Slashdot Mirror
Librarian Suspended over Patrons' Web Access
bsw149 writes "The head librarian of the Valparaiso Community Library in Florida was suspended
after investigators found that users had viewed adult content on public computers.
While the library has a policy against viewing adult material on library
computers, the librarian is facing possible dismissal. Is the best enforcement policy to
hold librarians personally responsible for the materials patrons' access?"
How is it the librarian's fault? They're not looking over the people's shoulder's all the time, and they could just hide the content when the librarian walks over.
Is it in their job description to monitor what users access? When they signed their job contract or whatever, did it clearly outline this? Cause if not, they librarians should not be dismissed.
By analogy, perhaps it would be best to fire any cop who doesn't manage to stop all crime on his shift?
TFA doesn't go into what actually happened, only that someone watched porn and from that the librarian is being dismissed since she "had not done enough to prevent the incident".
First off, it's an "incident" not "incident s ", so it probably only happened once, and if the history just showed one site, I can think of a thousand ways that could have accidentally happened.
We're missing some kind of important details here.
No, this is stupid. Librarians don't spend years in school earning higher degrees in library science to become nannies. The world has enough problems, why must they keep inventing new ones?
If someone reports the user to the librarian, the librarian walks over, what power do they have? The person will most likely close the window when they see the librarian. Is the librarian allowed to ask the person to leave or ask person to stop using the computer? Is there a standard policy for what to do, and the librarian isn't following it or does the person just make it up when they catch somebody?
Here's what they should do: ban all devices and texts that display inappropriate information. Who wants to live in a world in which people can see sex, violence or evolution?
Once we get rid of all those books and magazines and that interweb thingie, we can get back to the important stuff. I think it's time we put an end to all of this inappropriate behavior by setting an example. Let's put the librarian to death and be done with it. She's obviously a witch.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
The issue is that of public access to the Internet, versus policing of that access. Libraries do not traditionally maintain collections of adult material on their shelves, so they are expected to extend that prohbition to the Interntet access they provide. But, time and time again, it has been proven that such prohibition is virtually impossible.
So, in essence, this is about everyone's rights online.
Knowing about how cheap the Valparaiso City Commission can be about things, I doubt the library was provided the funding for any kind of useful software to help in this task. But I cannot say authoritatively since the last time I visited the ValP library was back when the only computer there was a Commodore 64.
Typical Slashdot. Not just anybody viewing porn but:
"The director of the Valparaiso (Fla.) Community Library was suspended without pay in early August after city officials found that a registered sex offender had used library computers to access pornographic websites."
Since I don't know what really happened I won't dispute whether the librarian is at fault. I'll just note that filters really don't work well and for libraries it's either the choice of internet or no internet. Nothing much in between.
If internet access is so much of an issue, perhaps the computers should be put in a seperate room where you have to be over 16 or 18 to enter and use or have your parents sign a permission slip.
Personally I think it's all that streak of classic American puritanicism anyway, TV shows violence with people's heads and other body parts blown off every night of the week, or have realistic grotesque autopsies on CIS-like shows, or real grotesque surguries/diseases/etcetera on the scientific channels, or animals mating on any NationalGeographic or discovery channel yet a kid can't handle a glimpse of people doing the same?
If the sex offender viewed that stuff, put responsibility where it belongs and haul his ass to jail if he violated parole or whatever.
Read TFA.
The director of the library was suspended, not just any librarian. TFA doesn't go into the details too much, but the city officials were orchestrating this, and she have a hearing. That's pretty much how serious it is. Start thinking criminal charges. Maybe not jail time, but possibly community service.
Nor was it kiddy porn that the people surfed. They just charged the sex offender with possession, but TFA states that he (and some underaged boys, big surprise there) had looked at adult material using library computers.
Nice try, troll.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Here's the lovely Catch-22 that's been set up for this librarian:
Librarians are not allowed by federal law to restrict what people view on the Internet.
Now, the librarians can be suspended/fired for NOT restricting what people view on the Internet.
What the hell is she supposed to do? Punt?
I have no tag line
Yes, that's a great policy. This way you motivate librarians to spy on patrons. They then become your agents, your pair of eyes in each library.
Have you ever tried to police activities by performing walk-throughs? It's damn near impossible, especially when the perpetrator carries no respect for the authorities. I helped oversee a 24 station computer lab for a local middle school, and no matter HOW diligent the lab monitor, each and every computer, without exception, at some point had to be reloaded because a kid or group of kids wound up installing some software which broke it, or downloaded music, or some violation of the usage policy. Even revoking privileges didn't help the situation.
If your duties are, by definition, limited and near impossible, you are doomed to defy those duties.
You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you allow full access, the users tend to run amok. If you prevent full access, then it's a challenge and those who circumvent the prevention are lauded as creative and gifted.
I know an ex-head-librarian.
Let me tell you, if they have time to sit around and monitor users internet access all day, they are not doing their job.
You have a lot of responsibilities at that job, and one wrong step and everyone's clamoring for your resignation.
Consequently, she refused to use filtering software. Mainly because it was easy to get around and way too restrictive. Monitoring the internet usage should be done by the assistant librarians, but the head librarian is more worried about other stuff, like you know, making sure the library stays open.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Let's pull the zoom lens back out to a statewide standpoint. Florida in general has been beset by one major sex related crime after another. Their CPS is a dog's lunch and is currently paralyzed by the scandals surrounding it.
The bottom line is that when something remotely sex related is found on a public access terminal in Florida, there is a kneejerk reaction to find a scapegoat and lynch that person as quick as possible.
If this were anywhere else in the nation, there would have been a Gaelic shrug and beefier security procedures put into place, no one getting crucified over it.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Totalitarian control in the U.S. can't take place without turning the populace into its own jailers, a'la the GDR. DHS has had Yvgeny Primakov and Markus Wolf as consultants for creating "internal security measures."
Ten years from now, one-third of you will be reporting on the rest, just to keep your rare and valued job in the cafeteria. - That BTW, is the agenda behind ruining the dollar and the U.S> job markets: scarce jobs and government payrolls == social control.
Of the new jobs [created], 26,000 (about 13%) are tax-supported government jobs. That leaves 181,000 private sector jobs. Of these private sector jobs, 177,000, or 98%, are in the domestic service sector.Here is the breakdown of the major categories:
30,000 food servers and bar tenders;
28,000 health care and social assistance:
12,000 real estate;
6,000 credit intermediation;
8,000 transit and ground passenger transportation;
50,000 retail trade; and
8,000 wholesale trade.
(There were 7,000 construction jobs, most of which were filled by Mexicans immigrants.)
Not a single one of these jobs produces a tradable good or service that can be exported or serve as an import substitute to help reduce the massive and growing US trade deficit. The US economy is employing people to sell things, to move people around, and to serve them fast food and alcoholic beverages. The items may have an American brand name, but they are mainly made off shore. For example, 70% of Wal-Mart's goods are made in China.
Where are the jobs for the 65,000 engineers the US graduates each year? Where are the jobs for the physics, chemistry, and math majors? Who needs a university degree to wait tables and serve drinks, to build houses, to work as hospital orderlies, bus drivers, and sales clerks?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
In Canada (or at least Alberta), libraries are not allowed (by law) to install filters of any kind, because doing so violates their charter (open access to public information.)
There are several rural schools that share network access with public libraries, and this is one of the things that we have to work around (computers belonging to the school must be filtered, but computers belonging to the library must not be.)
I find it amazing that libraries in the US are not only allowed to censor information, but that they are *expected* to.
Libraries are for grown-ups, too. Adult images aren't illegal. Libraries aren't day-care centers, although I think that's what some people expect them to be. If I am forbidden to look at boobies on the internet at my local library, will I soon be forbidden from looking at boobies on African tribeswomen in the National Geographic on the shelf behind the computer? Or at the boobies in a book on art? Or read a description of boobies in a poetry book? There's a whole bunch of adult situations in that there bible these assholes are always thumping. Maybe we should censor that, too.
In a million years, when the alien archeologists are picking through the remains of our society, they're going to have a hard time figuring out how we reproduced. "Well Xzgralfap, they documented the reproductive practices of every other species on the planet and labeled it 'biology'. But they're own reproductive practices were labeled 'pornography' and forbidden to be documented and studied by the ignorant."
I'm tired of it. Mary Carey for President, 2008. Her and Bill Clinton are the only two pro-pornography candidates I can think of. Don't forget to order your save the court kit, today!
And, they had what I consider to be one of the most sensible policies for monitoring children I've ever seen: for children under 13, a parent or other guardian *must* be present for the kid to be allowed to use the computers.
The rationale was, well, rational: as a parent, you know what you consider to be inappropriate for your child, so it's up to the parent to make the judgment call.
I haven't been back to Sioux City in quite some time, and I certainly haven't been in the library, so I'm not sure if they've changed their policies. What I really liked about their policies is that they accounted for the unspoken question of appropriateness: appropriate for whom? The courts are never going to be able to decide what little Johnny's parents think is appropriate for him, so let/force them to decide. That's why I think it's crazy that librarians are expected to parent other people's children for them while they're at the library.
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
"If anyone should be fired "
And that's the point. No one should be fired over this incident. The librarian is there to assist patrons in study and scholarship, not to be a net nanny that makes sure nobody is downloading porn.
This is an unfortunate incident that a politician is trying to make a name from. If anyone should be fired its the commisioner who is now on a witch hunt.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you