CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[Pepper]

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 thing was terrible timing.

My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access 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 should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.

This is jst one example of the ACLU going over the bend. Not only are they saying that should be accessible from the libraries, but they are saying that everyone should have access to on library computers, EVEN CHILDREN!:furious: !

 

[southcitymom]

I'm trying to think of a context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library and I'm drawing a blank. Can you help me out here?

Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.

 

[absinthe]

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 thing was terrible timing.

My biggest "concern" remains - why the hell can you access 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 should be accessible from libraries. Just scratching my head over the whole thing.

I'm upset that the ACLU is taking this stand, because it weakens their stances on other free speech issues.

 

[Pepper]

Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.

Good try, but these pics were of naked boys aged 9-13. Pictures of boys this age with exposed genitals has no place in emails.

 

[southcitymom]

Did you go to the library to pull them up on a public computer screen?

No, but one of my sisters only has access to the public library's computer to check her email. Once I emailed her some pics like that of my sons with the subject: Photos of the Boys. She opened them in the library. She didn't know they would be naked photos of the boys and I never even thought about it. I will now though!

 

[Taximom]

I'm trying to think of a context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library and I'm drawing a blank. Can you help me out here?

I know! I know!

He's a medical student studying male anatomy!

 

[RWill1974]

Perhaps his brother or sister sent him pics of his toddler nephews frolicking naked after bathtime. We've done that.

Now you're getting my point. Basically we're getting one side of the story. For one thing the guy is labeled "mentally deficient." In the article Pepper referenced it said images of boys 18 or younger in various poses. The images were deemed sexually explicit by law enforcement. But I remember reading in another article no sex acts depicted. You try telling a mentally deficient person what is considered legal and not legal as far as images he can view. But I'm not trying to defend this man. If he is in a pedophile then that is despicable. But these are all questions a lawyer will ask.

But my points are mostly regarding Brenda's supervisor. Again, Pepper references an article with quotes from Brenda regarding Ms. Hill. Hearsay. Where are actual quotes and interviews with Judi Hill? Just don't be so quick to judge the supervisor. She's been a librarian there or other places nearby for over 30 years, according to a newsletter I saw on their web site.

 

[southcitymom]

Now you're getting my point. Basically we're getting one side of the story. For one thing the guy is labeled "mentally deficient." In the article Pepper referenced it said images of boys 18 or younger in various poses. The images were deemed sexually explicit by law enforcement. But I remember reading in another article no sex acts depicted. You try telling a mentally deficient person what is considered legal and not legal as far as images he can view. But I'm not trying to defend this man. If he is in a pedophile then that is despicable. But these are all questions a lawyer will ask.

But my points are mostly regarding Brenda's supervisor. Again, Pepper references an article with quotes from Brenda regarding Ms. Hill. Hearsay. Where are actual quotes and interviews with Judi Hill? Just don't be so quick to judge the supervisor. She's been a librarian there or other places nearby for over 30 years, according to a newsletter I saw on their web site.

I too agree that the mental illness component is key in this case. And I will state, once again, librarians shouldn't be required to make these calls about inappropriate sexual material on a computer - it just shouldn't be available at a library.

 

[Pepper]

Now you're getting my point. Basically we're getting one side of the story. For one thing the guy is labeled "mentally deficient." In the article Pepper referenced it said images of boys 18 or younger in various poses. The images were deemed sexually explicit by law enforcement. But I remember reading in another article no sex acts depicted. You try telling a mentally deficient person what is considered legal and not legal as far as images he can view. But I'm not trying to defend this man. If he is in a pedophile then that is despicable. But these are all questions a lawyer will ask.

But my points are mostly regarding Brenda's supervisor. Again, Pepper references an article with quotes from Brenda regarding Ms. Hill. Hearsay. Where are actual quotes and interviews with Judi Hill? Just don't be so quick to judge the supervisor. She's been a librarian there or other places nearby for over 30 years, according to a newsletter I saw on their web site.

Because of the suit I am sure that Ms. Hill has been instructed to keep quiet. And even if she were to speak, I'm sure she would be covering her own azz, so I wouldn't believe her anyway.

