@mgumbah said, “The ALA has non-disparagement language in their severance agreements.”

Look, I can only imagine the ALA language is essentially boilerplate. So I cannot see any harm to the ALA due to disclosure of such language.

“CIPA Author Exposes ALA Deception; Ernest Istook Who Authored Children’s Internet Protection Act Calls Out American Library Association for Using Legal Tactics to Claim First Amendment Protection for Public Library Pornography Viewing, Causing Librarians to Be Indifferent and Leave Children Unprotected”

http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/cipa-author-exposes-ala-deception.html

No library media, other than myself, wrote on the issue. Francine Fialkoff, Editor-in-Chief, LJ, recently mocked Mr. Istook and excused why the LJ did not cover the story, all behind a shield of anonymity in comments on LISNews.
http://lisnews.org/washington_library_wins_suit_to_leave_filters_on

So why am I “in a tizzy”? A better question is why did the LJ leader mock the CIPA author and refuse to cover the story of his exposing ALA control over a third of American libraries, which is essentially what I’ve been saying for years. What is the effect of such actions on the trustworthiness of LJ as a source for unbiased information on the library industry? The fundamental unfairness of one-sided library media has something to do with why I’m “in a tizzy.” If the library media treated matters honestly and openly, there would likely be little opening for people like me to be critical of the ALA.

And it’s people like Francine Fialkoff who use ridicule and anonymity from a position of power to control the media to keep the library media and ALA status quo, anything goes. It is fundamentally unfair to communities nationwide.

So perhaps now you can “understand why Safe Libraries guys is always in such a tizzy about what ALA says or does.” 1) The ALA is misleading many, many communities and I’m allowed to advise people of reliable sources saying the opposite of the ALA misinformation, and 2) library media does not do its job but backs up the ALA misinformation full throttle, even using the same dishonest tactics. Eventually people will oppose this–I’m just the one doing it the longest at present.

It is problems within your own profession, any profession actually, that bring out whistleblowers like me, and it is especially egregious in a profession purporting to support free speech that its leaders use anonymity and ridicule to silence others, among other means.

Speaking of whistleblowers, the Annoyed Library wrote a great post about non-disparagement disparagement. Can we get back to that now?

This doesn’t mean the practice is acceptable but rather that it is common for employers to treat soon-to-be-former employees like this.