Friday, January 30, 2015

Antisemitism at ALA Midwinter

Antisemitism at ALA Midwinter (link)?  Yes.  Not all of the American Library Association [ALA], just a few like University of Illinois professor emeritus Al Kagan (link).

To make a long story short, ALA Council (link) member Al Kagan is leading an effort to convince ALA to pass a resolution to divest ALA from certain American corporations such as Caterpillar (link).  Why?  Because Caterpillar products are used by the Israeli Defense Forces (link) [IDF] to defend Israel from terrorists and Al Kagan is a member of the BDS movement (link) that commits economic jihad against Israel and the United States.

As Al Kagan put it, "Caterpillar Inc. sells heavy equipment used by the Israeli government to demolish Palestinian homes and agricultural lands, as well as to build illegal Israeli settlements...."  Never mind the terror tunnels (link) and the beheadings (link) that Israel and the rest of the world including parts of the Muslim world are defending against, right?

Librarians are not happy with the way Al Kagan seeks to use ALA for his own promotion of antisemitism.  For example:

Al Kagan is known to be way out there, like when he called ALA's top icon Judith Krug a racist (link).

He even has a history of using ALA Council to perpetuate his antisemitism (link).  "Rory Litwin allowed Library Juice to be used by Al Kagan, a Library Administration professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana, where he is active in the anti-Israel divestment campaign (link)."

For ALA's history of antisemitism generally, see Librarians for Fairness (link) and "Librarians for Terror (link)," by Lee Kaplan,, 24 August 2004.

Anti-Semite Al Kagan (link)
But Al Kagan's latest move is to attack a Jewish librarian who dared to speak up against his antisemitism.  Free speech only goes so far for certain free speech ALA Councilors/professors.  And his attack was done with flat out deception.  Indeed that blatant deception is what motivated me to write about his use of ALA Midwinter to promote his antisemitism again, as he used ALA in the past.  And notice he could care less that she feels his resolution is antisemitic.

He mocks the Jewish librarian for mentioning the IDF.  He says is was "not even remotely included" in his antisemitic resolution.  True he didn't mention the word IDF.  Yet he wants ALA to dump Caterpillar stock—because its products are used by the IDF, the "Israeli government" as he put it.  So the IDF is a direct target of Al Kagan, yet he hides this by saying the IDF is "not even remotely included," just so he can fool others into using ALA to promote his Jew hatred.  If you have to hide your antisemitism by attacking a Jewish librarian with flat out false claims, you obviously know there's no legitimate basis for whatever it is you're promoting so you need to turn to ad hominem argument.  And being Jewish is no defense to being an anti-semite.

Okay.  That's my opinion.  Here are relevant excerpts of the emails that support my assertions that there's antisemitism at ALA Midwinter, bold emphasis mine, and other librarians are saying it as well, as shown below.  See if you agree:

Al Kagan
Jan 28, 2015


The SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force sent the following 2 resolutions to the Resolutions Committee yesterday.  We look forward to discussing them in Chicago.

Al Kagan
SRRT Councilor

African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration Emeritus
University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign

Resolution on ALA Divestment from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions

Whereas in its “Core Values of Librarianship” the American Library Association (ALA) “recognizes its broad social responsibilities,” defined “in terms of the contribution that librarianship can make in ameliorating or solving the critical problems of society; support for efforts to help inform and educate the people of the United States on these problems and to encourage them to examine the many views on and the facts regarding each problem; and the willingness of ALA to take a position on current critical issues with the relationship to libraries and library service set forth in the position statement” (ALA Policy Manual A1.1);

Whereas the  International Court of Justice; the European Union; the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, the UN Security Council, the UN Economic and Social Council, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Council; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; and the International Committee of the Red Cross have condemned the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, the destruction of Palestinian homes and property, and the construction of a separation barrier in Palestinian territory as violations of international law and as obstacles to economic and social development and the attainment of peace and justice in the Middle East;

Whereas Caterpillar Inc. sells heavy equipment used by the Israeli government to demolish Palestinian homes and agricultural lands, as well as to build illegal Israeli settlements on that land and roads solely used by illegal Israeli settlers; and Caterpillar Inc. helps to construct the Separation Barrier extending across the 1967 "Green Line" into the East Jerusalem and the West Bank;

