CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child *advertiser censored*

New Posts

Ah, the good old four term fallacy:

All rivers have banks
All banks have money
Therefore all rivers have money

I believe Amraann was using "defend" to mean "advocate and advance the practice of" rather than "provide legal counsel". Two concepts expressed by a single word.
Click to expand...

Sure, pick on me after I leave the thread you big :chicken: !
 
Yeah, I know it's not illegal. But in the LIBRARY? That's just wrong. Even if it's adults looking at adults, go home. If you can't afford a computer at home you should be working anyway, not looking for ways to watch *advertiser censored*.
Click to expand...

Hey - I thought joblessness and looking at *advertiser censored* went hand in hand....I mean I just quit my job and everything so don't bust my bubble.
 
Floh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not just fired - she should be charged for conspiracy to provide child *advertiser censored* or some such, and a federal charge at that.

I swear, just when you think you have heard it all, you can log on to Web Sleuths and be amazed and sickened all over again.
 
RainbowsAndGumdrops said:
Thank you Taximom. That is the other point that i wanted to make, but I seem to have glossed over. I think that the library (and perhaps libraries in general) have to look at how they handle this situation. I'd imagine that this is a difficult challenge for them to deal with and warnings and kicking people out of the library is the easy thing to do. It is hard to turn someone in to the police when they know who you are and where you work. The libraries also don't want to be swarmed by police and be known for that. However, when the library tries to preserve it's image as a place for free learning, they probably let a lot go that should be reported and is illegal. Perhaps an anamous tip system with the police could be worked out along with a standard protocal. I think this is a big issue throughout the US that should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I disagree. I don't see how this is a "difficult challenge" at all. Yes, it is easy to kick someone out of the library - but for being loud, boisterous, destructive, whatever. But CHILD *advertiser censored*?!? Its gross, its certainly not conducive to "free learning" and to top it off, its illegal. I don't think the library would be swarmed by LE. The librarian can call the police, kick out the offender and the LE can arrest him outside of the library. The offender wouldn't even have to know that it was the librarian that called, it could have been a patron of the library. I would hope that this case is the exception to the rule and that libraries do not "let alot go that should be reported and is illegal". But this is all just MHO.
 
Glad to see you've got none of the bias you allege motivates others involved in this issue. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:clap: :woohoo: :clap: :woohoo: :clap:
 
Amraann said:
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.
Click to expand...

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Bravo, Amraann!
 
golfmom said:
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/news01/803140331

The March 6 letter from Lewis said the county's probationary employees can be terminated at any time if they don't perform at a level "necessary for fully satisfactory performance in the employee's position." However, Lindsay City Councilwoman Suzi Picaso said that six weeks before Biesterfeld's firing, an assistant of Lewis told her Biesterfeld was doing a great job.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Reading her performance evaluation AFTER the fact, they make it seem as if she could barely tie her shoes in the morning. If her performance was so bad, IMO they SHOULD have fired her based upon her performance long before this incident. But obviously, her performance wasn't considered to be that bad (remember 5/10) until AFTER she reported the perv.
 
a) Did Brenda tell Judi that Crisler was looking at CHILD or REGULAR *advertiser censored*?
Click to expand...

This is what I keep coming back to. I think there could have been some miscommunication here, and Judi believed it was regular adult *advertiser censored* and not child *advertiser censored*. Remember, she was apparently off-site and didn't see it for herself. Why else would Judi just say to give him a warning and that "this happens more often than you would think"?

Of course, if this is true, once they found out there was a misunderstanding and that the guy got busted for child *advertiser censored*, I would think Brenda's superiors would show some lenience in regard to her defying orders, and not be so hasty to fire her.
 
BeavisMom62 said:
I understand your point, but I disagree. I don't see how this is a "difficult challenge" at all. Yes, it is easy to kick someone out of the library - but for being loud, boisterous, destructive, whatever. But CHILD *advertiser censored*?!? Its gross, its certainly not conducive to "free learning" and to top it off, its illegal. I don't think the library would be swarmed by LE. The librarian can call the police, kick out the offender and the LE can arrest him outside of the library. The offender wouldn't even have to know that it was the librarian that called, it could have been a patron of the library. I would hope that this case is the exception to the rule and that libraries do not "let alot go that should be reported and is illegal". But this is all just MHO.
Click to expand...

