Why?Isn't the supervisor the one who fired her?
She wasn't fired for being a crusader against viewing child *advertiser censored* in the library. That is what she CLAIMS however.
CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child *advertiser censored*
- Thread starter southcitymom
- Start date
She wasn't fired for being a crusader against viewing child *advertiser censored* in the library. That is what she CLAIMS however.
How do you think that what she claims is untrue? Do you know something more than what was reported? I'm not saying you're wrong. I know it's human nature to blame someone or something else instead of accepting the blame oneself.
Ntegrity, I don't know if either woman is telling the truth. But take a good look at all the posts on this topic and you'll see that a majority of the posters automatically take the side of Ms. Biesterfeld, the woman who was fired. Some even call for death in regards to Ms. Hill. It's lunacy. None of us here know for certain what exactly went down, yet some people think that just because she was fired after reporting the guy viewing the *advertiser censored* that she MUST be telling the truth and the other woman is an out and out liar.
I just find it quite disturbing. We have this mob-like mentality when it comes to these types of situations. Why do think the Nancy Grace Show is so popular. The show only represents one side of the story in most cases by having Ms. Grace constantly harangue the defense attorneys and always side with prosecution even before a defendant has been formally charged.
I understand what you mean. I am typically swimming upstream against the tide because I like to wait until all the facts are known before judging someone guilty. I do make some exceptions, namely Scott Peterson, Michael Peterson, and Drew Peterson. As long as your last name isn't Peterson, I'll presume you innocent until proven guilty.
I understand what you mean. I am typically swimming upstream against the tide because I like to wait until all the facts are known before judging someone guilty. I do make some exceptions, namely Scott Peterson, Michael Peterson, and Drew Peterson. As long as your last name isn't Peterson, I'll presume you innocent until proven guilty.
LOL...Yeah, what's with that last name anyway?? Good Lord!
That's good you operate that way. Some of the posts on here regarding this story are just bloodchilling. Feels like the Salem Witch Trials.
BeavisMom62
No, Butthead is NOT here!!
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2007
- Messages
- 2,498
- Reaction score
- 27
Ok, true, agree with you there!
mollymalone
Former Member
http://www.tularecountylibrary.org/policy/internet3.htm
TULARE COUNTY LIBRARY
Home > Library Policies & Procedures > Public Internet > Computer Rules
Public Computer Rules
All users must sign in at the desk before logging on.
(Visalia patrons must sign in at the Computer Room desk.)
Users must meet the qualifications as outlined in the Tulare County
Library Public Internet Policy and Tulare County Library Public Internet
Guidelines.
No more than two people may use an Internet workstation
at any one time. Customers may print at a cost of 15 cents per page.
Food and drink are NOT allowed.
The Tulare County Library reserves the right to monitor all public
access computer use.
Conduct while using computers must be courteous and polite.
Those acting in a loud or bothersome manner will be asked to leave.
Please work without disturbing others.
Individuals may not tamper with or disable equipment. Users are
responsible for deliberate damage to the equipment.
Individuals may not violate the Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. Code).
The computing and network resources of the Tulare County Library
System may not be used for illegal purposes. Such acts may be subject
to prosecution by local, state, or federal officials.
Any person who compromises network security or who uses the Tulare
County Library System Internet connection for improper purposes may
have their computer privileges revoked.
Users may save their work to a 3.5 inch diskette. If you do not have a
diskette, you may purchase one from the library staff for $1.00.
At the end of each computer session, customers are asked to return to
the desktop menu.
The use of Chat Rooms is NOT allowed.
The Library is not responsible for any information accessed through
the Internet or for any products or services ordered by users from
library equipment.
This page was last updated on March 13, 2006.
Copyright © 2005-2006. Tulare County Library.
TULARE COUNTY LIBRARY
Home > Library Policies & Procedures > Public Internet > Computer Rules
Public Computer Rules
All users must sign in at the desk before logging on.
(Visalia patrons must sign in at the Computer Room desk.)
Users must meet the qualifications as outlined in the Tulare County
Library Public Internet Policy and Tulare County Library Public Internet
Guidelines.
No more than two people may use an Internet workstation
at any one time. Customers may print at a cost of 15 cents per page.
Food and drink are NOT allowed.
The Tulare County Library reserves the right to monitor all public
access computer use.
Conduct while using computers must be courteous and polite.
Those acting in a loud or bothersome manner will be asked to leave.
Please work without disturbing others.
Individuals may not tamper with or disable equipment. Users are
responsible for deliberate damage to the equipment.
Individuals may not violate the Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. Code).
The computing and network resources of the Tulare County Library
System may not be used for illegal purposes. Such acts may be subject
to prosecution by local, state, or federal officials.
Any person who compromises network security or who uses the Tulare
County Library System Internet connection for improper purposes may
have their computer privileges revoked.
Users may save their work to a 3.5 inch diskette. If you do not have a
diskette, you may purchase one from the library staff for $1.00.
At the end of each computer session, customers are asked to return to
the desktop menu.
The use of Chat Rooms is NOT allowed.
The Library is not responsible for any information accessed through
the Internet or for any products or services ordered by users from
library equipment.
This page was last updated on March 13, 2006.
Copyright © 2005-2006. Tulare County Library.
mollymalone
Former Member
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60641
"In fact, there is no right to view child *advertiser censored*, even in the privacy of the
home, let alone a public library.” Staver told WND Biesterfield – or any librarian –
really had no choice in the matter and that most states have similar laws requiring
those in a position of trust, such as teachers or pastors, to report any suspicion
of child abuse, which could include child *advertiser censored*.
He said the laws he’s reviewing don’t specifically mention librarians but do include
adults who work with children. “It could apply to a librarian; they have children
coming into their facilities. They have a duty, obviously,” he said. Staver said
anyone who would refuse to report such activities possibly could be cited, should
a prosecutor decide to take on such a case."
"Hill who, when police made the arrested and confiscated the computer, told
officers they had no business enforcing the child *advertiser censored* law within the
library."
Excuse me? Since when did that library become a private country where LE
cannot enter or obtain evidence when informed of a crime?
This is from a someone who formerly worked in a library and who posted on a
site: even though he was a monster, she violated his "constitutional"
right to privacy. Her being fired for violating his right was justified; she
should be applauded for doing her civic duty."
Gee, it was done in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation
of privacy. Hill appears more concerned about "violating his right to view
child *advertiser censored*" and telling LE they had no business being in a public place to
arrest someone committing a cime?? What planet does she reside on?
"In fact, there is no right to view child *advertiser censored*, even in the privacy of the
home, let alone a public library.” Staver told WND Biesterfield – or any librarian –
really had no choice in the matter and that most states have similar laws requiring
those in a position of trust, such as teachers or pastors, to report any suspicion
of child abuse, which could include child *advertiser censored*.
He said the laws he’s reviewing don’t specifically mention librarians but do include
adults who work with children. “It could apply to a librarian; they have children
coming into their facilities. They have a duty, obviously,” he said. Staver said
anyone who would refuse to report such activities possibly could be cited, should
a prosecutor decide to take on such a case."
"Hill who, when police made the arrested and confiscated the computer, told
officers they had no business enforcing the child *advertiser censored* law within the
library."
Excuse me? Since when did that library become a private country where LE
cannot enter or obtain evidence when informed of a crime?
This is from a someone who formerly worked in a library and who posted on a
site: even though he was a monster, she violated his "constitutional"
right to privacy. Her being fired for violating his right was justified; she
should be applauded for doing her civic duty."
Gee, it was done in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation
of privacy. Hill appears more concerned about "violating his right to view
child *advertiser censored*" and telling LE they had no business being in a public place to
arrest someone committing a cime?? What planet does she reside on?
mollymalone
Former Member
If Brenda had worked there at the library before moving, her records from that time period should show (unless they too were/are tampered with) what her previous work ethic was like.
mollymalone
Former Member
(Eric Coyne, the county's chief media officer)
But Coyne indicated that the supervisor's account of the incident differed from Biesterfeld's as to whether the employee had mentioned the material was "child *advertiser censored*" - or just "*advertiser censored*."
"To me it doesn't make any difference," Picaso said. "She was upset at what she saw on the computer. She made it clear to her supervisor that this is what she saw, and now the supervisor, after the fact, because she is realizing that she was wrong in the way she handled it, perhaps feels the need to say, 'I thought it was just *advertiser censored*,'" said Picaso.
But Coyne indicated that the supervisor's account of the incident differed from Biesterfeld's as to whether the employee had mentioned the material was "child *advertiser censored*" - or just "*advertiser censored*."
"To me it doesn't make any difference," Picaso said. "She was upset at what she saw on the computer. She made it clear to her supervisor that this is what she saw, and now the supervisor, after the fact, because she is realizing that she was wrong in the way she handled it, perhaps feels the need to say, 'I thought it was just *advertiser censored*,'" said Picaso.
mysteriew
A diamond in process
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 23,811
- Reaction score
- 784
Wow, that's interesting. I wonder if they would also approve someone using a public computer to send hate mail or ransom notes. Sheesh.
I'm wondering if they found this patron lifting a little girl's dress and taking pictures of her, would they consider that worthy of calling police? Even if he planned on sending the pics out on the net? I presume (hope) the answer would be that yes, they would. The only difference in the two scenario's would be that in this case the child is in front of them. In the previous scenario, the child isn't in front of them! But it is the same situation. In both cases he would be attempting to look at them unclothed.