Whereas Hewlett-Packard (HP) provides hardware and serves as a contractor to the Israeli Navy to manage all Information Technology (IT) including its operational communications, logistics, and planning such as the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip; HP, through its ownership of Electronic Data Systems, sells Israel the electronic biometric identification scanning equipment to monitor the movement of all 2.4 million Palestinians, including equipment for the mandatory biometric scanning required for getting through checkpoints to jobs, hospitals, food and other daily needs; and HP also provides communications technology to the Israeli army;

Whereas Motorola Solutions Inc. has been involved with selling wide-area surveillance systems for installation in the illegal Israeli settlements and a communications system known as "Mountain Rose" to the Israeli government, which uses it for military communications, as well as rugged cell phones used by the Occupation forces in the Palestinian Territories;

Whereas for these reasons the United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has called for a boycott of Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions Inc.;

Whereas in June 2014 the 221st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), motivated by these concerns, voted to divest its holdings in Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions Inc.;

Whereas in the 1980s the American Library Association joined in the international divestment campaign against South African apartheid as a tool for non-violent political change;

Whereas in 1994 the ALA Council voted to endorse the 10-point South African Council of Churches Code of Conduct for Businesses Operating in South Africa, as guidance on investment decisions for the ALA Endowment Trustees concerning corporate policies on equal opportunity, training and education, workers’ rights, working and living conditions, job creation and security, community relations, consumer protection, environmental protection, and empowerment of black businesses; and

Whereas the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) call for the incorporation of environmental, social, and corporate governance issues into investment ownership policies and practices; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Council of the American Library Association (ALA), on behalf of the members of ALA,

(1) directs ALA to divest itself of any holdings in Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett Packard, and Motorola Solutions Inc.; and

(2) declares that it will not invest in these companies until ALA Council is fully satisfied that product sales and services by these companies are no longer complicit in:
  a. constructing and providing security for illegal Israeli settlements;
  b. constructing and maintaining walls and fences that illegally encroach upon Palestinian lands;
  c. managing checkpoints that dehumanize Palestinians and cut off innocent civilians from their property and natural resources; and
  d. contributing to and profiting from the military occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Mover: Al Kagan, SRRT Councilor, 217-819-9975

Seconder: Jane Glasby, Councilor-at-Large, 510-206-8614

Audrey Barbakoff
Jan 28, 2015
to ALA

I am a new Councilor and this is my first post to this listserv, so please forgive me if I’m misunderstanding anything here.  I appreciate learning from all of you!
Such resolutions would have broad, far-reaching meaning with impacts well beyond the nuances of this particular conflict and region.  By focusing only on the destruction of Palestinian libraries, rather than the many cultural institutions threatened around the world; by singling out one country for divestment while we continue to financially support atrocities in other places; and by calling out Israel specifically when our usual policy is to avoid focusing on individual cases; we miss many important and powerful opportunities to be socially conscious.  We deny ourselves future access to a resolution which could be applied to protest social ills in many situations.  We make the conversation about whether or not ALA is an anti-Semitic organization, instead of about ALA and SRRT’s ability to be a force for social justice.
Audrey Barbakoff

Al Kagan
Jan 29, 2015


As you know by now, there is a national campaign going on against the 2 SRRT resolutions with the help of media consultants.  As I stated in my previous message, we expected a sophisticated national campaign against the resolutions.  I am getting messages from people who are very not likely not librarians or members of ALA.

What surprises me is that this campaign is much less sophisticated than we expected.  Many of the messages show that the senders have not even read the resolutions.  Many of the messages refer to language that is not remotely included, and one recent message referred to 4 separate resolutions on various topics.  The one below really takes the cake.  For those who don't know, the IDF is the Israeli Defense Force, that is the Israeli military.

I look forward to debating the resolutions on their merits as informed by ALA core values.

Al Kagan
SRRT Councilor

African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration Emeritus
University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign

Begin forwarded message:

[Name elided]
Jan 29, 2015
to Al Kagan

Subject: ALA initiative

This initiative against the IDF is unconscionable.  It is antisemitic in the extreme.  It must not go forward.

[Name elided], member of AJL [Association of Jewish Libraries (link)]


Apparently, having the opinion someone is an antisemite based statements by others and his own statements made for over a decade is known as an "attack."  I "attacked" no one.  I reported, there's a big difference there, on the sustained antisemitism and use of ALA resources by one ALA Council member, and provided evidence both past and present.

