CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child *advertiser censored*

I am sorry but that is really a BAD example. the reason being that growing pot or even smoking it harms NO ONE but viewing child *advertiser censored* means some sicko took pics of a naked child. It harmed the child to do so.

So even looking at those types of photos harmed a child.
If there was no demand then there would be no profit and pervs would not exploit children.
She did the right thing and I hope that Hill women walks up and dies on one for even suggesting a perv get away with it ... Especially on taxpayers dollars that fund the library!

Since it was in an email attachment, who sent it to him? What happened to that person? No mention in any of the articles. Did he ask to be sent those particular images?

And to wish this woman to "wake up and die??!! Without even fully knowing HER side of the story?!! Who's sick now? What if I or someone else on here was related to her and knew firsthand that she was a good person and her side of the story was being seriously misconstrued? I'm sorry but that's just f-ed up!
 
Feelings don't enter into it. To say you disbelieve the facts presented by a source because you find something objectionable about the source is to commit the fundamental logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The items presented as facts may, indeed, be untrue, but that needs to be proven.

In this case the same facts, in my reading, have been presented by other sources.

Yes, I completely understand your argument but all I've been saying is that so far a majority of the facts in this case have been put forth by one party: Brenda and her supporters.

I just get upset when someone is villified like this Judi Hill person without fully knowing all the angles of the story. So far the only individual of the two doing all the talking in the press is Brenda. Automatically everyone jumps on the Support-Brenda-Bandwagon and her supervisor is villified. From what I read in one article (I gotta try and find it again) is that it didn't go down like Brenda said. She went behind her supervisor's back to contact police and this cop calls the library and says they're taking their computer. It also stated Ms Hill is an offsite employee, meaning she didn't have the conversations with Brenda in person; more than likely over the phone. I just can't imagine that the supervisor would just say "oh, he's looking at child *advertiser censored*? Well, just tell him to stop." I can't imagine it going down like that. But immediately everyone takes the other woman's side. It just smacks of narrow-mindedness. I do hope this goes to court so we could hear both sides and THEN make a judgement.
 
Feelings don't enter into it. To say you disbelieve the facts presented by a source because you find something objectionable about the source is to commit the fundamental logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The items presented as facts may, indeed, be untrue, but that needs to be proven.

In this case the same facts, in my reading, have been presented by other sources.

Yeah, everyone knows you don't have any of those!;)
 
I'm certain it will go to court, or at least arbitration. But if we all were to wait for disputes and such to be settled or adjudicated there's be no point in having forums like this, right?

Yes and no. WE don't know the facts. WE only know what's come out in the press. So WE can only work with the info we have and in the past that's not been reliable, No?
 
Technological methods have limitations. Most of the *advertiser censored*-blocking algorithms look for things like - believe it or not - cylindrical shapes of certain shades. Regardless, you're not going to be able to use technology to block everything, and it will block stuff that's perfectly acceptable.

It's more effective to get rid of the individuals who are looking at *advertiser censored* by kicking them out - like our subject here. I'll take a dedicated person on the alert over the technology any time.

I read an interview with the former head of security for El Al, the Israeli national airline, some years ago (but after 9/11). They are constantly under threat of attack, but have only had one hijacking - in 1968. When asked why the rest of the world had more trouble with less threat, he said the answer was simple - the rest of the world uses technology to look for weapons and bombs, El Al uses people to look for terrorists. Can't really argue with the results.

Thanks for the insight. I wouldn't expect a library to have that sort of technology to look for shapes and block attachments, but I would expect that the computers there not be able to access website *advertiser censored*.

Of course, that's not what happened in this case.
 
That would be interesting to read, and would add new facts to this discussion. I hope you can find it, as I have not seen it.



Clearly she did. It also appears that, if she did, it's a violation of library policy and probably her terms of employment, which undoubtedly require her to follow library policy. However, her actions may very well have been lawful, and the library policy she violated may be unlawful but never before challenged.

Regardless of the specific situation above, based on the facts at hand, I believe her actions, as described in the accounts presented so far, were correct even if they violated library policy.



But the fact that you cannot imagine it happening that way does not preclude that it could have happened that way, does it?



I'm certain it will go to court, or at least arbitration. But if we all were to wait for disputes and such to be settled or adjudicated there's be no point in having forums like this, right?

