Pervert patron prints pedo porn at PL, librarians look - loser locked-up

A convicted sex offender was using the computers at the Fayetteville Public Library to view and print child pornography.

The librarians got suspiscious and a library computer technician remotely monitored what the pervert was doing. After seeing child porn, the librarians ordered the criminal away from the computer and called police. The convicted pervert was arrested on child porn charges at the library and is being held at the local jail without bail.

Lets queue up the librarian outrage here, not only did librarians look over his shoulder physically, the looked into what he was doing electronically, and held the criminal and the computer with the evidence for police. Talk about abuse of a patron record!!!

Good going Fayetteville, Arkansas library staff. Now people will not feel free to look at child porn in the library, heck they might even stop looking at adult porn and touching themselves. Way to ruin the First Amendment by violating the ALA code of 'Ethics'.

Topic: 

Comments

"If these librarians say all these things that I just made up ... well won't THAT be hypocritical of them?! They should think more carefully before having me put words in their mouths."

Yes we know librarians always consider public computer use not to be a patron record. We know librarians always thing public computer means just that public, as in anyone ever the cops can just take a seat and use it.

No, never Librarians always protect children They would never make comments about how what a patron views on a publc computer is not some type of protected action. Heck librarians understand the plain meaning of the term public

Yes, sir, mdoneil, it is very heartening to know that there are librarians who have adopted the Stazi philosophy of every citizen spying on every other citizen. And good for you for supporting such a society. And, of course, if the charges get thrown out for all kinds of civil liberties violations then you'll be able to spew outrage at the "liberal" courts. It would probably have been a better idea to simply secure the computer and phone the prosecutor's office to see if an investigation should be launched, but, hey, any kind of shitting all over the Bill of Rights in the name of stopping people from looking at what somebody doesn't want other people to look at.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

Fang-Face, I'm sure that the children being raped to make this pornography applaud your attempts to protect civil liberties. Oh, I guess their civil liberties are unimportant to you.

The perverts raping those children have just as much a right to a fair trial as the victims do. I know you hate that, and I have no doubt that you will continue to hate it until the day you are accused.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

Whilst I don't usually reply to you because we have such divergent opinions it just bores most people when we get into an argy-bargy, why are the victims being tried at all?

How does the victim get justice if the perp does not get an honest trial? You do not advocate justice, mdoneil; you advocate revenge. The old "punish anybody as long as somebody is punished for what happened" philosophy.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

So you meant that the victim can see that justice is done by having society ensure that all accused are provided a fair and impartial trial?

Of course I was being obtuse, but I guess a bit too much as you took it the wrong way.

I don't agree with you, but you mentioned the spying done by the library staff. When I editorialized I purposefully did not mention that I looked at the library's Internet AUP and found nothing noting that users may be remotely monitored. If I had noted that I would have been quite vocal about it. (The AUP)

You have the courage of your convictions. I think you are a crackpot, but you put your money where your mouth is. Your complaint address the substance of the issue and not the tone of my submission.

Oh, and while you are often quite perceptive, you missed the mark on the somebody must be punished idea. I watched the OJ Simpson sentencing in the lounge at the office earlier in the week. Others were saying that OJ was guilty of murder and the Las Vegas judge should consider that as well. I piped up that he was found not guilty of the previous crime and we must respect the jury's decision. I even said it is better to let 100 criminals go free than to jail one innocent man.

They wanted to know what I did with the real mdoneil. Geez I guess people take me the wrong way and not just on the Interwebs.

Saying shitting on the Bill or Rights is OK, but alliteration with pedo and pervert is frowned upon. I give up trying to understand.

But this wont make the news.

First, no one but the librarians saw this. The cops arrived after the librarians came up to the computer. They can CLAIM they saw him there, he can deny it. He wins on that ground. The librarians claimed he was printing out the photos, he claims he saw a piece of paper on the desk when he sat down and tossed it out. That explains his fingerprints on the printout.

When I worked public libraries 12 years ago, we were better trained than these idiots who stopped this guy.