That said, Daniel Cornwall is clearly worried that my accurately reporting what he said may have an effect on his career similar to how Chrissie Hynde reportedly (but not in reality) felt about Rush Limbaugh using the Pretenders song "Our City Was Gone" as his radio show's theme song.

The only thing I said to which Daniel Cornwall objects is, "Librarians are not happy with the way Al Kagan seeks to use ALA for his own promotion of antisemitism."  Tell, am I wrong, are they happy?  As Mr. Cornwall said himself in response to me, and I agree completely:
Instead we're potentially giving a lot of time to discussing divisive issues overseas at a time when I don't personally feel we're giving enough attention to what is going on in our back yard. That's all my tweets were meant to convey.
So basically, legitimate business of the American Library Association is being ignored while Al Kagan persists in his "divisive issues overseas" and his using ALA as his own hammer.  Well ALA should not be Al Kagan's hammer.  And all I said was "Librarians are not happy with the way Al Kagan seeks to use ALA for his own promotion of antisemitism," just another side of the same coin of what Daniel said.

And ALA Councilors are still discussing the obvious efforts of Al Kagan.  One just said, "These are tough issues, and unlike Councilor Kagen, I welcome perspectives from the broader world, don't see them as part of an organized conspiracy, and will consider, embrace, dismiss them on the merits that I see in each one."

I am 100% certain I reported accurately, and this latest evidence only confirms it further.

Daniel Cornwall is likely well aware that I am watching and reporting because, in true self-arrogated free speech advocate fashion, he wrote, "I would also like to ask that we refrain from calling each other conspiracy theorists or other names on list.  Please take that offline."

He misses that is was the antisemite himself who made the conspiracy theory claim: "As you know by now, there is a national campaign going on against the 2 SRRT resolutions with the help of media consultants."  Those Jews controlling the media again, I suppose.

You be the judge on what Daniel Cornwall wrote about me:


Apparently, antisemitism is par for the course for ALA:

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Petition: Stop Porn in King County Libraries

Sign the petition to "Stop Pornography in King County Libraries (link)."  Here's the text of the petition:
We ask that the King County Library Board take immediate action to stop adults from openly watching pornography in our taxpayer funded libraries. 
To accomplish this, the King County Library Board needs to adopt a new internet public use policy.  This policy should disallow the removal of the Internet filter when requested by an adult library patron wishing to access usually blocked material.  The current policy is to remove the Internet filter at the request of such an adult patron. 
We suggest that the King County Library Board use the Internet Public Use Policy of the North Central Regional Library in eastern Washington as a model.  In the Washington Supreme Court Case of Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library of 2010, the court ruled that the North Central Regional Library can choose which collections to display and does not have to remove their Internet filter.  The North Central Library Internet policy blocks websites which include the following categories:
  • Adult Materials
  • Nudity and RisquĂ©
  • Pornography
  • Child Abuse (Child Pornography)
  • Image Search
  • Video Search
We would like to see the same content blocked in our libraries.  Please help us send this message to our library board!
I signed that petition.  Here is my comment:
That this petition is based on Bradburn v. NCRL (link) makes it very easy to sign as what's requested has already been proven in Washington state and federal courts to be perfectly legal.  Well done.  Here's more on that case:
This is based on more moms speaking out about their young children seeing pornography men are viewing in public libraries despite the law:
In this particular case, the King County Library System has been creating victims for years, could care less about them or even about the law and defrauding the federal government, and the King County government does nothing to stop the lawlessness and exposes itself to liability:
There are very few days per year the King County Library System does NOT serve pornography illegally.  This is one of them:
When will this ever stop?  We can start to stop it if you sign the petition, right now (link).

URL of this page:

On Twitter: +Istook @JamieQ13Fox  +KCLS @KCnews @KVIJohnCarlson @NCRL_Automation +Q13 FOX

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Porn Facilitation in Public Libraries: ALA Guides Librarians to Defy SCOTUS

Source: "The Web is Facili-
tating an Upsurge in Female
Exploitation & Slavery" (link)
It is porn facilitation in public libraries if you are the leading expert in libraries with the power to guide librarians on how to write policy and you guide them to defy the US Supreme Court—the very case you lost.  The American Library Association [ALA] is that leading expert, perhaps the nation's sole expert and provider of model library policy.

US Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Rights Do Not Attach to Pornography in Public Libraries

ALA lost in the US Supreme Court on the issue of pornography in public libraries.  The case was United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (link).  The case ruled, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  In part, this is because: "The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."