The undisputed facts are as follows:
1. Brenda observed man viewing pictures of naked boys aged 9-13 on library computer.
2. Brenda reported the incident to her supervisor Judi Hill, who told her to give the man a warning.
3. Brenda was specifically told by her supervisor Judi Hill NOT to report it to law enforcement.
4. Brenda decided to report to police anyway, going against her supervisor's wishes.
5. Police told Brenda that she had a civic obligation to report a felony, and what she observed, and what the police observed when the man was arrested was a felony. And that not reporting a felony could be construed as "aiding and abetting."
6. Two days after the police arrested the man at the library in the act and confiscated the library computer for evidence, Brenda was fired.

 

[RWill1974]

Because of the suit I am sure that Ms. Hill has been instructed to keep quiet. And even if she were to speak, I'm sure she would be covering her own azz, so I wouldn't believe her anyway.

The undisputed facts are as follows:
1. Brenda observed man viewing pictures of naked boys aged 9-13 on library computer.
2. Brenda reported the incident to her supervisor Judi Hill, who told her to give the man a warning.
3. Brenda was specifically told by her supervisor Judi Hill NOT to report it to law enforcement.
4. Brenda decided to report to police anyway, going against her supervisor's wishes.
5. Police told Brenda that she had a civic obligation to report a felony, and what she observed, and what the police observed when the man was arrested was a felony. And that not reporting a felony could be construed as "aiding and abetting."
6. Two days after the police arrested the man at the library in the act and confiscated the library computer for evidence, Brenda was fired.

Points 2-4 are all according to Brenda, which supports my side of the argument here.

Believe me, I'm not trying to pick a fight here with you, Pepper. I just think this story should be looked at from all angles. And I wasn't trying to imply before that Brenda had quirky religious beliefs. I don't think she personally contacted Liberty lawyers. I think it was the other way around. I think the Crusaders saw a plum opportunity to get some publicity and advance their Holier-Than-Thou agenda. They're using her.

 

[Taximom]

I'm all for looking at both sides, but I don't think "child " is a "holier than thou" issue. It's wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Pepper]

Points 2-4 are all according to Brenda, which supports my side of the argument here.

Believe me, I'm not trying to pick a fight here with you, Pepper. I just think this story should be looked at from all angles. And I wasn't trying to imply before that Brenda had quirky religious beliefs. I don't think she personally contacted Liberty lawyers. I think it was the other way around. I think the Crusaders saw a plum opportunity to get some publicity and advance their Holier-Than-Thou agenda. They're using her.

I think you are wrong about this. These are facts that have been verified. It was/is library policy to issue warnings about viewing and not to report it to the policy. I believe this point was verified by the County Board of Supervisors. Whether she did or did not observe this man viewing inappropriate material is not at issue. The issue is was her firing justified or was it retribution for going against her supervisor's order.

 

[RWill1974]

I think you are wrong about this. These are facts that have been verified. It was/is library policy to issue warnings about viewing and not to report it to the policy. I believe this point was verified by the County Board of Supervisors. Whether she did or did not observe this man viewing inappropriate material is not at issue. The issue is was her firing justified or was it retribution for going against her supervisor's order.

Library policy to issue warning about viewing in general. And again, the stuff she was told by her supervisor is according to Brenda. My point is there are no word-for-word quotes from Judi Hill herself regarding what she told Brenda.

 

[southcitymom]

Good try, but these pics were of naked boys aged 9-13. Pictures of boys this age with exposed genitals has no place in emails.

I'm not trying to do anything. Adnoid asked for a "context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library" because he was drawing a blank and I gave him one.

I did not say I thought that's what might have happened in this case because I don't. Though frankly, how does a librarian know she is looking at 9-12 year old naked boys? My son looked 9 when he was 6. Again - librarians shouldn't have to figure this out because shouldn't download onto computers in public libraries.

 

[RWill1974]

Glad to see you've got none of the bias you allege motivates others involved in this issue.

The facts are are out there for all to see regarding Falwell and his group. No bias on my part.

 

[RWill1974]

I'm all for looking at both sides, but I don't think "child " is a "holier than thou" issue. It's wrong, plain and simple.

