Jules
Former Member
That was my question. We can block that stuff on our personal computers. Why wouldn't a public library do the same?
Sick...
CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child *advertiser censored*
- Thread starter southcitymom
- Start date
That was my question. We can block that stuff on our personal computers. Why wouldn't a public library do the same?
Sick...
Oh, WND was not the only news source when I googled this. A lot of local papers and sites covered this as well. Do what Pepper suggested and see for yourself.
I do watch for that kind of thing, even though I'm conservative. If I see an interesting article on a particularly strong conservative or religious site, I google the topic to see if it's being covered by outside sources. If it isn't mentioned in the mainstream media, I don't bring it here!
I do watch for that kind of thing, even though I'm conservative. If I see an interesting article on a particularly strong conservative or religious site, I google the topic to see if it's being covered by outside sources. If it isn't mentioned in the mainstream media, I don't bring it here!
This library did have blocking. Problem is that the *advertiser censored* this guy viewed was an attachment in his email. That's how he got around the block.
SewingDeb
"Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 8,958
- Reaction score
- 101
Because the ACLU is on this as a freedom of speech thing and has been for years. This is recent article but I have read things like this for a long time now.
Library board to vote on *advertiser censored* access
ACLU says restrictions would be unconstitutional
Are public library restrictions against *advertiser censored* access unconstitutional?
That's what the Sacramento Public Library Authority Board will decide when it votes on a resolution that could make *advertiser censored* available in its libraries. A meeting is scheduled tomorrow night.
Last month, when the issue was first addressed, the American Civil Liberties Union maintained the position that restricting public access to *advertiser censored* in libraries would be unconstitutional, while attorneys for the Pacific Justice Institute disagreed.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62397
Jules
Former Member
Ahh, thanks Pepper. You'd think they'd have some sort of block to keep him from opening links that contain the nasties.
I know here at my office there are certain words and images that will be stopped before getting to my computer.
You would think libraries and the like would have such filters. :waitasec:
Jules
Former Member
Thanks Deb.
If possessing child *advertiser censored* is illegal, freedom of speech shouldn't matter. Looking at child *advertiser censored* has nothing to do with speech anyway.
I hope the one who was fired presses this matter and looks into her legal options. I'm definitely not a sue-happy person, but I'd seriously think about it in this instance.
One other thing. Brenda went to the Police Dept. and told them that she wasn't sure if she should report this, but because she had sons about the same age as those in the pictures, as a mother it bothered her to the point she couldn't sleep. The officers assured her that she did the right thing. She then told the officers that her supervisor told her not to report it. The officers told her that what she witnessed was a felony and it was her duty to report it.
This woman did exactly the right thing IMO, and the thanks she got was the loss of her job.
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.
This woman did exactly the right thing IMO, and the thanks she got was the loss of her job.
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.
Really, your blocking stops email attachments too?
Jules
Former Member
Yep, if the attachments contain criteria that the filters block.
I can't believe this is even an issue. They think the public of ANY AGE INCLUDING CHILDREN has a consitutional right to view *advertiser censored* on a public library computer?
Lets get real about this. The purpose/result of viewing *advertiser censored* is to be sexualy stimulated, right? So can you imagine a room full of pervs in full arrousal? Sure hope the men's room has plenty of stalls.
Jules
Former Member
Ewwwww... makes me glad we don't have a public library anywhere near us. Yick...
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.
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? Were the images innocuous-looking? Can it indeed be established that he was looking at these images soley for sexual gratification? 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?
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.
And, lastly, Brenda is represented by lawyers associated with Jerry Falwell. Need I say more?
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? Were the images innocuous-looking? Can it indeed be established that he was looking at these images soley for sexual gratification? 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?
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.
And, lastly, Brenda is represented by lawyers associated with Jerry Falwell. Need I say more?
That's all I'm trying to do, TaxiMom. Thanks for understanding 
There are just a lot of unanswered questions. I'd just hate to see this Judi Hill woman's name dragged through the mud if in fact she really didn't do anything wrong. I'd love to hear her side of the story.
There are just a lot of unanswered questions. I'd just hate to see this Judi Hill woman's name dragged through the mud if in fact she really didn't do anything wrong. I'd love to hear her side of the story.
RainbowsAndGumdrops
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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 "*advertiser censored* is *advertiser censored*." 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?
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.
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/NEWS01/803140331
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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* on a library computer.
"That was it," she said. "But this is child *advertiser censored*, 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/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080306/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 *advertiser censored*" 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 *advertiser censored* on a public computer there. Firewalls in the library's computer system normally block users from viewing Web sites with *advertiser censored*, 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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored*, 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
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 *advertiser censored* thing was terrible timing.
My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.
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 *advertiser censored* thing was terrible timing.
My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.