|
Dan Kleinman, of SafeLibraries.org is named in VersagiVoice's
extended comments concerning the Royal Oak Library and
Internet
Filtering. Kleinman sent the following email to City Officials and
provided a copy to me. -- FJV 12 Mar 08
|
Dear Royal Oak Governmental Leaders:
Congratulations are due to Frank Versagi
for being so interested in the issue of Internet filtering in public libraries
and writing about it so thoroughly, even attempting to present both sides of the
issue. Clearly he took his time to produce a rather thorough accounting of the
matter in Royal Oak, MI, where he lives. See
http://www.versagivoice.com/RO_news_politics.htm/library_internet.htm for
his report.
But some constructive criticism is due, first about me, then about the issues
generally.
Frank Versagi contacted me about a letter to the editor I wrote that was
published in the Royal Oak Daily Tribune. I have never seen the publication and
my article is not available online on the paper's web site, but here is what I
wrote to the editor:
http://www.safelibraries.org/royal_oak.htm
Mr. Versagi asked if I wrote the letter just for Royal Oak or if it was boiler
plate. I said it was for Royal Oak but I supposed it could be boiler plate as
the issues are similar around the nation, but I had not yet seen the actual
publication so I did not know exactly what it said. You see, editors sometimes
change the wording of letters, so I was not sure of the contents of the
published letter. I don't even know its title, something editors assign.
However, one can see I addressed the specific misleading comments make by the
ALA leader in the Royal Oak
matter and the specific manner in which the media may have misled the
public. Nevertheless, Mr. Versagi reported, "The column, he acknowledged, is
boilerplate. He simply changes the city's name and sends the same message to
whichever city his Google-surfing brings up." So my constructive criticism here
for Mr. Versagi would be to be a better listener and to approach matters with an
open mind--he was the one raising the boiler plate issue although the letter has
never been used elsewhere, only Royal Oak, MI. I did use Google to learn of the
Royal Oak matter in the first place, however.
Mr. Versagi goes on to say, "As do others involved in this debate, Safe
Libraries cites legal cases which are interpreted differently by the two
sides." That's necessarily true but it misses a major point. The whole reason
why this ten year old issue being raised again in Royal Oak should be
reconsidered is that the US Supreme Court has determined five years ago that
Internet filtering in public libraries is perfectly legal, does not violate
anyone's rights, and is merely a means for extending existing book collection
policies and practices over the Internet. The case was United States v.
American Library Association [ALA]. The ALA lost, and lost big. Now I argue US
v. ALA controls, and Mr. Versagi argues I have a different interpretation from
the other side. But, and here's the misleading aspect to Mr. Versagi's
statement, the other side, namely the library, lost the case. The other side
lost the case. It cannot now restate the same issues as if they have to be
relitigated anew in Royal Oak, MI. So if the library "interprets" the case
differently from the US Supreme Court, the interpretation I follow, doesn't that
really mean it is refusing to be guided by the case the ALA lost? And by Mr.
Versagi's statement, isn't he suggesting that the librarians in Royal Oak, MI,
have potentially valid reasons to ignore US v. ALA on the very same issues
already asked and answered in US v. ALA?
Now on to the issues of a more general nature, Mr. Versagi makes similar
sweeping yet incorrect statements. For example, he says, "CITCOM -- ... has no
official authority over the Library Board...." That is the very issue I raised
in my letter to the editor that is the key to the controversy. Mr. Versagi
addresses that merely by ignoring the issue and proclaiming the government has
no control over the library. That is false and misleading. If the library is
acting outside of the bounds of its creating instrument, the government has
every right to ensure the library stops such activity. The government would be
negligent if it refuses to rein in similar bodies that act outside the bounds of
their prescribed duties.
Another constructive criticism for Mr. Versagi is that he should have been as
equally questioning about the library as he was about me and the commissioners.
For example, he speaks about "privacy screens" as if they are effective and the
commissioners chose to shrug them off. Yet he does not determine the actual
efficacy of such filters. The efficacy is zero. The screens only protect the
library from complaints from the citizens. Had Mr. Versagi asked me, I could
have directed him to, for one example of how poorly privacy screens work and how
the library knows it: "ABC7's Dan Noyes: 'I've seen the [privacy] screens and I
see how they work and the stuff is visible from behind. You can see
everything.' [Library director] Jane Light...: 'So you can avert your eyes.'"
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4808374 Okay, avert your
eyes. Then why have ineffective privacy screens in the first place, and why
tell people they are an effective alternative to filters? Why doesn't Mr.
Versagi give privacy screens more scrutiny, or least not use them as a club
against the commissioners, saying, "The commissioners were dismissive on their
part." The commissioners are right to be dismissive of privacy screens.
And speaking of dismissive, let's go to the videotape. Mr. Versagi: "We were
told it's tough if filters block useful information about, say breast cancer,
because people can find books on the subject (of course, there are those who
would ban such books, too)." That sounds dismissive to me. But what is the
substantive truth here? The truth is modern filters no longer block out such
information. How do I know? The ACLU, formerly a party with the ALA in US v.
ALA, has broken ranks with the ALA and now argues filters work extremely well
and no longer block out health-related material. See ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D.
Pa., March 2007 [ACLU expert and court agrees Internet filters are about 95%
effective and no longer block out breast cancer and other health-related
information—so effective that another law, COPA [Children's Online Protection
Act], was found unconstitutional].
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf This is a case
Mr. Versagi does not cite, though he cites to another library's own study that
filters are ineffective. More constructive criticism for Mr. Versagi would be
to provide Royal Oak citizens with such information instead of dismissively
misleading them.
By the way, "the intellectual and legal arguments that are the subject of
national debate" is Mr. Versagi's and the library's opinion. In reality, US v.
ALA has already asked and answered those exact arguments. The ALA lost. Now
it's time to move on and apply the law.
Misleading the public about the facts and the law is an effective means to
prevent the use of Internet filters, but the commissioners are obviously trying
to wake the public up to the library's misinformation. Mr. Versagi seems to
object to this. I fail to see why libraries are not honest and do not allow
citizens to make informed decisions, rather than acting as if US v. ALA doesn't
exist and anything goes in the public library thanks to the Internet, then
convincing the public to follow them blindly. I don't have to be from Royal Oak
to believe Royal Oak citizens would rather make an informed decision instead of
being led down the primrose path by people ignoring US Supreme Court precedent
in apparent allegiance to the ALA.
The remainder of Mr. Versagi's article is similarly misleading again and again.
It appears that with all the hard work he has done writing his report, he has
not read US v. ALA or ACLU v. Gonzales. Or at least it has not made an
impression on him as he makes statements that are clearly opposed to the Courts
findings and dicta. So I'll stop here for now.
My goal is not to get Royal Oak citizens to think like me, rather it is to get
them to think for themselves. I attempt to provide them with reliable sources
they can read and evaluate for themselves, like US v. ALA.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html I also attempt to point out where
the library or the media are misleading them. As Dan Gerstein said, "The ...
elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural
tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the
loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral
world-view on others."
http://www.plan2succeed.org/wsj-why-the-democrats-are-losing-the-culture-wars11apr05by_dan_gerstein.html
--
----------
Dan Kleinman
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
http://www.SafeLibraries.org/
