Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 190

Thread: Librarian Fired for Reporting Child Pornography

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    See embedded in red.

    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    Actually I just did do a goodle search and, yes, saw stories in LA Times, Fresno Bee etc. But so far I only see quotes from one side of the story mostly. There are no interviews with Ms. Hill or anyone else on her behalf. All I'm saying is that I'm still reserving my judgement on this one. Seems like everyone is just jumping on the Support-Brenda-Bandwagon and bashing this Judi Hill. A lot of stuff is hearsay on the part of Brenda regarding statements and actions on the part of Ms. Hill. You live in New Jersey. I live in Fresno. I listened to several days of radio & local TV interviews because it was a LOCAL story long before it made national news. Are you aware, for example, that Lindsay city officials and other local officials went to the Tulare County Board of Supervisors meeting in support of Brenda? Didn't think so.

    So far I've gathered that this man was looking at nude images of young boys. The images were not depicting sexual acts. What is the exact context of the images? Who sent the images to him? Don't know, who cares? Were the images innocuous-looking? Can it indeed be established that he was looking at these images soley for sexual gratification? He is "mentally deficient". I don't think he was writing a master's thesis. They said there were many images of pornographic nature found at his home, a majority of them legitimate adult images and a few that could be considered of an illegal nature. What did these images found at his home depict?As I recall there were over 50,000 porn pictures of men and boys on his home computer. What difference does it make what they depict? Porn is porn.

    The guy had duct tape and rope in his vehicle. Oh no, he must have had them in there to plan an abduction! Perhaps he had those items in there for a legitimate reason. Handy man, perhaps? Candy? Maybe he had a sweet tooth and the candy was for his own consumption. Articles never mention how MUCH candy was found in vehicle. Apparently you didn't READ very well. This is about another person, not the perv in the Beisterfeld case!

    And, lastly, Brenda is represented by lawyers associated with Jerry Falwell. Need I say more?So what? Lawyers don't pick their clients based on politics. It's all about the ability to win a case and make a profit.

  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
    If the county had legitimate reasons for firing her, then why did the firing take place precisely after her supervisor was aware that Brenda went around her instructions not to report it? I mean if they were going to fire her for incompetitence, they should have either done it before this incident, and enough after the incident so it wouldn't look like retribution. The timing is very telling.
    The thing with the timing is that that was the only window of opportunity available for firing her - ever. This was a government position that had the 6 month probation period ending. Once she passed that 6 month probation period, she would be employed forever (almost impossible to fire). If you look at the timing of the incident, it just happened to fall at the time where they had their 6 months to build the case against her and fire her - or deny her the right to go beyond the 6 month probation period.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
    See embedded in red.
    Pepper, you still didn't refute anything I said. I'm not exactly bashing this Brenda person. But you can't just dismiss my questions by saying "porn is porn." Not trying to sound like a lawyer but there is a legal definition.

    And what about Judi Hill? What has she said publicly? How about aquaintences of hers, or family members and friends?

    And do some research on Falwell and Liberty University. Do you want a lawyer who believes Adam and Eve rode around on the backs of dinosaurs representing you?

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by RainbowsAndGumdrops View Post
    The thing with the timing is that that was the only window of opportunity available for firing her - ever. This was a government position that had the 6 month probation period ending. Once she passed that 6 month probation period, she would be employed forever (almost impossible to fire). If you look at the timing of the incident, it just happened to fall at the time where they had their 6 months to build the case against her and fire her - or deny her the right to go beyond the 6 month probation period.
    I hear what you are saying but her 3 month rating was "meeting expectations" and the firing took place the moment Judy Hill heard about the police report. Not the day BEFORE. That is way too coincidental to be accidential.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    Pepper, you still didn't refute anything I said. I'm not exactly bashing this Brenda person. But you can't just dismiss my questions by saying "porn is porn." Not trying to sound like a lawyer but there is a legal definition. I don't know. The pictures Brenda saw were naked boys/young men. Apparently they weren't engaged in sexual activity. I don't know about the ones on his home computer.

    And what about Judi Hill? What has she said publicly? How about aquaintences of hers, or family members and friends? To the best of my knowledge, she has not spoken publicly, probably on the direction of HER supervisor.

    And do some research on Falwell and Liberty University. Do you want a lawyer who believes Adam and Eve rode around on the backs of dinosaurs representing you? Look, I'm not a fan of the late Falwell and his university either, but it is a HUGE leap to imply that Brenda has querky religious beliefs based on her sharing a lawyer with the Falwell group. I don't know about Brenda's religious affiliations, and I don't think it pertains to this issue at all.
    http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/app...WS01/803140331
    This is from the Visalia and Tulare newspaper!

