|
|
|
|
|
[ exhibit 1 :] this is the face of a victim violated by criminals that local librarians invite into libraries. this grandma was attacked by children who had just viewed porn in this library. there are victims like these all over, and most of them are children. did i say invite? it's even worse. sometimes libraries defy community standards and the law just to ensure children have continued access to unfiltered pornography and criminals have continued access to children, even after a significant ruling by the united states supreme court.
mister contest chair, ladies and gentlemen. something is endangering all our children, and most people don't know anything about it. we already know viewing pornography sometimes causes people, mostly men, to act out against children, right? it's worse when those people, tempted by erotic images on a computer screen, have a ready supply of children to grab.
as the internet grew, public libraries rightly incorporated it into their establishments. but the internet also carries a huge amount of pornographic traffic. viewers of pornography molested children inside public libraries. that's bad, right? you bet! that's why a law was passed requiring public libraries to filter the internet against pornographic images, the very same images that were never previously permitted in libraries under existing book collection policies and practices.
guess who tried to stop that law? can anyone guess? go ahead. that's right! librarians! their professional collective, the american library association, commonly called the ala, actually sued to stop that law.
can you believe the ala was the lead plaintiff in a suit to stop the application of an act designed to protect children from internet pornography via the simple means of using a software filter?
be that as it may, the us supreme court eventually heard the case, us v. ala in 2003, and decided the ala was just plain wrong. further, the court held that children are entitled to special protections: "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."
the ala's reaction? the supreme court was wrong! the ala went so far as to suggest that our high court was racist, perpetuating a so-called "digital divide." the ala is actually doing everything in its power to minimize the effect of the case it lost. the organization even launched a propaganda campaign designed to get the public and legislators to believe the us supreme court is wrong as well? the result? in libraries effectively controlled by the ala, children remain susceptible to rape and molestations as if cipa and us v. ala never existed!
do you think any of us could get away with defying the us supreme court? despite the court's clear, unanimous statement that children are entitled to special protections, the ala still says it is "age" discrimination to keep children from viewing pornography. the ala is the force behind the implementation of these radical, unhealthy policies into local public libraries and public school libraries nationwide.
who here thinks teaching a 12 year old about oral sex is a good idea? who hear wants their children to participant in oral sex after having learned about it in book after book? who here wants people to give their children sexually inappropriate books? guess what? librarians have taken on the roll for themselves of gleefully and proudly recommending and awarding sexually inappropriate books for your children. then the local librarians complete the distribution channel to ensure the children read the books. it is actually the most efficient porn distribution ring targeting children in the united states and it flies right under everyone's radar.
here's what's flying under your radar. the ala produces list of books for children that contain pornographic selections! look at the ala's 2001 top 10 quick picks for reluctant young adult readers . "young adults," by the way, are defined by the ala as " ages 12 - 18 ," so even pre-teens have skipped over their teenage years and become young adults. you see, by redefining a 12 year old as a young adult, you can better fool people into thinking award winning pornography is great reading for them.
see that book "deal with it"? likely following the ala recommendation, the book was purchased for hundreds of new york city public schools. that book so offended people that it was removed from the schools before the children had a chance to be sexualized. can you imagine a book so inappropriate that liberal new york city parents objected? here is the new york post article that discusses this nyc department of education fiasco , and i urge you all to read it. even in our own communities schools are providing children with sexually inappropriate books. when a parent complains, immediate attention is paid to the parent's concerns, anything to make the situation go away so the other children can continue to be spoon fed the pornographic material. i myself wrote about the case in warren, nj where a public school sixth grade class was given a book about rape, incest, and prostitution because it was "authentic literature" about "contemporary social issues" having "educational value ." is this what you want for students to learn in public schools?
what to hear another way the ala pushes pornography on and endangers children? they give sexually inappropriate books top awards! the ala even compares these awards to the " academy awards ." these ala award winning pornographic books for children are then adopted into local communities and schools. your child then gets the book and you are happy to see them reading such award winning books, only you don't know the book contains sexually inappropriate material you would never what your child to know. your child then reads the book, and, like children everywhere, they immediately figure out what pages to dog-ear, then they try out the new sexual technique they just learned in the ala award winning book your librarian recommended that you were happy to have your child read, and now your child has acquired a sexually transmitted disease, perhaps a deadly one. ask the ala about this and they will argue the book needs to be considered as a whole, but we all know the children only remember the sexually charged sections.