So it is perfectly legal to block pornography from public libraries and also to keep it blocked even if a patron requests an unblock (link).  Indeed, no library has ever been sued for blocking pornography (link).

ALA Teaches the First Amendment PROTECTS Porn in Public Libraries

But ALA teaches librarians the exact opposite of the US Supreme Court.  It does this in specialized "guidelines" intended to help local libraries write Internet access policy.  The "guidelines" are the very vehicle designed to ensure maximum coverage in libraries nationwide of what is essentially the opposite of the law:
In the millions of Web sites available on the Internet, there are some—often loosely called “pornography”—that parents, or adults generally, do not want children to see.  A very small fraction of those sexually explicit materials is actual obscenity or child pornography, which are not constitutionally protected.  The rest, like the overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet , [sic] is protected by the First Amendment.
Source: "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 26 March 2013 (link).

So, according to ALA, pornography web sites that are not ruled to be obscenity or child pornography are "protected by the First Amendment."  Compare with the case it lost a decade earlier where the Court ruled, "Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."

It is inescapable that ALA guides librarians that blocking porn violates the First Amendment, the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court ruled in the case named for the ALA, namely, US v. ALA.  And the reliable sources above prove exactly that.

US Supreme Court ruled library filters do not
violate the First Amendment.
ALA not only guides librarians on what is 100% opposite of the law, but ALA teaches new library trustees 100% opposite of the law as well (link).  ALA even teaches this illegality in academic libraries (link)!  ALA is very thorough in ensuring everyone gets the message.

ALA teaches the exact opposite of the US Supreme Court.
Here's a library attorney siding with ALA over SCOTUS.
If you are the leading authority on library policy, and if you lost in the US Supreme Court on the issue of the alleged First Amendment right to pornography in public libraries, and you are teaching librarians and library trustees in public and academic libraries the exact opposite of the case you lost over a decade ago, you are facilitating porn in public libraries.

ALA has even been recognized two years straight for facilitating porn.  See: "ALA Listed As Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women" (link).

Conclusion: ALA Facilitates Porn in Public Libraries

The US Supreme Court says "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  Meanwhile ALA, being in a position of authority, teaches "'pornography'... is protected by the First Amendment."  That is 100% the polar opposite of the law.

So ALA is guiding librarians and library trustees in public and academic libraries to defy the US Supreme Court, it is in the very position of power to do so, and communities are being harmed as a direct result (link).  What part of that is NOT facilitating porn in public libraries?

Monday, January 5, 2015

I Feel Sorry For These Librarians: Toledo Library Loaded with Crime and Bedbugs

Toledo-Lucas County Public Library—it is loaded to the gills with crime and bedbugs:
I feel sorry for the librarians and library employees.  Read the 2012 (link), 2013 (link), and 2014 (link) incident reports from the above story.  It is absolutely atrocious what librarians have to go through, including, for example, frightening sexual harassment from porn-viewing patrons:
A librarian in September, 2014, reported a regular patron had made comments about her hair and tried to touch her.  The following month, he made more comments to her.  This time it was about being the head of her fan club. 
"He keep yelling 69, 69, 69 at me because his birthday is 1969, but he was referencing the sexual act," the female librarian said in her report.  "After using the computer he wouldn't leave and kept asking for my number and saying he will miss me."
Truly unbelievable.

Of course the American Library Association says librarians are never sexually harassed and likely never will be (link).  Why does library media not report on such things, both the harassment and the cover up?  Why is it only me?  (If you are a librarian or library employee being sexually harassed, please contact me.  I am basically the only person who will help you, and I'll do so confidentially.)

And notice the library lets the vast majority of those sex criminals including masturbators get off, as my criminal law professor joked, with essentially a slap on the wrist.  See the excerpt below, for example.  What's with that?

Notice how the library defends itself.  After about 1,000 crimes per year for years, a reporter asks for public records of the crimes, and immediately the library director responds.  Not before, mind you, only when caught.  The excuse is the library has acceptable use policies in place.  "We have a code of conduct and policies that we follow as best as we can," said the director.

I have been showing year after year that acceptable use policies NEVER stop library crime.  Library filters properly managed do help stop library crime, however, and the Federal Communications Commission says library filters work really well (link).