Here's the link to the article, :
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080409/NEWS/804090361

Second paragraph:
Among those reasons is a claim that Biesterfeld failed to tell the supervisor she called, Judi Hill, that the man on the computer Feb. 28 was viewing *advertiser censored* involving children rather than adult *advertiser censored*.

Basically it comes down to who do you believe. They state that in January she received a grading of "adequete," which is hardly sterling.

"Ms. Biesterfeld received an evaluation following three months of her employment and received an overall rating of 5 on a scale of 10," it states.
"Ms. Biesterfeld failed to improve as directed and continued to demonstrate performance deficiencies that led to a decision in the middle of February to release her from her probationary employment."

Now if she wasn't doing her job up to par and improving upon the weaknesses they had given her in the earlier assessment then she deserved to be let-go. That's how it is with jobs. Organizations tend to hire someone who can best fulfill the duties imposed upon them. Going out of the proper channels at the library and reporting the guy to the police before her supervisor fully knew all the facts is PROBABLY the straw that broke the camel's back here.

If, in fact, the guy was using the library as his own child *advertiser censored* viewing forum, she was not wrong technically to go to the police. But, if she did in fact not fully disclose to her supervisor what the patron was looking at and took it upon herself to instigate the arrest of patron and seizure of library property then library is right for firing her, especially since it's coupled with numerous deficiencies she had as an employee.

, I just find it curious how I'm the only one you jumped on for propogating ad hominem arguments. I mean, one poster even said she wished Judi Hill death and not a peep. Why?
 
Since it was in an email attachment, who sent it to him? What happened to that person? No mention in any of the articles. Did he ask to be sent those particular images?

And to wish this woman to "wake up and die??!! Without even fully knowing HER side of the story?!! Who's sick now? What if I or someone else on here was related to her and knew firsthand that she was a good person and her side of the story was being seriously misconstrued? I'm sorry but that's just f-ed up!

ANYONE who advocates child *advertiser censored* needs to just die.
And if her relatives are here then I certainly HOPE they have the good sense to disown her and report her to Authorities..

IMO anyone aware if child *advertiser censored* and does nothing is as guilty as the one looking or taking the pictures.
The idea that someone just sent this guy a attachment of child *advertiser censored* is absolutely ridiculous!!!
Sicko's into to that type of thing stick together they do not go out and solicit others.
They do not send emails en mass to strangers.. That would make them to easy to catch and they know it.


What side of her story do I need to know??
She knew this PIG was looking at child *advertiser censored* and she wanted to not report him???
Even her own employee, who was there, disagreed!!! I may not know her but her employee does and she was there and saw it and felt the need to call the police.
They fired her for reporting a clearly illegal activity?!?!?!
If more people where like her rather then her idiot boss the world would be a safer place ..
And I would rather my taxes pay some crack *advertiser censored* food stamps then see them fund some sicko looking at child *advertiser censored* on my tax dollars.
There is simply NO defense that makes it OK in any situation to sit back and let someone look at child *advertiser censored*.. NONE!
If you do not do something to stop it then your as bad as the pedophile.

BTW if your or someone else here were related to this moron I hope that you disown her and fight to take her children away! Barring that you had better start collecting the bail money .. because the only people that defend pedophiles are pedophiles themselves.
 
That would be interesting to read, and would add new facts to this discussion. I hope you can find it, as I have not seen it.
(snipped)

Here's the statement from Tulare County. #12 is where they say Biesterfeld did not alert her supervisors. (Which may be tricky wording since she said she called Hill. Maybe she had supervisors on site, but went over their heads.) Biesterfeld was pretty specific about the conversation she had over the phone w/Hill. Why would she make that up?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2180657&postcount=14 (originally posted link here)

Tulare County Statement:
http://media.fresnobee.com/smedia/2008/04/08/19/tularecodoc1.source.prod_affiliate.8.pdf
 
I don't think all criminal attorneys are pedophiles.


LOLOL Ok Agreed but typically they are appointed a pubic defender who has little choice put to take the case. (meaning they may defend them legally but certainly not emotionally or morally)

I was referring to anyone else defending a clearly caught child *advertiser censored* viewer.
 
Here's the statement from Tulare County. #12 is where they say Biesterfeld did not alert her supervisors. (Which may be tricky wording since she said she called Hill. Maybe she had supervisors on site, but went over their heads.) Biesterfeld was pretty specific about the conversation she had over the phone w/Hill. Why would she make that up?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2180657&postcount=14 (originally posted link here)

Tulare County Statement:
http://media.fresnobee.com/smedia/2008/04/08/19/tularecodoc1.source.prod_affiliate.8.pdf

Why would she make that up?