let me summarize this cycle of sexualization by librarians that directly endangers your child:
a few years ago, when freshly minted college grad john green was contemplating his future, he probably didn't count on being linked in the public imagination with the use of a toothpaste tube to demonstrate the mechanics of a particular type of oral sex.
after all, the original plan was to become an episcopal priest.
but green's first novel, looking for alaska (dutton, mar.), includes one of the most-talked about scenes of the season, in which the title character, a doomed blonde babe named alaska, gives the woefully naive 17-year-old narrator miles "pudge" halter and his date some basic instruction in partner pleasuring. alaska is sure to become one of those books teens eagerly pass aroundi? 1/2 with certain pages dog-eared.
let me add this. you cannot avoid agreeing with me on this without being dishonest. a certain book, push , by sapphire , contains material such as a man repeatedly raping his daughter and his own three year old child/grandchild still in pampers, and, when caught by the mother, the daughter is forced into oral sex with the mother. the book goes on and on like this. the ala says the book is only for grades 11, 12 , and the " college bound ." so far, so good. well not great but at least the ala imposes some limits on its usual stance that anything goes.
but wait! the ala then contradicts its own findings about push and posts this: " this book by sapphire is an excellent book for anyone not just teens ." clearly the ala has contradicted itself. clearly it is recommending a book it itself finds inappropriate for 10th graders and below to "anyone not just teens." the ala chose to publish this statement, in its teen section no less, even if the ala itself did not first pen the statement.
[ exhibit 2 :] here are some pictures from some of the books. remember, folks, if these shock you, these are from recommended children's books for 10 year olds. as you know know, the ala even gives these books awards to ensure they get into school libraries! [ exhibit 3 :] and they proudly display their "radical, militant librarian" buttons that they have for sale. [ exhibit 4 :] i think the ala anthem is "smut!" by tom lehrer -- here's a sample of the song. [play some portion of smut! song here.]
i'll bet a lot of you didn't even know this occurred, or that it is still happening in our public libraries and public school libraries. this is how librarians endanger children. our children are at risk and someone has to do something about it.
ladies and gentlemen, i developed a highly visited web site at safelibraries.org. because of my efforts, parents, entire cities, and even states can adopt policies that will counter the efforts of the ala. now it's your turn to learn how bad things really are and take action to protect your children from the ala-controlled librarians in your own communities. please start learning more at safelibraries.org, then protect your children!!
mr. contest chair.
i do have a cause though. it is obscenity. i'm for it. unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. that's all there is to it. but you can't get up in a court and say that i suppose. it's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the constitution unfortunately. anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days i have here a march for mine. it's called...
|
smut!
give me smut and nothing but! a dirty novel i can't shut, if it's uncut, and unsubt- le. i've never quibbled if it was ribald, i would devour where others merely nibbled. as the judge remarked the day that he acquitted my aunt hortense, "to be smut it must be ut- terly without redeeming social importance." por- nographic pictures i adore. indecent magazines galore, i like them more if they're hard core. (bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything! more, more, i'm still not satisfied!) stories of tortures used by debauchers, lurid, licentious, and vile, make me smile. novels that pander to my taste for candor give me a pleasure sublime. (let's face it, i love slime.) all books can be indecent books though recent books are bolder, for filth (i'm glad to say) is in the mind of the beholder. when correctly viewed, everything is lewd. (i could tell you things about peter pan, and the wizard of oz, there's a dirty old man!) i thrill to any book like fanny hill, and i suppose i always will, if it is swill and really fil thy. who needs a hobby like tennis or philately? i've got a hobby: rereading lady chatterley. but now they're trying to take it all away from us unless we take a stand, and hand in hand we fight for freedom of the press. in other words, smut! (i love it.) ah, the adventures of a slut. oh, i'm a market they can't glut, i don't know what compares with smut. hip hip hooray! let's hear it for the supreme court! don't let them take it away! |