Naturally, American Library Association leadership says filters do not work by promoting outdated and misleading misinformation from a censorious hack cited in a slick publication (link).  At the same time they claim filters on computers for children are wonderful and your kids are in a "safe library" even if the adult computers allow child porn (link).  They must think people are stupid—the filters work on the childrens' computers really well but they don't work on the adults' computers.

By the way, the US Supreme Court ruled there is no First Amendment right to constitutionally protected material in public libraries where that material comprises Internet porn (link).  And do people really want the "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of speech" to see victims of sex trafficking having the worst day of their lives as they get drugged and raped and videotaped for guys to masturbate like they do in the Toledo library (link)?

Here an excerpt from that excellent story by Ignazio Messina in The Blade (link):
Porn and computers

Policing computer usage in libraries also has become a regular duty for librarians, [head of security for the library system] Mr. Sabo said.
Looking at pornography on a library computer can result in a one-week ban, while engaging in sexual activity could mean a one-year ban.  In March, a man at the downtown library was eligible to be slapped with both violations for masturbating at a computer station.

"A couple of minutes into my observations, I noticed [the man] watching a video of a partially clothed female being raped by a male with a gun," a report said, and the man began masturbating through his pants.  He ultimately apologized, acknowledged he should not have done that in a public place, and left quietly.

When a patron is found viewing pornography, he or she usually leaves the building quietly.

But on June 28, a man viewing pornography at the downtown library refused to leave when confronted by library security.

"When I told him he has to leave he stood up and walked within inches of me, threatening, 'If he ever sees me on the street he will put me down' and that 'He doesn’t care what badge I have or if we call the police.' "  He was eventually escorted out by two security guards.

After a patron is banned, returning to the library can get him or her slapped with a criminal trespassing charge.  The libraries deal with a lot of repeat offenders.


This post is right on target.  You can tell when a Systems + Instruction Librarian at Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, named Nicholas Schiller (link) takes time out from work to attack me as "evil" for "malicious harassment"!  I simply tweeted this blog post having to do with sexual harassment of librarians to Twitter hashtag #TeamHarpy that is about sexual harassment of librarians (link).  Here is my tweet:

Do you see anything wrong with that?  I don't.  That tweet, however, prompted the following response (to another tweet, shown in context at bottom) from the university librarian and ALA member:

When I responded that I had no idea what he was talking about and asked why he would be so mean (link), he made further attacks on me for "harassing women" (link), then felt compelled to explain to everyone but me that he really wasn't being mean.  Oh no.  He was just doing a public service.  He was just "publicly pointing out bad behavior" to other librarians generally at #libchat and to the upcoming ALA Midwinter meeting at #alamw15:

What was my "bad behavior"?  Pay attention because this goes to the crux about how some librarians will do absolutely anything to help ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" continue to facilitate child pornography, homophobia, and sexual harassment of women in libraries.  My "bad behavior" was tweeting about my being involved in a SLAPP suit (link), exactly as #TeamHarpy was involved in a SLAPP suit, as a direct result of my reporting on someone else reporting on homophobia by representatives of the Orland Park Public Library (link):

And how do we know the #TeamHarpy matter is a SLAPP suit?  Mr. Schiller tells us, "I Am #TeamHarpy; I ally myself with Lisa Rabey and nina de jesus.  Lisa and nina are friends of mine and colleagues who are facing a SLAPP suit to silence their frank and open discussion of another colleague's behavior (link)," hyperlinks omitted.  Similar to TeamHarpy exposing sexual harassment of librarians, I exposed homophobic statements made to protect child pornography facilitation in a library.  For that I was SLAPPed.

So the #FreeSpeech experts who support those who call child pornography "intellectual freedom" (link) say it's "bad behavior," "harassing women," "evil," and "malicious harassment" for me to use a Twitter hashtag.

Who cares about the victims I am trying to help, right?

Some librarians will say and do absolutely anything to perpetuate the facilitation of child pornography in America's libraries and the massive harm caused by so many public libraries being used to consume child pornography and pornography, both against the law in public libraries, both harming sex trafficked victims and the rights and lives stolen away from them (link).

So long as I'm one of the few reporting on these issues, since mainstream library media will not touch it seriously, I'll continue to use "bad behavior" to report on and publicize the matter.