You ALWAYS get the police first, you NEVER take action yourself. We had banks of county attorneys meeting with us on a regular basis training us in what we could legally do and what would get the crap sued out of us, and guess what, we were not`deputized to arrest patrons.

I don't believe a word you write. I was a public librarian and we never had the county attorney address us during my tenure.

You do it your way, I think what the librarians in Arkansas did was outstanding, and I commend their actions.

If you want to be his internet defense lawyer go right ahead, but I think you are a kook.

No one in Arkansas needs to be deputized to arrest someone committing a felony, everyone in Arkansas is empowered by law to make such an arrest, there need be no special deputization.

Hmmm...I seem to recall that you didn't work in the public library for a long period of time. I also recall you previously mentioning that in your job position, you had little to no contact with the public. Am I correct or am I thinking of someone else's comments?

As a part of our annual employee training (all city employees, not just library staff), we have had many sessions about dealing with problem customers/patrons. We also have had many sessions about what to do in threatening situations, when to call the police, etc. We had law enforcement officers at these sessions and even the city attorney was present for some. Now, just because YOU never had any training of this sort doesn't mean that all library staff are as inexperienced.

I was the head of reference at a PL for 18 months, and boy oh boy was there patron contact.

We had cops come on annual inservice day (I was there for two) we also had someone talk about diversity for half a day (training day was MLK day too) and we spent half a day gathering in circles and role playing about something inane.

The cops told us to keep a table or something similar between ourselves and patrons for safety and have an exit on both sides of you. Oddly something that also applies in bar rooms I've found quite helpful.

Just because YOU don't have a backbone but rely on the advice of lawyers for every move you make does not mean all of us have to go through life with crash helmets and kneepads on 24/7. Go ahead ask a lawyer if anything is a risk... you will find that everything is a risk. Take a risk once in a while, you might enjoy life rather than argue about the rights of perverts.

Whoa now. Who says I don't have backbone? And I didn't say I reply on advice from lawyers. I just said the attorney was present at some, not all, of the sessions. Don't put words in my mouth.

I wouldn't call the city attorney on a matter such as this, but I sure as hell would call the police before confronting someone doing something illegal, whether it was drugs, fighting, or viewing child porn. Not necessarily for safety reason or because it's a "risk", but because it's what is right. It makes for a better case, and it doesn't hurt to have the cops there for backup in case the individual causes a disturbance.

BUT, what actually matters in this case is not what training either of us had. It's what the library employees in question had. It's what their policies are.

And, if you had read anything I've written...in several comments on here I do say I'm not defending the guy. Let his lawyer do that. But I'm not going to be the frontrunner with the picks and torches either. Why? Simply put, I'm not involved in this case by any shape or form. I have no knowledge other than the one article that was posted. Quit assuming that everyone that doesn't agree with your lynch-mob mentality is an automatic "perv-sympathizer", for lack of a better term.

And do not assume to know anything about my life or my enjoyment of life. That is not up for discussion. Why is it people always attack those that don't believe the same things? My comments about your PL experience wasn't an attack. I knew you hadn't had as long of experience as I have, but honestly couldn't remember what your position was. It wasn't an attack and I am sorry if came across that way.

Is that they cannot separate their own personal beliefs from the performance of their jobs.

In this case the librarians may have broken the law in several ways.

First, its illegal for anyone but a judge or a licensed attorney who has passed the bar in the jurisdiction they professionally act in to interpret the law. Judging what is legal and illegal is beyond the purview of a public librarian. Its not only professionally, but legally out of the job classification and description. It is very illegal for a librarians, in the course of performing their job as a librarian, to start interpreting the law in any circumstance.

Next, only an officer of the court in the form of a police officer can enforce such laws.

Finally confessing to something even after being Mirandized means nothing. Especially if what you confess to is not an illegal act.

This applies to ALL professions that require licensure. If someone suddenly falls to the ground and appears to be in pain is reporting chest pain, and has shortness of breath, I am obligated in most states to try to help them. But I cannot, if I am on the job as a librarian, yank out the Merck Manual, look up the symptoms and tell the person he is having a heart attack. I certainly cannot prescribe a course of action to relieve the condition. I CAN call for emergency medical care.