    On March 6 — just about a week before her six-month probationary period was to end — she got a letter notifying her she was being fired.

    Biesterfeld, however, said she has no doubt that losing her job stems from her decision to call police about a man she saw viewing images of naked boys on one of the library's public computers Feb. 28. The boys appeared to be about 9 to 13 years old, she said.

    The man was identified by Lindsay police as Donny Lynn Chrisler, 39. Biesterfeld said she stood behind him for 10 to 20 seconds and clearly saw thumbnail photos of blonde boys in various poses.

    Lewis said all librarians are trained on what to do if they encounter people viewing pornography on public computers. Biesterfeld, however, said she was told only to keep an eye on a man who had been caught in the past viewing adult pornography on a library computer.

    "That was it," she said. "But this is child pornography, and I felt as soon as a child was involved, he broke the law."

    So she called her supervisor, Judi Hill, the library services specialist, whose office is in Visalia.

    "I told her I was shocked because I have boys that age, and he might as well have had my youngest one up on that screen," Biesterfeld said. "I told her I was sick to my stomach and angry."

    She said Hill told her to hand the man a note telling him to stop immediately and that he would be banned from the library if he did it again. The man was deaf, Biesterfeld said.

    Biesterfeld said she also was directed to note the matter on the man's library record.

    "And after I do that, Judi, then I need to contact the police, right?" Biesterfeld said she asked.

    The answer was no. Biesterfeld said she asked again to make sure she had heard correctly. Again she was told no.

    "Believe it or not," Biesterfeld quoted Hill as saying, "this is more common than you think."

    Contacted Thursday, Hill said she could not discuss what happened because it was a personnel matter.

    Biesterfeld said she did as she was told. But after going home and talking to her family and Richey, she decided to report the matter to police.

    When she did, Lindsay police asked Biesterfeld to contact them the next time Chrisler came to the library. He did so on March 4.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    So look at the dates. She first saw him on Feb. 28. He returned to the library on March 4 when she called the police. She was fired on March 6. Her probationary period was up on or about March 13.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/app...NEWS/803060322

    Police served a search warrant Tuesday at the home of Donny Lynn Chrisler, 39, in the 600 block of West Hermosa Street. Chrisler, detained earlier by police at the library, was arrested after police found "numerous items of child pornography" inside the home, said Lindsay Police Capt. Rich Wilkinson.

    The investigation began when police received an anonymous report that a man at the library was viewing child porn on a public computer there. Firewalls in the library's computer system normally block users from viewing Web sites with pornography, Wilkinson said, but in this case Chrisler was using a private e-mail account and transferring images to a computer disc.

    Chrisler has a computer in his home but did not have access to the Internet, Wilkinson said. Chrisler's statements and computer use records led police to believe that the man had viewed child pornography at the library before, Wilkinson said.

    The sexually-explicit images police said he viewed on the library computer — as well as those police say they found in his home, mostly on his computer — appeared to have been taken from Web sites. Most were of boys who appeared to be 18 or younger, they said.

    There were no indications that Chrisler committed any illicit acts with children, Wilkinson said. Chrisler has no criminal record that police are aware of.

    Besides being arrested on suspicion of possessing child pornography, Chrisler was arrested on suspicion of participating in the production or presentation of obscene matter in public places. Viewing such images in a library or any other public place is a crime, Wilkinson said.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,398
    RainbowsandGumdrops,

    You make some great points - thank you for doing that. This woman may well have deserved to have been fired for performance issues and the porn thing was terrible timing.

    My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access porn at a public library? I often agree with some of the ACLU's controversial stances and I am a free speech nazi, but this doesn't seem about that at all.

    I'm usually able to look at issues from many different sides, but I can't find one good argument (and that's exceedingly rare for me) to make that porn should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    RainbowsandGumdrops,

    You make some great points - thank you for doing that. This woman may well have deserved to have been fired for performance issues and the porn thing was terrible timing.

    My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access porn at a public library? I often agree with some of the ACLU's controversial stances and I am a free speech nazi, but this doesn't seem about that at all.

    I'm usually able to look at issues from many different sides, but I can't find one good argument (and that's exceedingly rare for me) to make that porn should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.
    This is jst one example of the ACLU going over the bend. Not only are they saying that porn should be accessible from the libraries, but they are saying that everyone should have access to porn on library computers, EVEN CHILDREN! !