It's not at all out of the realm of possibility.
 
Thank you - I am going to read the article now. I will not be premature in my reactions, I'd like to finish the whole thing and perhaps do some additional reading.



I choose the posts I find interesting to respond to. I don't mean to jump on you personally, but I did want to discuss the points you raised.

Anyway, I'm not picking on just you, southcitymom is next.

Pick me! pick meeeeeeeeeeeee! :woohoo:
 
ANYONE who advocates child *advertiser censored* needs to just die.
And if her relatives are here then I certainly HOPE they have the good sense to disown her and report her to Authorities..

IMO anyone aware if child *advertiser censored* and does nothing is as guilty as the one looking or taking the pictures.
The idea that someone just sent this guy a attachment of child *advertiser censored* is absolutely ridiculous!!!
Sicko's into to that type of thing stick together they do not go out and solicit others.
They do not send emails en mass to strangers.. That would make them to easy to catch and they know it.


What side of her story do I need to know??
She knew this PIG was looking at child *advertiser censored* and she wanted to not report him???
Even her own employee, who was there, disagreed!!! I may not know her but her employee does and she was there and saw it and felt the need to call the police.
They fired her for reporting a clearly illegal activity?!?!?!
If more people where like her rather then her idiot boss the world would be a safer place ..
And I would rather my taxes pay some crack *advertiser censored* food stamps then see them fund some sicko looking at child *advertiser censored* on my tax dollars.
There is simply NO defense that makes it OK in any situation to sit back and let someone look at child *advertiser censored*.. NONE!
If you do not do something to stop it then your as bad as the pedophile.

BTW if your or someone else here were related to this moron I hope that you disown her and fight to take her children away! Barring that you had better start collecting the bail money .. because the only people that defend pedophiles are pedophiles themselves.

Amraann, I'm not disagreeing that pedophiles are despicable pieces of crap. But if you don't knew either Ms. Biesterfled or Ms Hill, how can you make such statements about Ms Hill? That's a pretty lofty accusation that she just sat back and did nothing while someone was looking at kiddie *advertiser censored*. If it is in fact true, then yeah, she is a moron. But right now it's one woman's word against another's. Who knows, maybe she has some kind of hero complex and wanted to take all the credit for bringing this guy to justice and she did in fact mislead her supervisor. I wouldn't rule anything out. Technically she did do the right thing to report this guy to the police but to automatically assume the supervisor turned a blind eye just based on her word?
 
Thank you - I am going to read the article now. I will not be premature in my reactions, I'd like to finish the whole thing and perhaps do some additional reading.



I choose the posts I find interesting to respond to. I don't mean to jump on you personally, but I did want to discuss the points you raised.

Anyway, I'm not picking on just you, southcitymom is next.

I hear ya, my friend. I'm just trying to foster some healthy debate here.
 
Why would she make that up?

It's not at all out of the realm of possibility.


Yes it is out of the realm of possibility.... NOTE she was FIRED???
And to back up her claim as to why .... The police arrested HIM ...
Of course the pedo loving *advertiser censored* is going to lie to cover her butt and try to minimize her bad choices.
 
I hear ya, my friend. I'm just trying to foster some healthy debate here.

I've been on this site for some time. there can be no debate where paedophiles are concerned. IMO, rightly so.
 
Amraann, I'm not disagreeing that pedophiles are despicable pieces of crap. But if you don't knew either Ms. Biesterfled or Ms Hill, how can you make such statements about Ms Hill? That's a pretty lofty accusation that she just sat back and did nothing while someone was looking at kiddie *advertiser censored*. If it is in fact true, then yeah, she is a moron. But right now it's one woman's word against another's. Who knows, maybe she has some kind of hero complex and wanted to take all the credit for bringing this guy to justice and she did in fact mislead her supervisor. I wouldn't rule anything out. Technically she did do the right thing to report this guy to the police but to automatically assume the supervisor turned a blind eye just based on her word?


I will agree with your variables.... BUT going on what the media printed is all we can really do.
There is no indication or reason to believe this women lied yet she does have proof that the police arrested him and she was fired..
That is enough proof IMO at least for a chat forum.

At face value there is something wrong with anyone who would turn a blind eye too child *advertiser censored*.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,627
Total visitors
2,712

Forum statistics

Threads
590,010
Messages
17,928,910
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top