There are plenty of people who confess to stuff all the time, just for the hell of it in some cases, under duress of police abuse in others. In this case, simply looking at kiddie porn, even on a public computer, is very likely not illegal. The print outs may have been, but since no police officer saw the man actually print the screens out, and personally saw the man take the printouts out of the printer there is no evidence at all that he actually printed them out.

People have CONFESSED to viewing pornography and been found innocent of violating the law. Since they called the police at the wrong time, all he need to do is claim that the librarians printed the screens out, not him.

For someone who claims a law degree. MDoneil is painfully ignorant of the law. he most certainly would be a terrible lawyer, because a lawyer learns pretty quickly that there is a vast chasm between a moral or ethical stand, and what is legal or illegal.

This does more to firm up my beleif that he has no legal background at all. No one with a law degree would even think twice o justify the actions taken by these librarians, even if they were PERSONALLY conservative and extremely anti-child pornography.

They would immediately know that the librarians commited a number of totally inappropriate acts, and very likely a number of very illegal ones, expecially if a civil rights attorney chooses to step up and defend the guy.

More actual criminals are out free, walking the streets because people have acted like these librarians than are on the streets because of a more liberal approach. Many even have been awarded RESTRAINING orders to keep the [police and the public employees from harassing them because of such actions.

I should know better, but this is just too funny to resist. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about:

First, its [sic] illegal for anyone but a judge or a licensed attorney who has passed the bar in the jurisdiction they professionally act in to interpret the law.

So you call a lawyer when you see a no parking sign? People interpret the law every day. While UPL is indeed improper, that involves practicing law for others.

Next, only an officer of the court in the form of a police officer can enforce such laws.

A police officer is not an Officer of the Court. The Courts are the judicial branch, law enforcement is an executive branch function. While Sheriffs, Marshalls, Bailiffs, and similarly named officials may be empowered to perform some law enforcement functions in conjunction with their duties to the Court, their primary role if Officers of the Court is to the Court, not to the investigation of crime and apprehension of offenders.

Finally confessing to something even after being Mirandized means nothing.

Where did you come up with that one Perry Mason? Heck, confessions prior to detention and Miranda warnings are admissible, you must be deluded if you thing statements made post warning are not admissible.

This applies to ALL professions that require licensure. If someone suddenly falls to the ground and appears to be in pain is reporting chest pain, and has shortness of breath, I am obligated in most states to try to help them.

No you are not, you have no duty to others unknown to you. If you are a cardiologist you can step over someone who needs CPR with no legal consequences.

But I cannot, if I am on the job as a librarian, yank out the Merck Manual, look up the symptoms and tell the person he is having a heart attack.

The cardiologist above cannot do that either, he needs a 12 lead EKG to diagnose an MI. One can act to the extent of their training. If you were only a librarian and not a doctor, nurse or paramedic why in this instance would you even consider acting beyond your capabilities. You can certainly make them comfortable, bring them a blanket or pillow and call 911, but beyond that you are indeed outside the scope of your knowledge and training.

In the case instant, the library staff can certainly detain the offender, and embargo the computer, but they cannot offer legal advice, or hold a trial in the non-fiction section near the law books. The analogy is quite similar.

In this case, simply looking at kiddie porn, even on a public computer, is very likely not illegal

Looking at child pornography is always illegal.

For someone who claims a law degree. MDoneil is painfully ignorant of the law.

I am indeed unschooled in the intricacies of Arkansas law, but a school child knows that child pornography is wrong, and that putting the person doing it in the hands of the police is the right thing to do.

This does more to firm up my beleif [sic] that he has no legal background at all.

I’ve invited you to lose your anonymity and provide your address and I’ll happily send copies of my transcripts. You have yet to do so.

This has been entertaining, and you are brilliantly clueless, but I must bring this to an end as it is Friday evening and I have even more fun things to do, but more importantly I am sure this is boring everyone else on here to tears.