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
    Posts
    16,398

    We want those.

    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    ...So far I've gathered that this man was looking at nude images of young boys. The images were not depicting sexual acts. What is the exact context of the images?...
    I'm trying to think of a context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library and I'm drawing a blank. Can you help me out here?
    Μολὼν λαβέ



    Email me

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,398
    Quote Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
    I'm trying to think of a context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library and I'm drawing a blank. Can you help me out here?
    Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    RainbowsandGumdrops,

    You make some great points - thank you for doing that. This woman may well have deserved to have been fired for performance issues and the porn thing was terrible timing.

    My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access porn at a public library? I often agree with some of the ACLU's controversial stances and I am a free speech nazi, but this doesn't seem about that at all.

    I'm usually able to look at issues from many different sides, but I can't find one good argument (and that's exceedingly rare for me) to make that porn should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.

    I'm upset that the ACLU is taking this stand, because it weakens their stances on other free speech issues.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.
    Good try, but these pics were of naked boys aged 9-13. Pictures of boys this age with exposed genitals has no place in emails.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
    Posts
    16,398

    We want those.

    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.
    Did you go to the library to pull them up on a public computer screen?
    Μολὼν λαβέ



    Email me

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,398
    Quote Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
    Did you go to the library to pull them up on a public computer screen?
    No, but one of my sisters only has access to the public library's computer to check her email. Once I emailed her some pics like that of my sons with the subject: Photos of the Boys. She opened them in the library. She didn't know they would be naked photos of the boys and I never even thought about it. I will now though!

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,705
    Quote Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
    I'm trying to think of a context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library and I'm drawing a blank. Can you help me out here?
    I know! I know!

    He's a medical student studying male anatomy!

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.
    Now you're getting my point. Basically we're getting one side of the story. For one thing the guy is labeled "mentally deficient." In the article Pepper referenced it said images of boys 18 or younger in various poses. The images were deemed sexually explicit by law enforcement. But I remember reading in another article no sex acts depicted. You try telling a mentally deficient person what is considered legal and not legal as far as images he can view. But I'm not trying to defend this man. If he is in a pedophile then that is despicable. But these are all questions a lawyer will ask.

    But my points are mostly regarding Brenda's supervisor. Again, Pepper references an article with quotes from Brenda regarding Ms. Hill. Hearsay. Where are actual quotes and interviews with Judi Hill? Just don't be so quick to judge the supervisor. She's been a librarian there or other places nearby for over 30 years, according to a newsletter I saw on their web site.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,398
    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    Now you're getting my point. Basically we're getting one side of the story. For one thing the guy is labeled "mentally deficient." In the article Pepper referenced it said images of boys 18 or younger in various poses. The images were deemed sexually explicit by law enforcement. But I remember reading in another article no sex acts depicted. You try telling a mentally deficient person what is considered legal and not legal as far as images he can view. But I'm not trying to defend this man. If he is in a pedophile then that is despicable. But these are all questions a lawyer will ask.

    But my points are mostly regarding Brenda's supervisor. Again, Pepper references an article with quotes from Brenda regarding Ms. Hill. Hearsay. Where are actual quotes and interviews with Judi Hill? Just don't be so quick to judge the supervisor. She's been a librarian there or other places nearby for over 30 years, according to a newsletter I saw on their web site.
    I too agree that the mental illness component is key in this case. And I will state, once again, librarians shouldn't be required to make these calls about inappropriate sexual material on a computer - it just shouldn't be available at a library.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    Now you're getting my point. Basically we're getting one side of the story. For one thing the guy is labeled "mentally deficient." In the article Pepper referenced it said images of boys 18 or younger in various poses. The images were deemed sexually explicit by law enforcement. But I remember reading in another article no sex acts depicted. You try telling a mentally deficient person what is considered legal and not legal as far as images he can view. But I'm not trying to defend this man. If he is in a pedophile then that is despicable. But these are all questions a lawyer will ask.

    But my points are mostly regarding Brenda's supervisor. Again, Pepper references an article with quotes from Brenda regarding Ms. Hill. Hearsay. Where are actual quotes and interviews with Judi Hill? Just don't be so quick to judge the supervisor. She's been a librarian there or other places nearby for over 30 years, according to a newsletter I saw on their web site.
    Because of the suit I am sure that Ms. Hill has been instructed to keep quiet. And even if she were to speak, I'm sure she would be covering her own azz, so I wouldn't believe her anyway.