If the "free speech" librarians cannot stand my occasional use of a Twitter hashtag, that's their problem, not mine.  Unbelievable that my using a hashtag is "malicious harassment" but facilitating child porn in public libraries isn't and my saying so must be squelched with broadcast ridicule.  By librarians, of all people.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @FCC @IgnazioMessina @OIF @ToledoLibrary @ToledoNews

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Bridget Bittman Transcript on 89 WLS: OPPL Library Having Child Porn Is a Safe Library

Bridget Bittman is the public relations employee of the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], Orland Park, IL.  She was interviewed regarding child pornography in that library by Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft on 89 WLS AM.  Below is a transcript of that interview on 6 November 2013, to the best of my ability to discern the fireworks.

Other than noting she calls OPPL a "safe library" affirming my own goal of helping communities achieve safe libraries,  I'll leave out commentary so you can think for yourselves:


Actor Robert Preston: With any librarian such as Marrrrrrrrrrrian. [Singing Marian the Librarian from The Music Man.]

WLS's Bruce Wolf: Marrrrrian. Uh, if you were with us last hour we talked with Megan Fox, uh, who has led this campaign against the Orland Park library for allowing access to pornography at the Orland Park library, and so we wanted to give equal time right now, we’re interested in this controversy, to the Orland Park library, and we are joined right now by Bridget Bittman, who is, uh, spokesperson for the, uh, Orland Park library. Thanks for coming on the show. We appreciate it.

OPPL's Bridget Bittman: Oh, thanks. Good morning Bruce.

Bruce Wolf: So…

Bridget Bittman: Glad to have our, uh, side of the story be heard.

Bruce Wolf: So, okay just to refresh everyone's recollection right here, the complaint is, is that there’s been access, uh, given to, uh, pornography at the Orland Park library, and that, I mean you have like men coming in there and going on, uh, the video screens and, and looking, uh, at pornography while there are children around. Uh, and, and this was brought up at a library board meeting, Megan Fox has made, uh, a video about this, complaining about it, and what is your response to this complaint?

Bridget Bittman: Sure Bruce. You know, the safety of our children at the Orland Park Public Library is really important to us, and we have some very, very key safety measures in place at the library.

Bruce Wolf: And what are those safety measures?

WLS's Dan Proft: Do you have filters on the computers?

Bridget Bittman: Sir, yes we do. As a matter of fact we have filters on our children's computers, at, um, they are on the first floor, and no adults are allowed to use the computers on the first floor.

Dan Proft: What? Wait, wait, okay. So why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to?

Bridget Bittman: Well, uh, let, let me explain also that on our teen computers, so that consists of kids who use it from ages, um, probably around 12, 13 to the age of 17, those computers are filtered as well, because we feel that those safety measures for kids are very important, in addition to their parents supervising whatever they look at online. And we also recommend that parents take a look at what their kids are checking out …

Dan Proft: Okay. Can, can you …

Bridget Bittman: … and so they’re okay with what they’re viewing.

Dan Proft: … Can, can you answer my question?

Bridget Bittman: Sure.

Dan Proft: Why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to, because the concern is, uh, of course, of adults being predators online.

Bridget Bittman: Okay. Well, the reason is because we believe that adults, ages 18 and over, are, should be responsible and should have the ability to view anything that's not illegal or obscene. And that's why we allow access to adults to make the right choices to view what's responsible and not illegal and obscene.

Bruce Wolf: Okay, here's the thing. You know, would you want your children in the same library? And I understand it's on a different floor, and you’re trying to have, you know, these, whatever, so they can't see what the adults are looking at, but would you want your children in the same building with some guy who’s coming in and looking at porn?

Bridget Bittman: Well, Bruce uf, that's a really good question. I have a 13 year old daughter, she just turned 13 on Monday, and as a parent I know that a library offers safety guards for me, but I'm always going to have an eye on my kids. That doesn't mean that, that adults, whether it's women or men, are coming to the library to access this type of information. I mean that's like saying, you know, and, and what is the definition of, of what Miss Fox calls pornography? Is it a Victoria Secret? Is …

Bruce Wolf: Yeah, I know, I know it's ...

Bridget Bittman: … it a Sports Illustrated magazine? [crosstalk] Let me say it. Let me say it.

Dan Proft: Potter Stewart, you'll know when you see it, right.

Bruce Wolf: But, I mean we can agree on certain things on pornography, that you’re permitting it, that you wouldn't want your daughter to be around anyone, you know, involved with it. I mean why can't you just, you know, cut off access to these kinds of things?

Bridget Bittman: Okay. Well, that's a really good question.

Bruce Wolf: You, you’re not required

Bridget Bittman: So.

