
    • “This bill, entitled the ‘Freedom to Read Act,’ establishes requirements for library material in public school libraries and public libraries and establishes protections for school library media specialists and librarians against harassment. Under the bill, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are required to adopt policies on the curation of library material within school libraries and public libraries. ‘Library material’ is defined under the bill to mean any material including, but not limited to, nonfiction and fiction books; magazines; reference books; supplementary titles; multimedia and digital material; software and instructional material and other material not required as part of classroom instruction, belonging to, on loan to, or otherwise in the custody of a school library or public library. To assist boards of education in establishing a policy on the library material within school libraries, the Commissioner of Education is to create a model policy in consultation with the State Librarian and the New Jersey Association of School Librarians. The bill also requires the State Librarian to establish a model policy, in consultation with the New Jersey Library Association, for use and adoption by public libraries. The bill further requires boards of education and governing boards of public libraries to adopt policies creating a procedure regarding requests for removal of library material from a school library or public library. These policies are to establish a mechanism to challenge a library material, create a review committee, and require a written statement of reasons on the final determination of the library material. The State Librarian is to establish a model policy, in consultation with the New Jersey Library Association, for use and adoption by public libraries. The bill also requires boards of education and governing boards of public libraries to include diverse and inclusive material within their respective libraries. Students are to be able to reserve, check out, or access any age- and grade-appropriate library material, including diverse and inclusive materials. Similarly, residents are to be able to reserve, check out, or access any library material, including diverse and inclusive materials. The bill defines ‘diverse and inclusive material’ to mean any material that reflects any protected class as enumerated in the ‘Law Against Discrimination,’ (LAD); material produced by an author notwithstanding the author’s membership in a protected class as enumerated in the LAD; and material that contains the author’s points of view concerning contemporary problems and issues, whether international, national or local; but excludes content that is inappropriate for grades and age groups served by the school library. The LAD bars discrimination on the basis of a person’s race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, gender identity or expression, affectional or sexual orientation, marital status, liability for service in the Armed Forces, disability, or nationality. Further, this bill provides that a school library media specialist, teaching staff member, librarian, or any other staff member of a public library that engages in activities required under the bill is to be immune from criminal and civil liability. These individuals are also to have a civil cause of action for any relevant tort against any person who harasses the school library media specialist, teaching staff member, librarian, or any other staff member of a public library for complying with the provisions of the bill. ‘Harassment’ or ‘harasses’ is defined in the bill as a singular act that is severe or pervasive, or a series of acts over any period of time directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose and would cause, or has caused, a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. ‘Emotional distress’ is defined as significant mental suffering or distress. Additionally, the bill creates an affirmative defense for a prosecution for obscenity for school library media specialists, teaching staff members, librarians, or any staff member of a public library that are complying with the provisions of this bill. Finally, this bill expands the scope of the LAD, to incorporate protection against discriminatory acts against a school library media specialist, teaching staff member, librarian, or any staff member of a public library based upon their refusal to remove library material except as permitted under the bill. It is the sponsor’s intent that the Legislature protect the freedom of New Jersey’s residents to read, for school libraries and public libraries to acquire and maintain materials without external limitations, to recognize that school library media specialists and librarians are trained to curate and develop collections, and to protect school library media specialists and librarians from unnecessary and unwarranted harassment and defamation for performance of their duties.”
  • Senate Bill 1633, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1664648
    • “Prohibits public libraries and public schools from banning or restricting access to certain books; permits withholding of State Aid for non-compliance.”

New Mexico

  • House Bill 123, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1675100
    • “Prohibit Library Book Banning”
    • “A public library shall not be eligible to receive state funds unless the library: (1) adopts and complies with the American library association’s library bill of rights….”

New York

  • Assembly Bill 08870, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1687757
    • “AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to prohibiting libraries and library systems from banning books or other materials based on partisan or doctrinal disapproval”
  • Assembly Bill A06873, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1626278/
  • Senate Bill S06350, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1620299/
    • “Enacts the ‘freedom to read act’; requires the commissioner of education and school library systems to develop policies to ensure that school libraries and library staff are empowered to curate and develop collections that provide students with access to the widest array of developmentally appropriate materials available.”
  • Assembly Bill A02897, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1554111/
  • Senate Bill S05480, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1592124/
    • “Right to Read Act”
    • “Requires school districts to provide instructional programming and services in reading and literacy which are evidence based and aligned with state standards; requires teachers in grades pre-K through five to attend professional development courses in reading education.”