    The undisputed facts are as follows:
    1. Brenda observed man viewing pictures of naked boys aged 9-13 on library computer.
    2. Brenda reported the incident to her supervisor Judi Hill, who told her to give the man a warning.
    3. Brenda was specifically told by her supervisor Judi Hill NOT to report it to law enforcement.
    4. Brenda decided to report to police anyway, going against her supervisor's wishes.
    5. Police told Brenda that she had a civic obligation to report a felony, and what she observed, and what the police observed when the man was arrested was a felony. And that not reporting a felony could be construed as "aiding and abetting."
    6. Two days after the police arrested the man at the library in the act and confiscated the library computer for evidence, Brenda was fired.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
    Because of the suit I am sure that Ms. Hill has been instructed to keep quiet. And even if she were to speak, I'm sure she would be covering her own azz, so I wouldn't believe her anyway.

    The undisputed facts are as follows:
    1. Brenda observed man viewing pictures of naked boys aged 9-13 on library computer.
    2. Brenda reported the incident to her supervisor Judi Hill, who told her to give the man a warning.
    3. Brenda was specifically told by her supervisor Judi Hill NOT to report it to law enforcement.
    4. Brenda decided to report to police anyway, going against her supervisor's wishes.
    5. Police told Brenda that she had a civic obligation to report a felony, and what she observed, and what the police observed when the man was arrested was a felony. And that not reporting a felony could be construed as "aiding and abetting."
    6. Two days after the police arrested the man at the library in the act and confiscated the library computer for evidence, Brenda was fired.
    Points 2-4 are all according to Brenda, which supports my side of the argument here.

    Believe me, I'm not trying to pick a fight here with you, Pepper. I just think this story should be looked at from all angles. And I wasn't trying to imply before that Brenda had quirky religious beliefs. I don't think she personally contacted Liberty lawyers. I think it was the other way around. I think the Crusaders saw a plum opportunity to get some publicity and advance their Holier-Than-Thou agenda. They're using her.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,705
    I'm all for looking at both sides, but I don't think "child porn" is a "holier than thou" issue. It's wrong, plain and simple.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
    Posts
    16,398

    We want those.

    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    ...I think the Crusaders saw a plum opportunity to get some publicity and advance their Holier-Than-Thou agenda. They're using her.
    Glad to see you've got none of the bias you allege motivates others involved in this issue.
    Μολὼν λαβέ



    Email me

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,898
    Quote Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
    Points 2-4 are all according to Brenda, which supports my side of the argument here.

    Believe me, I'm not trying to pick a fight here with you, Pepper. I just think this story should be looked at from all angles. And I wasn't trying to imply before that Brenda had quirky religious beliefs. I don't think she personally contacted Liberty lawyers. I think it was the other way around. I think the Crusaders saw a plum opportunity to get some publicity and advance their Holier-Than-Thou agenda. They're using her.
    I think you are wrong about this. These are facts that have been verified. It was/is library policy to issue warnings about porn viewing and not to report it to the policy. I believe this point was verified by the County Board of Supervisors. Whether she did or did not observe this man viewing inappropriate material is not at issue. The issue is was her firing justified or was it retribution for going against her supervisor's order.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
    I think you are wrong about this. These are facts that have been verified. It was/is library policy to issue warnings about porn viewing and not to report it to the policy. I believe this point was verified by the County Board of Supervisors. Whether she did or did not observe this man viewing inappropriate material is not at issue. The issue is was her firing justified or was it retribution for going against her supervisor's order.
    Library policy to issue warning about viewing porn in general. And again, the stuff she was told by her supervisor is according to Brenda. My point is there are no word-for-word quotes from Judi Hill herself regarding what she told Brenda.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
    Good try, but these pics were of naked boys aged 9-13. Pictures of boys this age with exposed genitals has no place in emails.
    I'm not trying to do anything. Adnoid asked for a "context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library" because he was drawing a blank and I gave him one.

    I did not say I thought that's what might have happened in this case because I don't. Though frankly, how does a librarian know she is looking at 9-12 year old naked boys? My son looked 9 when he was 6. Again - librarians shouldn't have to figure this out because porn shouldn't download onto computers in public libraries.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
    Glad to see you've got none of the bias you allege motivates others involved in this issue.
    The facts are are out there for all to see regarding Falwell and his group. No bias on my part.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Taximom View Post
    I'm all for looking at both sides, but I don't think "child porn" is a "holier than thou" issue. It's wrong, plain and simple.
    Wasn't saying child porn "holier-than-thou" issue. I just think they smelled opportunity here. Of course child porn in wrong. I'm not disputing that.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •