Librarian Fired for Reporting Man Viewing Child Porn to the Police
California: Linsay city librarian Brenda Biesterfeld has been fired for disregarding the orders of her supervisor and reporting a man who was viewing child porn on a library computer to police.
Biesterfield sought advice from her supervisor on what to do about the man who was looking a pictures of naked boys and was told to threaten him with a library ban unless he stopped.
County librarian Brian Lewis would not go into details concerning the reasoning behind the dismissal beyond saying there were 'solid business reasons' for the decision.
legal reasons. but if the guy was looking at a site praising UBL//pro terrorism. oh he would of made the paper. "Brian Lewis!, American patriot!" /sarcasm.
This is the type of stuff that irritates me. A person does the right thing and then gets fired for it. It sickens me to think that someone would let another person view child porn and not slap them in the face or in this case let someone call the police. I fear that it is this type of behavior that makes people affraid to be a good person and do good things.
Here we have a situation where both sides are supported by the constitution. First, look at the situation. 1. Man looks at pictures of naked boys on a public computer. Now nakedness, even nakedness of minors, technically is not pornography. Nudists have been constitutionally protected by this, for many consider it a lifestyle that can benefit society. Because of the vagueness of the article, who is to say that he wasn't looking at those sort of pictures. Maybe he was looking at screenshots of the PG-rated 70's film "Mixed Company" Who knows? 2. However, the article states that the librarian considered the pictures to be "child porn." She has the constitutionally right to express her beliefs, and if that is what she believes it is, it, under the law, must be reported to police. Was she fired for expressing and acting on her beliefs? This submission may or may not be appropriately titled due to the fact she may not have been terminated for action. And both articles may be incorrectly named, because we really don't know what he was looking at.
Does looking at child porn to get off make him sick?
Yes
Should it be a crime to be sick?
No
Should it be a crime to hurt others as a result of your illness?
Yes
Does watching child porn to get off hurt else anyone besides yourself?
No
Just because this librarian could not mind her own business, does not mean that she is in any way morally superior.
Society is full of two faced pervert child molesters, and for all that I know, she could be just like all of the cops/judges/priests that regularly get busted in dragnets.
Public libraries are just that, and the publics rights should always be respected.
With that said, I know that things like this go on in libraries all of the time.
If libraries have any responsibility towards such things, it is that they should warn parents and children that there may be pedophiles around and to keep a lookout for themselves.
that looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone, but if you, at a younger age, were the subject of said child porn, would you feel the same? Would it be ok for people to look at pictures of you, in a public library no less? I don't think it's in anyone's bill of rights that they be allowed to look at this kind of thing in a library. You can't even look at regular porn in a library. Just advising parents that there are pedophiles around is not good enough.
If I was molested as a child and it was on video, and some weirdo found this material on the internet somewhere, I would still think it absolutely abhorrent if society decided to prosecute this individual as if he or she had then actually molested a child already.
If someone looks at pictures of a murder scene does that then make them a killer?
How is this really any different?
I would say that the balanced approach would probably be to inform the person that if they keep up with that behavior then the public within the library will be informed of the risk that they pose.
I think that the fanatical approach against child molestation actually makes the problem worse.
Look at Saudi Arabia, you'd probably get your head chopped off for looking at child porn, unless of course you were a member or friend of the Saudi Royal family.
Then you would just have sex with all of the children that you want in the privacy of your own palace.
Is that what we want in the western world as well?
Sadly, to a very large degree, I believe that we already do.
The laws against child pornography are based on the reasoning that the viewers of the material are inducement for pornographers to keep creating the material. For example, nobody would make Hollywood movies if nobody watched them. By viewing child porn, this guy was playing his role in encouraging people to keep making it, and obviously to keep abusing children in the process.
That's the fanatical approach that I am talking about.
People have this mentality that if you just throw the book at anyone who ever looks at child porn, then one day no one will ever like child porn anymore.
The only way that such an approach could ever even theoretically work is if the government ends up adopting so much power that one day no one will ever be able to get away with such a thought crime.
Then the only pedophiles will undoubtedly be the untouchable dictators that we will have in charge.
People should take a measured approach to this problem so that maybe we can sort it out amongst ourselves one day.
I do not advocate child porn or pedophiles in any fashion, but, there are certain rights here by the library patron that were neglected and quite frankly I do hope he sues.
The use of the public computer in the library is a private experience, and you can assume to have a certain amount of privacy even though the computer is located in a public space. This is no different then the assumption of privacy in any other public place, look at the laws regarding recording other peoples voices and images, even in a completely public setting there is still the assumption of privacy.
The librarian looking over the said patrons shoulder and paying attention to what he was doing in so close of a manner is no less a violation of his privacy then if she was reading his email.
In a situations like this the only people that should have any form of interaction with this computer while any patron is using it would be the police with proper warrents and the server admin properly monitoring traffic. Due to the fact that this is a computer in a public place where children may have direct access to it, the server admin should have been doing his job in preventing such materials from being accessible on said public terminal, the librarian should not have been spying on the patrons private communications.
that looking at porn in a public library where people are walking right by is a private activity or protected in any way. It's not your computer or your house. So if I walk past this guy in a library and he's looking at child porn, I should just avert my eyes and protect his so-called "rights"? That is completely insane. And since you asked if this individual is the same as a child molester, he probably either is one or is just awaiting the opportunity.
I am outraged that any one could even remotley condone any form of produceing or viewing child porn. I don't care if it is a public place or a private place the individual doing such a thing should be arrested convicted and in my opinion executed. I don't think the librarian should have minded her own buisness she should have done what she thought was right so we could get one more more scum bag off the streets. On a personal note If I where in a library and seen someone watching child porn I would have my girl friend call the cops and tell them to bring the ambulance becuase that guy or girl is destined for some redneck justice
In order for the considerations of the 4th amendment to be taken into account, four (ironic?) critreia have to be met: 1)general legal principles; 2) the vantage point from which the surveillance is carried out; 3) the degree of privacy afforded by certain buildings and/or places; and 4) the sophistication and invasiveness of the surveillance technology employed.
We can address these point by point:
1) The expectation of privacy is not reasonable if the behaviors or communications in question were knowingly exposed to public view. 2) Vantage point. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable if there exists a vantage point from which anyone, not just a police officer, can see or hear what was going on and if this vantage point is or should be known or "reasonably foreseen" by the person being surveilled. 3) The expectation of privacy is not reasonable in many public places. 4) It is highly unlikely that any high-tech devices were used in this surveillance that the viewer would not have been aware of.
The Fourth Amendment's protections are against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the state. It would a stretch to extend the label of "state" to a county librarian.
Could you cite something about the expectation of privacy in public? I can't find anything agreeing with that. I'm just curious cause I've heard the opposite. I couldn't imagine people throwing a fit or something because say they were in somebody else's photograph or home video at Disneyland or something.
So based on that, anyone viewing child porn in a public place (or any other place) is breaking the law. If it came out that the librarians turned a blind eye to people using their facilities to view illegal material, then I expect the library would be in trouble anyway.
This woman did the right thing, she saw someone using the library facilities to view illegal material, so she reported it.
As for placing suitable restrictions on the computers - you can put all the parental control software on there that you can find, there is always going to be something that slips the net (as well as hundreds of perfectly legitimate sites that get blocked unnecessarily).
As has already been said, viewing child pornography just encourages people to make more of it. It's not like normal porn, this is the exploitation and abuse of children, not just pictures or videos of consenting adults. It's sick and it's wrong and by allowing this man or any other member of the public to get away with viewing this material would make the librarian just as bad as the guy looking for it.
Quote: "Does watching child porn to get off hurt else anyone besides yourself?
No"
Quote: "If you see someone viewing child porn in a library and then you beat the shit out of them, then the only real criminal in that case is you."
Just callin' 'em like I see 'em, boss. I don't see my taking someone who thinks that viewing child porn is a victimless crime to task for their view as "spreading hate at random." There was nothing random about it. Based on the views that he expressed here, Circuit Monkey belongs in jail right next to the guy viewing the child porn in the library.
Was my post really useful? Guess what...NO post ANYWHERE on this site is "really useful" except in the sense that we are all here expressing our opinions about the news stories posted and the comments that are posted in response to the stories. In this sense, yes, my post was really useful as it got my point across in no uncertain terms: Circuit Monkey's comments sounded like they came from someone who enjoys viewing child porn and wishes to protect the rights of others who enjoy it, too.
I stand by my post in its entirety, but if you feel it was right to censor me, then so be it. You're the boss.