Oregon

  • Senate Bill 1583, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1695075
    • “The statement includes a measure digest written in compliance with applicable readability standards. Digest: This Act does not allow a board or a person to choose or not choose materials that are used in a school when the choice is discrimination. (Flesch Readability Score: 66.5). Prohibits discrimination when selecting textbooks, instructional materials, program materials or library books that are used in the public schools of this state. Declares an emergency, effective on passage.”

Rhode Island

  • House Bill H7386, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1692732
    • “This act would encourage and protect the freedom of public libraries to acquire and deaccession materials without limitations and to be protected against attempts to ban, censor or otherwise restrict access to books and other materials. This act further prohibits materials being removed from public libraries due to partisan or doctrinal disapproval. This act would take effect upon passage.”
    • This bill was voted down on 2/29/24. Legislators were opposed to ALA’s attempted interference in Rhode Island libraries.
  • Senate Bill S2281, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1703268
    • “This act would encourage and protect the freedom of public libraries to acquire and deaccession materials without limitations and to be protected against attempts to ban, censor or otherwise restrict access to books and other materials. This act further prohibits materials being removed from public libraries due to partisan or doctrinal disapproval. This act would take effect upon passage.”
  • Senate Bill S2429, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1703702
    • “This act would establish, as an affirmative defense to the crimes of circulating obscene publications or shows and selling or exhibiting obscene publications to minors, the person’s employment status as an employee of a school, museum, or library. This act would take effect upon passage.”
  • House Bill H7575, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1701863
    • “This act would establish, as an affirmative defense to the crimes of circulating obscene publications or shows and selling or exhibiting obscene publications to minors, the person’s employment status as an employee of a school, museum, or library. This act would take effect upon passage.”

Utah

Vermont

  • Senate Bill S0220, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1660601
    •  “An act relating to Vermont’s public libraries”
  • House Bill H0806, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1674768
    • “An act relating to the prohibition of book bans by public and school libraries”
  • House Bill H0807, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1674850
    • “An act relating to a school library material selection policy”
      • This bill really loves Chicago’s ALA, requiring two of its documents, not just one: “This bill proposes to require school districts and approved independent schools to adopt a library material selection policy and procedures for the reconsideration of materials, which shall be guided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement.”  Since the First Amendment has very slim guidance for public school libraries, basically the law requires Vermont to make The Chicago Way the law of Vermont, and likely without any discussion by any member of the Vermont legislature of the wording of those documents and how and why they are drafted as they were in the first place.  So eager is the Vermont legislature to adopt Illinois law that it skips right over its own state library association’s substantially similar documents.  Why even have state legislators?  Just let ALA’s lawyer write the laws for Vermonters.

Washington

  • House Bill 2331, 2024; https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1674184
    • “AN ACT Relating to modifying requirements for public school 2 instructional materials and supplemental instructional materials by 3 prohibiting improper exclusions of certain materials, establishing 4 complaint procedures, and promoting culturally and experientially 5 representative materials; amending RCW 28A.320.230 and 28A.642.020; 6 adding new sections to chapter 28A.320 RCW; adding a new section to 7 chapter 28A.640 RCW; and adding a new section to chapter 28A.642 RCW. 8”

Others Who Have Written About the Freedom or Right to Read Act

Supporters of the Freedom or Right to Read Act

Opponents of the Freedom or Right to Read Act

Written Testimony by World Library Association on CT HB5417

Dear Connecticut Legislators Discussing HB05417 on March 11, 2024, 11AM:
 
Why are we here?  We are here because the American Library Association [ALA] based in Chicago, Illinois, has been working for over half a century to s-xualize and indoctrinate America’s children via the medium of its so-called “Library Bill of Rights” that half a century ago made it “age” discrimination to keep anything from children.  See, Koganzon, Rita.  “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442 (archived: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing).  This has driven the faster and faster pushing of inappropriate material into school libraries causing parents to challenge such material in greater numbers and frequency, then the librarians complain about all the parents complaining, after ALA first caused the problem.  So in an effort to stop all parents anywhere from challenging materials, ALA had to come up with something.  ALA wants its “Library Bill of Rights” to be codified into state law, thereby effectively overruling the US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico ( https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/ ) and blocking parents from even filing complaints in the first place.  This Chicago organization called ALA has over a third of state legislatures considering whether to codify this “Library Bill of Rights” that one court ruled means “nothing.”  Such legislation has already passed into law in Illinois, ALA’s home state.  But it has been rejected in Rhode Island, a state closer to Connecticut.  Now such legislation to overrule the Pico case and the First Amendment comes to Connecticut in the form of HB 05417.  So that’s why we are here.  The question is, will Connecticut legislators pass into law what a private organization from Illinois has put forth to try to turn its nothing “Library Bill of Rights” into Connecticut law?
 