So thanks for the chance to prove that arguing with people on the internet makes me as much of a pinhead, but your commentary was just too funny to pass up.

It is not illegal to LOOK at kiddie porn. It is only illegal to collect, create or transport it. Too much case law immediately overturns every conservative effort to write laws that make viewing it illegal. Every such law has been found to be too broad to be constitutional.

No legislation since the Pennsylvania case that determined that it is LEGAL to view child pornography occured which has been able to overcome the issue of writing laws that are TOO vague or broad to be constitutional.

Again, your example of the no parking sign is an absurdly incorrect one.

Elements of the 1996 act were overturned. Conservatives attempted to deal with them in 2002. They were overturned. They attempted again in 2003. These were overturned. Again and again, they keep attempting and they keep ending up with case law that overturns their decisions. As it stands viewing child pornographs is not illegal the current status:

[United States

With the exception of child pornography, the legal status of Internet pornography is

    still somewhat unsettled

. The legality of pornography has been traditionally determined by the Miller test, which dictates that community standards are to be used in determining whether a piece of material is obscene. Thus, if a local community determines a pornographic work to meet its standard for obscenity then it could be banned. This means that a pornographic magazine that might be legal in California could be illegal in Alabama. This standard poses a problem when it comes to the Internet because restricting the communities some pornographic material is available in is much more difficult over the Internet. It has been argued that if the Miller test were applied to the Internet then, in effect, the community standards for the most conservative community would become the standard for all U.S.-based Web sites. The courts are currently examining this issue.

The first attempt to regulate pornography on the Internet was the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which prohibited the "knowing" transmission of "indecent" messages to minors and the publication of materials which depict, in a manner "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs", unless those materials were protected from access by minors, for example by the use of credit card systems. Immediately challenged by a group of organizations spearheaded by the ACLU, both of these provisions were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)[15]. The "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions were ruled to limit the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

A second attempt was made with the narrower Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, which forced all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to protect their sites from access by minors. "Material harmful to minors" was defined as materials that by "contemporary community standards" are judged to appeal to the "prurient interest" and that show sexual acts or nudity (including female breasts). Several states have since passed similar laws. An injunction blocking the federal government from enforcing COPA was obtained in 1998. In 1999, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction and struck down the law, ruling that it was too broad in using "community standards" as part of the definition of harmful materials. In May 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed this ruling, found the lower court’s given reason insufficient and returned the case to the circuit court. In March 2003, the 3rd Circuit Court again struck down the law as unconstitutional, this time arguing that it would hinder protected speech among adults. The administration appealed; in June 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the injunction against the law, ruling that it was most likely unconstitutional but that a lower court should determine whether newer technical developments could have an impact on this question. On March 22, 2007, COPA was found to violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and was struck down.[16]

Another act intended to protect children from access to Internet pornography was the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000. It required that public libraries, as a condition of receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity, employ filtering software to prevent patrons from using Internet terminals to view images of obscenity and child pornography, and to prevent children from viewing images "harmful to minors", a phrase typically used for otherwise legal pornography. The act allowed librarians to disable the filtering software for adult patrons with "bona-fide research or other lawful purposes". The act was challenged by the American Library Association on First Amendment grounds, and enforcement of the act was blocked by a lower court. In June 2003, the Supreme Court reversed and ruled that the act was constitutional and could go into effect. [17].

The production of sexually explicit materials is regulated under 18 U.S.C. 2257, requiring "original" producers to retain records showing that all performers were over the age of 18 at the time of the production for inspection by the Attorney General. The 18 U.S.C. 2257 disclaimer is common on Internet sites distributing pornography, but the Department of Justice has rarely if ever enforced the provision.

On July 1, 2005, new regulations took effect requiring among other things, "secondary" producers to retain the same records. This has been seen both as a prelude to increased inspection of records by the Department of Justice, and also as a potential assault on the Internet pornography industry by increasing the burden of compliance for distributors.[citation needed]

On Oct. 24, 2007 the 6th circuit court of appeals in Ohio, struck down the 2257 law, and ruled it as unconstitutional according to the first amendment.

as it stands there is no status on VIEWING child pornography. There is no legislation that made it ILLEGAL that has ever not been struck down in the courts.

It is more than obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about, and this makes you about as dangerous as a child pornographer.

Defendant Anthony Diodoro admitted viewing 370 images of child pornography on his computer. The images were on websites which he intentionally visited for that purpose, said Klein's original opinion. Klein ruled that the law related to possession and not viewing, and that there was no evidence that Diodoro sought to retain the images. Pennsylvania state law makes a crime of "knowing possession" of such images.

"We note that it is well within the power of the Legislature to criminalize the act of viewing child pornography on a web site without saving the image," Klein said in his opinion. "The language used, however, is simply 'possession.' Because this is a penal statute with an ambiguous term when it comes to computer technology, it must be construed strictly and in favour of the defendant."

Klein had said that although the pictures were saved in the cache of Diodoro's computer, he could not have been expected to know that and could not be said to have knowingly downloaded them.

Klein said that the accused had a right to advanced notice that certain acts are illegal. "A defendant must have fair notice that his conduct is criminal," he said. "Because of the ambiguity, sufficient notice was not provided here. For this reason, we are constrained to leave it to the Legislature to clarify the language if it intends to make the mere 'viewing' of child pornography a crime."

The case is currently up for appeal but has NOT been heard yet. A petition for reargument has been issued.

The Arkansas television station that reported on the library patron you are talking about has PULLED the article from its website already.

Primarily because the title asserted that the man was arrested for PRINTING pages from the website.

Try the link.

http://www.kfsm.com/global/story.asp?s=8945

Overnight it has disappeared.

They changed the title from:

Man arrested for allegedly printing child pornography from local ...

to:

Fayetteville man charged with accessing child pornography in library

within a few hours which means they are already having problems with this case.

The accused, was supposed to have appeared before the court today, but NO NEWS on his appearance has been released.

So far the ONLY rules that exist even for the Fayetteville library are the following:


Library Communication Manager Sarah Terry says a routine check of their public computers is what helped them catch a man they say was viewing child pornography, and Fayetteville Police Sargeant Bill Phelan, agrees. "You're dealing with an institution that's public. It's for taxpayers and is paid for by taxpayers, so I'm sure there are some issues. Do you really want to restrict their access to what they can do at a facility they pay for?"

But Terry says the Fayetteville Public Library can't restrict public access. "We're not able to do a lot of filtering. There's a federal law that prohibits that, if it's on a public computer, you can't firewall everything. People have to have access to certain things."

Because of this Terry says they're using other methods to keep personal freedoms open while keeping children safe. "We have an area just for teens. We have an area for children that's downstairs. We have this computer lab that's upstairs for adults, so we do try to keep everybody kind of separated."

Some parents, like Kassie Misiewicz, say this separation, plus frequent staff checks of the computers, is enough to put them at ease. "Very much at ease, yes, that she [daughter Mave] is only going to see what is appropriate for her, and that she's not going to catch a glimpse of something else that somebody else might be putting up on the computer."

But other children might not see close parental supervision, so library staff say they're taking this seriously.

Terry explains the rules: "If people are caught with pornography, or viewing porn, they are banned from the library for six months. Porn itself is not illegal. As far as child porn, if that is caught, as it has been [Wednesday], then that person is banned from the library."

Five will get you ten that the guy was released this morning with a slap on the wrist. The librarians botched it, the media pulled its earlier reports, because of the assertion he was printing the stuff, and it was not in the accused possession when the police arrived.

But the story, such an important one, has pretty much completely been limited to the initial articles, and the earliest ones have been pulled and altered

<<>>

They're not?

