P2S Reply:
Thank you for contacting us.  On the issue of Scientific American, Plan2Succeed has been incorrectly portrayed.  And online we responded to the criticism as follows:

Too bad for the Knoxville community that the library director found a notice of noncompliance with the law to be "disturbing."  Perhaps we will offer to send the library of copy of that Scientific American magazine, by far one of the best magazines in the country.  We are not trying to force our vision anywhere, we are just trying to get the ALA to stop defying the law of the land, a law set by two branches of the federal government, not by P2S, where the defiance of which may be directly resulting in the rape and molestation of children in public libraries!  Lastly, the comment about the burkhas may be considered racist or discriminatory, inflammatory at the least -- and they call us a "hateful group" in the next sentence!

And for your interest, let's add the following.  We LOVE SciAm magazine.  It's one of the best.  It's one of the most useful.  It's one of the most interesting.  Plan2Succeed never said anything bad about that magazine, and we sure do not tell people to deface them, or anything for that matter.  We are fighting against an ALA that defies the law.  We are not fighting to defy the law ourselves.  We place all of our criticism online for all to see.  Yours will be there too.  If you look carefully at the criticism, you will see it is entirely of a personal nature.  Not a single argument has been made as to why the ALA is right to defy US v. ALA, etc.  We actively encourage debate on the issue.  However all such attempts are merely personal attacks or complete misrepresentations.  Here's another example:  someone said they did not want us to enforce our morality on anyone.  Who cares about our morality.  That is so totally not the issue.  The issue is the intentional refusal by the ALA to follow the law, the consequences thereof, and the children we could help save from rape and molestation if we could only get our message in front of the public.  And when we respond to the attacks, we usually do so in the polite manner in which this email response is written.  We do not get our jollys by personal attacking those personally attacking us.  Our sole focus is bringing to the public's attention that the ALA is defying the law, pushing porn on children, and getting away with it scot free, while the consequences are more molested and raped children.  I hope you will reconsider your feelings about P2S and consider helping us spread the word to communities to protect children.  Sure not every community needs to worry all the time.  But just look at the examples we provide of newspaper stories and you will see the general pattern is some kid is getting raped, molested, or assaulted in some public library somewhere where that library would have had filters to comply with the law BUT FOR the direction of the ALA to defy the very law designed to protect children.  We think the ALA has some culpability and needs to be forced to comply with the law (CIPA and US v. ALA).  Please help us.

P2S Surreply:
Here's how.  Apparently (we did not see the article) some religious leader said a picture of a naked lady in SciAm was porn.  Then, the library director, in a separate response, responded that, among other things, the library has no porn.  This article was then brought to the attention of P2S.  We investigated the library's web site where it was learned the library is against filtering.  Although we have not been to the library and our only source of information is the newspaper articles and the web site, it is a very safe assumption that porn has in fact been in that library.  P2S therefore responded with a letter to local leaders and the library, possibly others, that the "no porn" statement was fatually incorrect.  P2S never once said anything about the SciAm article.  We specifically commented on the Internet porn only.  Then someone doing the usually personal attacks claimed one of our "legions" (would that it were) defaced a SciAm magazine, and that our removal of the SciAm article is inflicting our personal views on them.  P2S, therefore, was mischaracterized, and likely intentionally so because emotional arguments are effective against us precisely because logical arguments would quickly lose -- who could argue that the US Supreme Court should be intentionally defied?  So, if you don't mind, where did you learn that P2S is against SciAm, because we would like to stop that snowball before it kills our efforts to stop childr