Bruce Wolf: … to show porn …

Bridget Bittman: Yes.

Bruce Wolf: … are you?

Bridget Bittman: Well, that's an excellent question. But we do support the First Amendment right for people to view what they want, adults, ages 18 and up. But let's say Miss Fox came to the library to research a story of another library that supposedly was showing pornography or she wanted to know what kind of pornography was offensive or what have you. Guess what? If she came to our library and we filtered that, she wouldn't be able to research what she really needed to research.

Bruce Wolf: She's willing to pay that price.

Dan Proft: What about the, the reports that she FOIA’d, uh, uh, about, uh, uh, incidence of public masturbation at the library. Were those true or not?

Bridget Bittman: Okay. So we have had 12 years, she FOIA'd requests. In the past 12 years we have 7 incidents. Okay, so 12 years span, 7 incidents where we have had inappropriate behavior at the library, okay? The police have looked at these. Of those 7 incidents, only one, only one, was not handled in the way that we should have, and the library appreciates that and has changed the way that we respond to that. Now. Over 12 years, these were some of the … these were some of the things. We had mentally challenged teenager in the bathroom that said the joke, "Oh, they should have a sign, library penises should hang out here." Then, this is what he did, …

Bruce Wolf: Well, uh, uh, okay …

Bridget Bittman: … he went to the, wait, he went to the urinal and he pulled his pants down …

Bruce/Dan: All right, all right, we don't need to hear this story [crosstalk]. We don’t need to hear the details of that story. We’re not talking about isolated incidents. We‘re talking about access to porn. The bottom line is she FOIA’d a report …

Bridget Bittman: Wait, no, no, no, no. This is what she FOIA’d. And this is what she called a sex crime. A young disabled man …

Dan Proft: That's not what she, that’s not what she’s [crosstalk] …

Bridget Bittman: … that’s pulling his pants down …

Dan Proft: Let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s tamp down the demagoguery. That is not what she is saying is a sex crime. That is specifically not what she is saying is a sex crime …

Bridget Bittman: That is exactly what she’s saying is a sex crime.

Dan Proft: She is, she is … what are the other 6 incidents then? Is, are any of the incidents that, in the seven, …

Bridget Bittman: There was one incident, there was ...

Dan Proft: … that you described consistent with what she described?

Bridget Bittman: There was one incident of child pornography that was reported to us …

Dan Proft: … oh …

Bridget Bittman: … an hour after the person had reported it to us …

Dan Proft: Oh, huh, child porn.

Bridget Bittman: … child porn …

Bruce Wolf: Oh okay, child porn, there you go …

Dan Proft: Bridget, Bridget …

Bridget Bittman: Okay, so that’s, let me give you an idea, that’s one incident in 12 years, there’s no reasonable illegal item that happened.

Bruce/Dan: No, I understand, I understand. One incident, when it was caught.

Bruce Wolf: Here Bridget, I mean, you know, we appreciate you coming on, and thank you so much for doing that. But I mean, why can't we use our common sense here? Why can't you use your discretion and say, "We're not going to show, uh, you know Hustler or whatever, and we're not going to have this because, you know, our kids are around here. Why don't you just do that?

Bridget Bittman: So you want us to start making choices for what adults get to view.

Bruce Wolf: Yeah I do.

Bridget Bittman: Okay.

Bruce Wolf: I want to use your discretion as an adult, like you do it for your daughter. Use your daughter as the standard. That’s what …

Bridget Bittman: Wait, no.

Bruce Wolf: … I want you to do, Bridget.

Bridget Bittman: Okay, you want, you want the government and you want librarians to start [crosstalk] …

Bruce Wolf: Yeah I want my local library to do that at Orland Park. I don't want the national government to do it, I want Orland Park to do it, and I want to move in to your neighborhood, right now. I like you.

Bridget Bittman: You're welcome. We have a great library, and we have a safe library, and we don't have [crosstalk] …

Bruce Wolf: GET RID OF THE PORN AND I'LL MOVE IN THERE! Thanks Bridget, we appreciate it.

Dan Proft: So we want one that reflects community standards, that's all.

Bruce Wolf: Thank you Bridget Bittman, library spokesperson.

Announcer: This episode contained brief nudity. Viewer discretion is advised. 89 WLS.

URL of this page:

On Twitter: @BruceAndDan @IntolerantFox @OrlandPkLibrary @WLSAM890