Somehow, SafeLibraries blames the library and the American Library Association, at least in part. He alleges that "the anything-goes policy of the ALA," created a situation in which the "library is partially at fault for refusing to take action that may have prevented his behavior in the first place."
But what policy, what filters, what library action would have prevented the parolee's misuse of the computer? The news article nowhere states that the man visited any pornographic website that would have been blocked by filters. It doesn't indicate that he visited any pornography sites at all. The article states only that he was engaged in private online chats with like-minded individuals, apparently adults. Even libraries that implement internet filters usually permit this type of real-time communication. Few internet filters, if any, would trap sending a pornographic image by this means, any more than such programs could determine whether or not a photograph attached to an email message were pornographic (remember that filters work mostly by identifying words and text patterns, and rarely by any analysis of what a photographic image is about).
The fact is that the library's internet use policy looks pretty good. It expressly prohibits using library computers to view "pornography," a much broader class of material than the more legalistic "obscenity." The library could implement filters, but it doesn't appear that any such filter would have prevented the kind of communication that this parolee engaged in. Violation of library policy results in the the revocation of a patron's internet privileges, or even general library privileges. What else does SafeLibraries expect the library to do? Anything beyond this is the purview of the police department and district attorney's office, not the library.
More than anything else, it is this inability to maintain a balanced perspective that makes SafeLibraries' spin on things so untrustworthy. He is obsessed with assassinating the character of the American Library Association, and cannot resist spinning a situation that has nothing to do with the ALA, and hardly has anything to do with any library at all, into a deliberately anti-social act by that institution.
One sentence in SafeLibraries' post reveals not only a deep misunderstanding of how the legal system works, but also a large does of paranoia. Since the sentence speaks volumes, I'll let it speak for itself.
I suggest the parole board consider the library to be under the control of a foreign entity, the ALA, and that control made it an "attractive nuisance" that the perp could not resist and that endangers children.