please donate $1 now.
disagrees with letter on playboy, by paul bohanek, daily southtown, 24 nov 2005. [response to gay group support of library 'alarming'] wow, the personal attacks on mark decker have reached another low, now going after his profession, and pornography for children is defended as "freedom." the letter is, however, funny since pure desperation is evident, yet sad in the amount of personal, group, and religious attacks packed into three small paragraphs to attempt to justify pornography for children in a public library. apparently, we are not the only ones to notice this:
it's unfair to resort to name-calling, by john naughton, daily southtown, 11 dec 2005: the letter to the editor by paul bohanek calling those who work for the illinois family insititue [sic] (ifi) "a bunch of bigots" (nov. 24) is very sad and is yet another example of the hypocritical "tolerance" of the left. bohanek is quick to disparage others by calling them names, but he does not offer a substantial argument as to why he holds this emotionally charged opinion. ifi has consistently defended its positions with sensible arguments in letters to the editor and with articles on a number of different public policy questions on their web site. it is intellectually dishonest to call a group of people names simply because you disagree with them.
library critics are 'know nothings', by bob schwartz, gay liberation front, daily southtown, 13 nov 2005. this letter is typical of those who say playboy is not available to children in the library when in fact it is. the ala gets this wrong too. truth is not important to those trying to ensure pornography remains available to children and children remain available to criminals. this letter skims over the playboy issue and goes on the attack of another organization that supports keeping playboy away from children. loud, personal attacks are the hallmark of those who tacitly admit they lose on the issues and that continues to scare off parents from demanding improved library material selection in the first place; this letter is a perfect example.
readers debate playboy's place in oak lawn library, featuring supports village board on playboy, by nancy m. czerwiec; chagrined by censorship attempt, by r. william wolf; applauds trustees for taking stand, by kathy valente; distressed by 'narrow-minded action', by linda melander; library, southtown editorial are elitist, by david e. smith, senior policy analyst, illinois family institute; and library should stand by its principles, by william beaulieu, daily southtown, 9 nov 2005.
daily southtown suggests public is "irrelevant" on playboy in the library, by david e. smith, senior policy analyst, illinois family institute, 7 nov 2005.
the southtown claims that since the oak lawn library board is an elected body, the decision to keep playboy shouldn't be questioned - even if 80 percent of oak lawn residents disagree. this is alarming, to say the least. the fact that the daily southtown, in siding with the library board, [is] openly dismissing the "irrelevant" will of the people, smacks of the elitism that is typical of the out-of-touch media. .... in their arrogance, the seven members of the library board have not simply rejected one oak lawn citizen, but the wishes of the entire village. .... in short, the library board does not have the final say about what taxpayers can or cannot do with their money - the people of oak lawn do!
village board is wrong to enter playboy fray, by our editorial board, daily southtown, 6 nov 2005.
[t]he letter to the library board looks like unwarranted interference in library business. and the playboy question is library business, not village business.
mom wants playboy out of library, by natalia smith, daily southtown, 2 nov 2005.
town leaders reopen playboy decision, by the ala, american libraries online, 28 oct 2005. the ala hides that the oak lawn public library makes playboy available to children because playboy is available to children "periodicals desk staff will make a copy of a text article from playboy for patrons under the age of 18 who have a specific citation for the article." library board, 6 apr 2005.:
throughout the controversy, the library has continued to make playboy available by request only to patrons who are at least 18 years old.
oak lawn presses library on playboy, by victoria pierce, chicago tribune, 27 oct 2005.
village to ask library to remove playboy, by daniel duggan, daily southtown, 26 oct 2005. [also published the next day in "the star" as "oak lawn board asks village to remove playboy from its shelves."]
"there is a difference between censorship and sponsorship," mayor dave heilmann said after the meeting. "if someone wants [playboy], that's fine, they can buy it at a store."
porn dealers given notice; oak lawn police warn of possible obscenity charges, by daniel duggan, daily southtown, 13 oct 2005.
check us out, by the playboy forum, playboy magazine, nov 2005.
playboy a cause of crime on kids, women, by nancy czerwiec, daily southtown, 4 oct 2005.
oak lawn public library patrons say "no" to playboy magazine, by safelibraries.org, illinois family institute, 30 sep 2005.
the issue is spending tax money on playboy, by mark decker, daily southtown, 28 sep 2005.
library is for adults, too - not just kids, by naomi miller, daily southtown, 22 sep 2005.
oak lawn pressed on anti-playboy fight, by victoria pierce, chicago tribune, 14 jul 2005.
protests 'playboy' in library; oak lawn man states that magazine may entice sex offenders, by yvette presberry, southwest news-herald, 6 jul 2005.
readers: ban the bunnies; readers sound off on playboy in libraries, daily southtown, 2 jul 2005. 37 wrote in favor of removing playboy and 3 wrote against removing playboy. those in favor are mark decker, oak lawn; arlene sawicki, south barrington; chris bekermeier, homer glen; emily wray, chicago; joetta deutsch, taylorville; karen hayes, palos heights; kathy valente, lansing; nancy m. czerwiec, former oak lawn library board member, oak lawn; many more to be posted soon. those against are mike sutko, oak lawn library trustee, oak lawn; not many more to be posted soon.
oak lawn library vows to keep playboy on shelf, by jo napolitano, chicago tribune, 23 jun 2005.
this article contains a famous quote by the main force behind the ala's sexualization of children, judith krug: "i get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children...."
this article also calls the library's bluff and proves that it is pushing pornography on the public. see library director james casey's statements:
"we build a collection of what we think is a reflection of what the community wants to see," casey said. "we try to serve the public rather than stand in judgment of their tastes."
and see statements by patricia roberts, the library board president:
"i'm a feminist, so it's hard for me to be comfortable about playboy, let's be honest here," she said. "but am i comfortable that we shouldn't remove material because one person asks? yes, i'm very comfortable with that."
but have either of these two reconsidered their statements in light of proof that the community wants playboy removed from the public library? of course not! this failure to comply, even with their own pronouncements, is proof they are pushing pornography into public libraries against the will of the people! and james casey's involvement, being a member of the ala council that governs the ala, is direct evidence of the ala's culpability as well.
resident urges oak lawn to crack down on porn, by victoria pierce, chicago tribune, 26 may 2005.
'sex' in library may be disruptive, by eric zorn, chicago tribune, 3 nov 1992.
the oak lawn public library is not likely to face this problem. director james casey said he has looked at "sex" and found it "largely pornographic in nature; not the kind of book that a public library would buy."
filed under controversy - directing oak lawn's library is not a pursuit for the spineless, by jeffrey steele, chicago tribune, 26 jul 1992.
[after] 1980 ... the board heard ... appeals to ban playboy magazine. .... [a former board member described] "a library journal article that appeared in april of 1992. it was based on a national survey of 1,200 people, in which both librarians and patrons were interviewed. the results showed a wide dichotomy between what librarians wanted on library shelves and what patrons wanted. for example, 70 percent of the patrons surveyed wanted to ban 'playboy' and 'penthouse' and books on how to commit suicide."
note: we have many more articles to post, almost all supporting our view. this issue generates so much news and letters that we need time to add them to our site. please check in often to see what's been added.