Wasn't saying child "holier-than-thou" issue. I just think they smelled opportunity here. Of course child in wrong. I'm not disputing that.

 

[Salem]

Because of the suit I am sure that Ms. Hill has been instructed to keep quiet. And even if she were to speak, I'm sure she would be covering her own azz, so I wouldn't believe her anyway.

The undisputed facts are as follows:
1. Brenda observed man viewing pictures of naked boys aged 9-13 on library computer.
2. Brenda reported the incident to her supervisor Judi Hill, who told her to give the man a warning.
3. Brenda was specifically told by her supervisor Judi Hill NOT to report it to law enforcement.
4. Brenda decided to report to police anyway, going against her supervisor's wishes.
5. Police told Brenda that she had a civic obligation to report a felony, and what she observed, and what the police observed when the man was arrested was a felony. And that not reporting a felony could be construed as "aiding and abetting."
6. Two days after the police arrested the man at the library in the act and confiscated the library computer for evidence, Brenda was fired.

Brenda did the right thing. No question. I agree that a librarian should not have to make this call. The police have the legal definition of what is and what is not child . The police believed it to be child and arrested the man. It will now be up to the Courts, LE, attorneys and apparently, the ACLU to sort it out. If indeed he was looking at child he deserves to go to jail. If he was studying male anatomy then that will be determined and he will probably get some sort of warning about viewing such information in a public library.

I truely believe, and this is just my opinion, that viewing , in some cases, is like smoking marijuana. It will lead some, granted not all, but some to move further down the line. Marijuana to harder drugs, viewing to acting out . If the guy was looking at child , there was potential, and only potential, that he might progessed down the line. Being busted, could have a negative effect on any desire to progress down that line and that would be a good thing.

I will also say, that if in fact what he was doing was innocent, then his life has pretty much been ruined in his local area because of the publicity he has received and that is sad.

Salem

 

[Pepper]

I'm not trying to do anything. Adnoid asked for a "context in which a grown man would be looking at pictures of nude boys that would be appropriate in a library" because he was drawing a blank and I gave him one.

I did not say I thought that's what might have happened in this case because I don't. Though frankly, how does a librarian know she is looking at 9-12 year old naked boys? My son looked 9 when he was 6. Again - librarians shouldn't have to figure this out because shouldn't download onto computers in public libraries.

I'm definitely not a techie, but if the pictures were in an email attachment (as in this case), I don't see how any blocking software would be able to filter those out. If the pics came from a website, then yes. If the pics had text attachments with words, then yes. But if it is just a photograph that I take with my digital camera, download it to my computer, and email it to you, then how would filtering or blocking software prevent you from opening it on a computer in the library?

 

[southcitymom]

I'm definitely not a techie, but if the pictures were in an email attachment (as in this case), I don't see how any blocking software would be able to filter those out. If the pics came from a website, then yes. If the pics had text attachments with words, then yes. But if it is just a photograph that I take with my digital camera, download it to my computer, and email it to you, then how would filtering or blocking software prevent you from opening it on a computer in the library?

I'm with you in terms of not being a techie, Pepper - maybe Adnoid can answer this question. It's a good one. I do not know if software can block attachments from being opened, but I would suspect that it could.

 

[Amraann]

Brenda did the right thing. No question. I agree that a librarian should not have to make this call. The police have the legal definition of what is and what is not child . The police believed it to be child and arrested the man. It will now be up to the Courts, LE, attorneys and apparently, the ACLU to sort it out. If indeed he was looking at child he deserves to go to jail. If he was studying male anatomy then that will be determined and he will probably get some sort of warning about viewing such information in a public library.

I truely believe, and this is just my opinion, that viewing , in some cases, is like smoking marijuana. It will lead some, granted not all, but some to move further down the line. Marijuana to harder drugs, viewing to acting out . If the guy was looking at child , there was potential, and only potential, that he might progessed down the line. Being busted, could have a negative effect on any desire to progress down that line and that would be a good thing.

I will also say, that if in fact what he was doing was innocent, then his life has pretty much been ruined in his local area because of the publicity he has received and that is sad.

Salem

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 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!