I’m Dan Kleinman, the Executive Director of the World Library Association based in Bee Cave, Texas.  WLA is the new alternative to ALA.  For opposing a similar law in New Jersey, also promoted by that same Illinois private organization, NJ state senator Andrew Zwicker called me a “meddling minority.”  So the World Library Association from Texas is a meddling minority but the American Library Association from Illinois that essentially wrote the Connecticut legislation and that of many other states is not.  The meddling being done is by the Illinois organization trying to mislead Connecticut legislators into violating Pico with false claims of First Amendment rights, the “right to read,” and the right for children to “see themselves” in the books they are reading.
 
This effort by ALA has encompassed about 20 states so far, almost half of the United States.  The details of exactly how and why it is so bad, along with what states are considering codifying the Illinois organization’s aspirational creed that means nothing, is written at the Right to Read Act page on World Library Association here: https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/  I feel there is no better guide on the topic from the point of view of parents.  To be very clear, ALA has worked for a very long time to mislead legislators nationwide into doing what the Illinois private organization wants, namely, ensure children get access to all materials at any age per the “Library Bill of Rights.”  As you consider this legislation, ask yourselves if you wish to be misled and to discard US Supreme Court precedent designed to protect children from harm, and to discard the First Amendment and likely your own state constitution.
 
And there it is, Connecticut Constitution, Article I (a real Article I, not the fake stuff in the Library Bill of Rights), Section 16, “The citizens have a right … to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.”  So if HB 05417 passes into law, it will immediately violate the Connecticut Constitution because parents will lose the right to seek redress from the school board whose hands are now tied by the law.  This is why you don’t want a private organization from Illinois writing any laws for Connecticut.  ALA simply doesn’t give a whit about the Connecticut Constitution or anything else for that matter.
 
One way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is with “long-term inoculation.”  This is in training from EveryLibrary, a crypto ALA affiliate.  As part of long-term inoculation, ALA (via EveryLibrary) specifically states, “Get to know your legislators and local leaders,” in the context of “identifying and activating others who care.”  Have any Connecticut legislators been “identified and activated” to “care” about ensuring children have unlimited access to anything whatsoever?  Have any librarians or library associations gotten to “know their legislators”?  See this for yourselves here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks.  And the crypto nature of EveryLibrary being a part of American Library Association is detailed here, as well as details on its “long-term inoculation”: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html
 
A second way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is via training ALA’s top lawyer gave to librarians, that before legislation is written, because that’s the goal they are after, before legislation is written, there needs to be “sustained messaging” that takes away the idea that certain materials are s-xually inappropriate for children and “reframes” the issue as one of diversity, inclusion, and the right for kids to “see themselves” in the materials they are provided.  This statement was surfaced and reported by me, after which Utah Senator Mike Lee discussed it at a recent “Banned Books” hearing on Capitol Hill.  He played the recording then afterwords said ALA’s lawyer was “saying the quiet part out loud,” that ALA is gr—ming and s-xualizing children.  His words.  As Utah Senator Mike Lee put it, “the goal is to s-xualize children, to provide minors with s-xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.”  Watch Senate Mike Lee display then discuss this video World Library Association surfaced and listen to his discussion of the issues regarding the contents of supposed “banned books”: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.  So ALA has decades ago made it age discrimination to keep kids from materials, the Pico cases allows for the removal of inappropriate material, books like Gender Queer have been successfully removed from many schools under the Pico case, and ALA couldn’t stand for that.  So it created “Unite Against Book Bans,” one of the goals of which was to get legislation passed nationwide that would prevent parents from applying the Pico case and prevent parents from exercising their First Amendment rights to seek redress of the government from governmental actions.  And here you are in Connecticut discussing this very legislation that has been the subject of “long-term inoculation” and “sustained messaging” that “reframes” known inappropriate material as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
 
And along comes HB 05417.  It would make the following the law of Connecticut: “No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board; (2) An author’s race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views; (3) Personal discomfort, morality or political or religious views of a member or members of the board; (4) An author’s points of view concerning current events, whether international, national or local; (5) The race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views of a protagonist or other characters or as otherwise represented in the library material; or (6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships.”  Now compare that with the “Library Bill of Rights” that the Berry v. Yosemite Community College District court case ruled means “nothing” ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).
 
“No board shall remove or restrict access to library material for any of the following: (1) Partisan approval or disapproval of any library material by the board…” says HB 05417.  Article II of the Library Bill of Rights, they call it an “Article” to make it sound official, maintains that “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”  Do you see the slight word change from the Illinois version to the Connecticut version?  Much of the rest of HB 05417 is based on the Library Bill of Rights with some word changes.  But at least that language comports generally with the Pico case.
 