God Forgive me for taking this stance, but aren't we the same society that says children don't have rights till they are 18, their opinions are unimportant, and most of all CONDONES and yeah i said it b/c if all you people out there that cringe at the abortion subject would get off ur asses for one day and do something about it that act of murder would no longer be available in this country. If u think this country is that great take a look at your childrens or grand childrens website or school calander. Do you see a Christamas break or Christmas program? You bet your ass you don't. Have we all as Christians gotten together and done something about it. No we just let more and more of our country be stolen. Hey if u don't agree get the hell out and go live with the Nazi's. I am sure Putin would be glad to have you.

We are not all Christians.

Putin is not a Nazi

Abortion does not cause child molestation, criminals cause child molestation.

Not everyone who opposes abortion sits on their posterior and does nothing.

How would calling the hiatus at the end of December in public schools Christmas break make it any different from calling it Winter break, or Kwanzza for that matter?

Everyone under 18's opinion is unimportant to me. So is that of most everyone over 18. I certainly don't agree with you but I don't plan on moving to Russia, or in with Nazi's (like Adolph Hitler Campbell's parents) I will pray for you though.

In places like the one being noted here, people have been arrested and jailed for taking pictures of a wife diapering her child by the husband. Mothers or fathers have been jailed for sitting in bathtubs with their own infants.

People have also been considered to be looking at "pornography" by purchasing the "Sports Illustrated' swimsuit issue.

Its rather an unsafe thing to allow librarians to decide what is pornography or not.

Considering the high opinion and regard that the author of this post has for librarians and thequality of professional education in the library field, I find it a bit inconsistant of him in praising this action, when in most other issues, he seems to think that librarianship as a profession barely enables the library school graduate to be able to tie their own shoes, or perhaps walk and chew gum at the same time.

However it is not atypical of the cheer first, and think next sort of posting he often engages in.

Recently in the same state:

Parents Arrested For Taking Nude Photos Of Son

SPRINGDALE -- The parents of a young boy were arrested Tuesday on a charge of engaging the child in explicit sex.

Imata Ejmi, 33, and Make Lanji, 24, of 805D Bailey St., Springdale, were arrested Tuesday based on photos showing an adult touching the nude buttocks of a boy who appeared to be 4 or 5 years old.

A Wal-Mart photo department employee discovered three photos of the boy and turned them over to the store manager, who contacted police.

Police went to the address listed on film-developing envelope to discuss the photos.

Ejmi, originally from the Marshall Islands, was identified as the father of the boy and the man in the photo grabbing the buttocks of the boy who appears to be asleep, according to a police report.

In another photo the boy's underwear is being pulled down and in the third photo the boy is nude lying on his back in bed with Ejmi next to him.

Lanji, also from the Marshall Islands, told police she took the photos with a disposable camera but saw nothing wrong with them because she and her husband were just teasing the boy, according to a police report.

Saying he was just playing with his son, Ejmi noted in his country, this type of behavior is OK.

Charges of second-degree sexual assault and engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for visual or print medium are pending against Ejmi. He remained the Washington County Jail on Wednesday afternoon in lieu of a $3,500 bond on the second-degree sexual assault charge. A bond hasn't been set on the second charge.

Charges of permitting abuse of a minor and engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for visual or print medium are pending against Lanji, who was taken to the Washington County Jail on Wednesday.

The boy and another child were removed from the home by the Department of Human Services when the parents were arrested.

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2005/03/10/news/springdale/05szchildporn.txt

Or how about

How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life

Your family photos could get you arrested. Just ask one New Jersey grandmother.

Three-year-old Sarah M. is either a toddler in her birthday suit playing in the garden, or a nude temptress with a sultry look who requires protection from the culprits who took this photograph -- her doting parents.

This is the fix we're in, now that computers have opened the barn door on kiddie porn. The FBI has issued blanket requests to photo processing labs and computer repair shops in some cities to be on the lookout for pictures of kids in compromising positions, urging them to call the authorities whether they're sure or not about a picture's legality. The big national chains that have photo processing labs -- Costco, CVS, Rite-Aid, and Wal-Mart -- have company policies that compel them to notify the police about any criminal activity they see in customers' photos. And when children are involved, they're more than willing to err on the side of caution.

