CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child *advertiser censored*

Dear Judi Hill,

Your name is now mud and you should probably resign before you're fired.

Thank you for your attention and have a nice day.
 
There was a thread on here a while ago where one of the posters here (don't remember who) was in this situation. I wonder if these are about the same thing? I think she was asking on here what to do. I hate it that I can't trust my memory right now but I'm pretty sure I'm correct about this.
 
:laugh: :laugh:
Dear Judi Hill,

Your name is now mud and you should probably resign before you're fired.

Thank you for your attention and have a nice day.
 
At our local library the computers for adults and a seperate section of computers for the kids which do have blocks.

My problem isn't that somebody might view *advertiser censored* this was child *advertiser censored* we are talking about. I don't see how anybody can defend this.


Also, at our library, there is a sign posted for the adults if you're going to be viewing material of a graphic nature to ask for some kind of screen covering guard, not exactly sure what that is.

But that's where it can be hard to know - Barely Legal Teens or 15 year olds? I don't think librarians should have to make that determination. Do they have Hustler and Penthouse in public libraries?

I have no problem with *advertiser censored* at all. I just didn't know public libraries trafficked in it.
 
But that's where it can be hard to know - Barely Legal Teens or 15 year olds? I don't think librarians should have to make that determination. Do they have Hustler and Penthouse in public libraries?

I have no problem with *advertiser censored* at all. I just didn't know public libraries trafficked in it.


My local public library doesn't. There is a pretty strict filter. Of course, I'm sure anyone who has the time and drive could hack around it.
 
This story was all over the news around here when it happened. I don't know what the status is on Brenda's complaint now. Of course Brenda's supervisor that fired her claimed that there were "other reasons" for the firing. She was on probationary status at the time because she had worked there less than 6 months. However, I believe she had worked in that capacity some years ago, so this was a rehire. The last I heard Brenda had signed a release so that her official reason for the firing could be made public. I wish I knew where it stands now.

The accused apparently has a low IQ and maybe classified as "mentally difficient" and the pictures he was viewing came from his email attachment, which is why the library filters didn't block it. My understanding is that they were pictures of young boys undressed, but not engaged in sexual acts. That doesn't make it any better, but it wasn't the really hard core stuff.

Thank you, Pepper. I knew there was more to this story. It all makes a lot more sense to me now.
 
But that's where it can be hard to know - Barely Legal Teens or 15 year olds? I don't think librarians should have to make that determination. Do they have Hustler and Penthouse in public libraries?

I have no problem with *advertiser censored* at all. I just didn't know public libraries trafficked in it.

Her description of the event when it occurred on the library files is that it was child *advertiser censored* -- she saw him viewing naked boys. This wasn't adult *advertiser censored*.
 
She was on track to be put in charge of a new library facility ....

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=16698

On January 15, 2008, the performance evaluation given by Judy Hill, the supervisor who fired Biesterfeld, stated she was performing satisfactorily. As the sole employee at the Lindsay branch, she was entrusted with managing the entire branch library. Biesterfeld had seven years experience working at other branches within Tulare County. The evaluation also mentioned additional training that was coming up in March and stated: “In April 2008, the ‘new’ Lindsay Branch Library will be completed. When it gets closer to the date of completion we will go over the move and floor plan.” On February 21, Biesterfeld was visited by the entire management of the Tulare County library system, all of whom reiterated that Biesterfeld would very soon assume responsibilities for this brand new facility. A few days after that visit, Biesterfeld was asked what color bookends she wished for the new facility.
 
She was on track to be put in charge of a new library facility ....

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=16698

On January 15, 2008, the performance evaluation given by Judy Hill, the supervisor who fired Biesterfeld, stated she was performing satisfactorily. As the sole employee at the Lindsay branch, she was entrusted with managing the entire branch library. Biesterfeld had seven years experience working at other branches within Tulare County. The evaluation also mentioned additional training that was coming up in March and stated: “In April 2008, the ‘new’ Lindsay Branch Library will be completed. When it gets closer to the date of completion we will go over the move and floor plan.” On February 21, Biesterfeld was visited by the entire management of the Tulare County library system, all of whom reiterated that Biesterfeld would very soon assume responsibilities for this brand new facility. A few days after that visit, Biesterfeld was asked what color bookends she wished for the new facility.

I hope this isn't the end of her story with the library. she should be reinstated, IMO. she was obeying the law which has to superceed all, hasn't it? :eek:
 
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60641

Personnel records used to justify the dismissal of a librarian who reported to police a man viewing child *advertiser censored* on a public computer were changed after her dismissal, according to a law firm working on behalf of Brenda Biesterfield.

That, however, hasn't stopped the county from justifying its actions and citing the changed records.

From your link:

"The fact is that Judy Hill sought to ignore the serious crime committed in the library when Chrisler viewed child *advertiser censored*," the law firm said. "She was allegedly concerned more about Chrisler having a right to view child *advertiser censored*. In fact, there is no right to view child *advertiser censored*, even in the privacy of the home, let alone a public library."
 
From your link:

"The fact is that Judy Hill sought to ignore the serious crime committed in the library when Chrisler viewed child *advertiser censored*," the law firm said. "She was allegedly concerned more about Chrisler having a right to view child *advertiser censored*. In fact, there is no right to view child *advertiser censored*, even in the privacy of the home, let alone a public library."

Exactly! :furious:
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
1,348
Total visitors
1,456

Forum statistics

Threads
591,783
Messages
17,958,794
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top