As you get further into HB 05417, it simply defies the Pico case.  That case allows schools to immediately remove materials that are educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar.  HB 05417, on the other hand, eliminates those concerns by saying, “(6) The content of the library material is related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships.”  Gender Queer was removed from many schools as it violated the Pico case.  However, under HB 05417, Gender Queer would never be removed because it is “related to sexual health and addresses physical, mental, emotional or social dimensions of human sexuality, including, but not limited to, puberty, sex and relationships.”  Pervasive vulgarity or educational unsuitability and the Pico case goes right out the window when the words of HB 05417 are applied.  Not only does HB 05417 eliminate the US Supreme Court Pico case, it also eliminates the First Amendment’s and Connecticut Constitution’s grant of right of redress.  If the school board is constrained by law from removing Gender Queer and similar books, then parent’s rights to seek redress of the government are eliminated, gone, this is the goal of ALA.  Under HB 05417, there is no longer a right to ask a school board to remove a book from the school.  Those rights are gone.  HB 05417 takes those rights away.  Under the wording of HB 05417, there is not a single book in the library now or ever that may be challenged by a parent and removed by a school board.  This is the goal of the Illinois based private organization called ALA.  I feel certain no parents want this legislation HB 05417 to pass into law in Connecticut except those few who support that Illinois organization more than they support the law, community standards, and common sense, and except those few legislators who have been successfully coopted by the “long-term inoculation” and the “sustained messaging” from the Illinois based private association of librarians.
 
I further feel certain that should HB 05417 pass into law, it will be challenged in court for First Amendment violations, among other things, then eventually struck down.  Will that out-of-state private organization fund all that legal footwork to protect Connecticut’s children?  Of course not.  HB 05417 should never become law in the first place, and it should never be reworded because it is fatally flawed.  It comes from an out-of-state organization as part of a half century effort to “long-term inoculate” adults so they drop their guard and allow children to be s-xualized and indoctrinated in school despite that being against the law, community standards, and common sense. When the ALA lawyer says to “reframe” inappropriate material as DEI so kids can “see themselves,” anyone can see for him or herself what’s going on, and Senator Lee’s words make it crystal clear.
 
Do not pass Chicago ALA’s HB 05417 into law.

Related Topics

Librarians Sneaking Marxism on Kids

A Louisiana librarian of three decades, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal, told NR that the idea of neutrality or objectivity in the profession has become obsolete.

“It’s totally gone. I felt like it was really going south in 2016,” she said, though “it’s just getting worse as time passes.”

“You can’t question climate change. You can’t question BLM. You can’t question gender transition,” she continued. “Abortion is another one we don’t have books [on] and we can’t discuss.”

Yet, there are still books that are being pulled from some school library shelves, largely over objections to their ideological arguments. In Martin County, FL, the book Stamped: Racism, Antiracism and You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi was removed from the shelf. Parents from far and wide have objected to Stamped because, as North Carolina mom Katie Gates told her school board in January 2022, the book “contains Marxist ideology” and “inaccurate reframing of history.”
She’s not wrong. Stamped argues, among other things, that the phrase “law and order” is a racial slur and that “the only thing extraordinary about White people is that they think something is extraordinary about White people.”

“We affirm the inherent dignity and rights of every person. We work to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associations through awareness, advocacy, education, collaboration, services, and allocation of resources and spaces.”

The ALA Code of Ethics translates the values of intellectual freedom that define the profession of librarianship into broad principles and provides a framework for library professionals dealing with situations involving ethical conflicts. The addition of the principle codifies the library and information services profession’s commitment to racial and social justice and further emphasizes diversity and inclusion as one of the profession’s core values.

Sneakily fit stuff into current programs. So you’re not doing Drag Queen Storytime (yet), but you’re probably doing Regular Old Storytime, right? Try to “sneak” inclusive messages into your current programs. For instance, if you’re reading a book about a Mama bear and a Papa bear, maybe when you read it you just change it to be about 2 Papa bears! Or if you’re reading a book about a rabbit who likes to get dirty and play sports, maybe when you read it you pointedly say it’s a girl rabbit. If there are characters in a book where the gender is unidentified or irrelevant, feel free to play and change it up! Chances are kids and families won’t even notice, but for that same-sex family or gender-nonconforming child who does, it will really mean a lot to them to know their librarian has their back.

Obscenity in School Libraries: In Favor, Opposed, and Media

Suggested Citation: 

World Library Association. “Right to Read Act.” World Library Association, February 8, 2024. https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/.

Permissions granted for free and open access.

Updated often.

Talk to us

Have any questions? We are always open to talk about your libraries, new projects, creative opportunities and how we can help you.

Get In Touch