"parents who would tell their children not to read playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
9/18/95 citizen, quoting judith krug,
ala director of oif.
link/legal notice.

effects of ala policy:  list of crimes and filters in libraries and schools; please help an 8 year old library crime victim.

apa online - click for sexualization report
another effect is the sexualization of children.  see:  report of the apa task force on the sexualization of girls
please donate $1 now.

about us

to all,

my name is mark decker i have been fighting to have playboy magazine removed from my local public library since march 21st 2005.  i followed all of the libraries policies and procedures that are set forth by the ala.  as you may know that was a complete act of futility.  the oak lawn public library has what is called a non-removal policy.  this policy indicates that for the library to remove a contested item, such as playboy, a court order must be issued.  so the library already had defeated my request as a concerned parent from the onset.  of course i did not know that until six months later.

oak lawn man begins snuff-out-smut campaigni have done some productive things to try and overturn the library board's decision which was 7-0 against my request.

  1. i had a petition drive, over 700 signatures demanding the removal of playboy.  also, two churches representing approx. 450 people supported my cause.
  2. i was on wls am 890 for an hour stating my case for safe libraries.
  3. i have launched a new website www.safelibraries.org (getting about 2,500 hits per day!).
  4. i have stood in front of the oak lawn public library for hours with a 6' sign professionally lettered that read, "porn, children, and the o.l. library = danger."
  5. i have petitioned my local mayor to intervene.
  6. i have spent thousands of dollars from my family's budget because i so strongly feel pornography is a danger to children and women in the library.
  7. i have a professional research survey and report that polled oak lawn residents and the results validated my claim that residents in my community don't want tax-funded pornography.

my rights as a tax payer means nothing to the bureaucracy of my local library.  they are in the truest sense autocratic, absolute and total control.  if a selection librarian chooses material, it is impossible to have it removed even with logical, pertinent, and compelling evidence based on the library's non-removal policy.  a librarian could not be in error.

my opposition runs about with their fingers in their ears, "free speech, free speech."  my first amendment right in my opinion was violated because i was unable to have a fair and unbiased process to present my case.  the library allowed me to make my presentation and they did listen.  but if it is my right to petition my government [the library] with a redress of grievances, how is it just if they already knew prior that i would have to sue in court and win to remove playboy.  my opposition also calls me a would be censor.  censorship would be if the government knew you were going to publish something that they found objectionable and prohibited you from doing so; that would be censorship, prior restraint, and a violation of the first amendment.  as a citizen, i am not a censor; i am petitioning the government to stop funding pornography.

  1. dr. james casey the oak lawn public libraries director is a counselor for the ala.
  2. the president of the ala, michael gorman, actually wrote a letter congratulating dr. james casey and the library board of trustees for defeating my request.  his quote, "thank you for stopping a would be censor and a self appointed arbiter of what one may view."  nice, just a concerned parent trying to make the world a better place, the ala and my library are so happy to keep playboy 32 years and counting.
  3. the leader of the ala's so-called office for intellectual freedom, judith krug, actually stated in response to this issue, "i get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children...."  isn't that outrageous?
  4. the oak lawn public library is so sinister that they actually started advertising in their bi-monthly newsletter sent to all addresses in oak lawn.  "the next time you are at the library why not check out the latest edition of playboy."
  5. i appealed to the library board of trustees with a 15 minute presentation, i asked repeatedly for them to reconsider based on all of the public support i garnered.  "no, our decision is final."  "i asked if i had 5,000 or 10,000 signatures would you reconsider?"  same answer, no!

needless to say i can use some help on this issue.  i have dedicated the past six months of my life to this very important topic.  and i have learned not only are libraries intentionally keeping children and women at risk, they are doing it with a chip on their shoulder.  the internet filter issue is a problem in our library also, i would like to apprise you of that.  please refer to our library 411 page.

i ask, why is it such an abhorent point that a librarian would take a moral stand and act in the best interest of a child to protect a child from viewing obscenity, if a parent was not present?

thank you.  mark

louis vuitton outlet