My point that you are commenting on was that a library without a policy may have a hard time knowing what to do and when. An individual person may be nervous about the trickle effect of what they do. If there aren't arrangements already with the police for how to handle the situation and library policies in place it is more difficult to do the right thing. I should have been more clear. I am not saying to do nothing. Rather I am saying that across the country, I think libraries need to develop policies and procedures with the assistance of the police for how to handle these situations.
 
RainbowsAndGumdrops said:
My point that you are commenting on was that a library without a policy may have a hard time knowing what to do and when. An individual person may be nervous about the trickle effect of what they do. If there aren't arrangements already with the police for how to handle the situation and library policies in place it is more difficult to do the right thing. I should have been more clear. I am not saying to do nothing. Rather I am saying that across the country, I think libraries need to develop policies and procedures with the assistance of the police for how to handle these situations.
Click to expand...
it would be a good thing to have a policy to contact the police when you fear a crime may have been committed. if no policy exist that specifically says to contact police if a librarian think a crime is on going in the library then common sense should take over and they contact police. no library should ever have a policy that tells the employees to not contact police if they suspect a crime.

recently we have read of a few cases of sex offenders attacking children in libraries. i wonder if they are aware of the privacy policy that some libraries seem to have.
 
RainbowsAndGumdrops said:
My point that you are commenting on was that a library without a policy may have a hard time knowing what to do and when. An individual person may be nervous about the trickle effect of what they do. If there aren't arrangements already with the police for how to handle the situation and library policies in place it is more difficult to do the right thing. I should have been more clear. I am not saying to do nothing. Rather I am saying that across the country, I think libraries need to develop policies and procedures with the assistance of the police for how to handle these situations.
Click to expand...

This is not something new on the horizon as far as libraries are concerned. It's been a hot issue for quite a while. If Ms Hill's statement is true that "this happens more than you think" (paraphrasing) then it should be an issue that they have covered by now within their organization.
 
Taximom said:
This is not something new on the horizon as far as libraries are concerned. It's been a hot issue for quite a while. If Ms Hill's statement is true that "this happens more than you think" (paraphrasing) then it should be an issue that they have covered by now within their organization.
Click to expand...

Obviously they should have already adressed this issue. However, if an employee who has been there for 5+ months asks how to handle the situation, they obviously haven't had meetings to discuss how to handle this and don't have written policies. This is obviously a problem that they haven't yet written their policies for. The policies empower the employees to do the right thing and clarifies that managers have to report things to. There shouldn't be any "this happens more often than you think" type of reasoning. Libraries need to go beyond acknowleging that there is a problem. They need to work with police to determine when the police have to be involved (kiddie *advertiser censored*) and when asking the patron to leave is enough. This plan needs to be clearly defined in both this library and throughout the US.

my opinion.
 
Yeah, but the ACLU says that library patrons (regardless of age!) have the right to view *advertiser censored* on public computers. Apparently this is a stand taken by the American Library Association as well.

Obviously I disagree, and especially when it is illegal, which would be anytime children are involved, either as victims or as viewers.
 
If the library sees a patron viewing child *advertiser censored* on the computer (an illegal act) and does not call the police, then allows that patron to use the computer again- couldn't that be called being an accomplice to an illegal act?

This library doesn't call police, but I have seen other libraries where someone has been arrested for viewing *advertiser censored* in the library. If the library association condones this, then how prevalent is it in other libraries?
 
I just don't understand why viewing child *advertiser censored* in a public venue is any different legally than someone viewing it at home.
 
Good God, reporting some pervert looking at child *advertiser censored* to the police doesn't make anyone extraordinary. It's what I think any sensible person would do. She's not Erin Brockovich or Silkwood here. I think it's erroneous to start calling her a whistleblower. No one knows for a FACT that this supervisor indeed dismissed her concerns about it being child *advertiser censored*. Right now it is Ms. Biesterfeld's word against Ms Hill's.

AGAIN, I think all this vitriol against the supervisor is a bit much.
 
Pepper said:
Yeah, but the ACLU says that library patrons (regardless of age!) have the right to view *advertiser censored* on public computers. Apparently this is a stand taken by the American Library Association as well.

Obviously I disagree, and especially when it is illegal, which would be anytime children are involved, either as victims or as viewers.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's interesting. I wonder if they would also approve someone using a public computer to send hate mail or ransom notes. Sheesh. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 3,861 (members: 155, guests: 3,706)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
3,706
Total visitors
3,861
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,507
Messages
17,970,096
Members
228,789
Latest member
redhairdontcare
Back
Top