"You can't have a blanket set of guidelines because pictures are subject to interpretation based on community standards," says Mike DeAngelis, a spokesman for CVS Pharmacy, with about 5,400 outlets nationwide. "But the store managers know it's up to law enforcement to decide what's criminal."

Tragically for a number of people all over the country, innocent family photos turned over to the police have led to financial ruin, divorce, debt, public humiliation, and lifelong scorn as a registered sex offender for mothers and fathers.

Some cases involved pictures much less provocative than Sarah M.'s. Based on the way prosecutors interpreted photos in a few of those cases -- Marian Rubin, a New Jersey grandmother charged for taking nude photos of her granddaughters, then aged 3 and 8; and Jeffrey B., a New York father who lost custody of his two daughters after he shot pictures of them mooning him -- it's possible to spot red flags where our innocence used to be.

http://shadmia.com/2007/05/16/how-a-photo-can-ruin-your-life/

Tons of stuff like this going on over the last few years and most of it has come out of conservative bible belt states like Arkansas.

A lot of average parents and grandparents are being tagged with legal sex offender status because of the rather disturbed definition that some member of the religious right have of "pornography"

Here is the left defending child pornographers. Where were you earlier in the week when a Rhode Island librarian called the cops on some guy for his 'sexy chats'? ?

You made no comment then when a library called the cops on that patron, but when a patrons is observed looking at what is so obviously children being sexually abused you trot out stories about kids naked on a bear skin rug.

Why do you defend those who would harm children?

Because that's how we defend the children from people like you: those who would enslave them and subject them to even greater abuses.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

OK ... how did you decide I want to enslave children -- literally or figuratively.

So...if I'm a first-time mom and I take a picture of my child's first bath, that makes me a child pornographer? Where is the logic? The only thing I got from that comment was that sometimes it is hard to tell the intent of the photographer, not a defending of the actual child pornographer and abusers.

the librarians are in no position to make the determination that this guy was, in fact ,doing anything illegal.

The standard operating actions that virtually all government attorneys call for is for the people witnessing the act to call the police and let THEM catch the person in the act, not to stop the act, and then call the police.

They have zero evidence that it was THIS person who was in fact the person who brought up the pages and printed them out. This is now thinly circumstantial at best.

That the guy was seen committing a criminal act by looking at child pornography and printing the images out is not probable cause to arrest someone is according to you incorrect is just amazing.

Just wow.

Your point of view is reflected in this reporting which really makes it editorializing, not reporting.

As I understand it, LISNews blog is made up of news items which volunteer authors report, and invite readers to make up their own minds on how to interpret the facts. They can chime in with comments--or not. They can prostelitize all they want in their blogs and their comments, but authors shouldn't promote a personal agenda in news items.

Your use of the words 'pervert' and your final paragraph ("Good going Fayetteville, Arkansas library staff"...'way to ruin the First Amendment by violating the ALA code of 'Ethics'...etc.) are completely inappropriate in the reporting of a serious news item. A reporters job is to answer the 6 ws and leave it at that.

I have no objection to your voicing your opinions while commenting on posted stories, rather I frequently enjoy reading your input...it's quirky to say the least.

However I feel it is completely INAPPROPRIATE to express your point of view WHILE reporting on a story. You're welcome to respond to this criticism, but I don't want to diminish our work here with an unnecessary string of comments back and forth.

Completely agree with you. I'm not ever sure I disagree with mdoneil's larger point here, but the tone of this post was completely out of sync with the rest of the blog.

Would you prefer I had not used alliteration, would you prefer I not called the pervert a pervert. Should I have not called a criminal a criminal?

It is time we recognize that perverts and those who wish to do our children harm in the library. Calling him disturbed, or saying he was printing inappropriate images just sugar coat the truth. A convicted violent pervert was looking at child pornography and a librarian dropped a dime on him.

That library staff deserves praise, and I bet they are getting it from the parents in Fayettville, Arkansas all while the ALA's handwringers are figuring out how to spin the librarian spies on pervert to protect children dilemma.

Pages