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

Topic: 
A convicted sex offender was <a href="http://nwanews.com/nwat/News/72013/"> using the computers at the Fayetteville Public Library</a> 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'.

Comments

Stated that simply viewing child pornography on a computer wasnt illegal Even if the images are saved on the computer, the person viewing has to INTENTIONALLY save them to the computer. It cannot occur as an automatic action of the browser putting the images into a cache file of other file automatically generated by thee computer:

Pennsylvania court says viewing child porn 'not illegal'
OUT-LAW News, 10/11/2006

A US court has ruled that viewing child pornography on a website without deliberately saving it to a computer is not a crime. The judge said that the state penal code was ambiguous, so he must rule in favour of the defendant.

Anthony Diodoro, a 26-year-old from Delaware County, Pennsylvania admitted knowingly viewing 370 child-porn images online. He also admitted that he had intentionally visited the websites for the purpose of viewing child porn.

State law says that a person must have "knowing possession" of child pornography in order for it to be a crime. A panel of three judges in the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that Diodoro could not be convicted of knowingly possessing the images because there was no evidence that Diodoro knew that his computer was storing the images in its internet cache file.

http://www.out-law.com/page-7467

Theres the problem. Even if had admitted he was looking at the websites, there is a problem with whether that is ILLEGAL or not.

Mdoneil said "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."

So putting him in the hands of the police is okay? That's what many have said already. The only difference between what we're saying and what you're saying is WHEN the police should be called. At least that's the best I can figure. (That and whether or not they should have been monitoring the computers in the first place, but this discussion has deviated from the latter.) Please tell me what is so wrong with calling the police FIRST? That's all I want to know.

Staff can monitor his activity and make sure he's still occupied at the computer, and IF he tries to leave then they can talk to him about his behavior. UNTIL the cops get there. Now, you may say I'm not taking a risk and not enjoying life, but looking at it from a staff safety concern...wouldn't it be better to not be confrontational and leave that to the cops who have extensive training in that area?

If I see a someone else in a no parking zone, I dont get to write the ticket OR have their car towed.

I CAN decided to park or not park in the spot myself. I

Cant decide on whether an act is legal or illegal and THEN hold the person myself until the police arrive. I am then violating the law, as well as the persons civile rights.

These librarians are seriously backing away from this in the last articles. They are citing that the ONLY rule the library has about viewers of child pornography is to BAN them from the library permanently, while those viewing adult porn get banned for six months.

There is no legal position on this, because every time conservo wing nuts like yourself pass laws about it, they make them so broad that they violate the constitution and most state constitutions in numerous ways.

Cops have tried arresting REPORTERS doing research on child pornography for accessing the sites as research. Doctoral students doing the same have also been subjected to similar arrests. These cases have resulted in the section of law regarding LOOKING at these sites because the laws banning them have been interpreted as overly broad

This city's librarians are in major over react mode, because a year ago, a bunch of insane local conservatives started demanding that books with a sexual content that they did not approve of were in the open collection. One of them sent his two sons into the library to look for a book called "The Whole Lesbian Sex Book" and then demanded that the city pay his sons 20,000 dollars for the trauma it caused th9w caused them.

The decision was as follows:

Advisory board members voted unanimously April 3 to remove the book from circulation and find a similar resource book, if possible. If not, the book will likely go back on the shelf, Suter said.

Library Advisory Board member George Spence said he found the book crude and agrees it ought to be replaced with a suitable book on the same topic.

"A more sensitive, more clinical approach to same material might be more appropriate for the library," Spence said.

Adams said in an e-mail Thursday he will fight the book's return.

"Any effort to reinstate the book will be met with legal action and protests from the Christian community," Adams stated in an e-mail.

Adams asked to answer questions by e-mail because he said he feared being misquoted.

The city attorney said the book is not pornographic and the city won't pay Adams.

So far, the local new media has changed the content of the original story several times. The librarians stories have changed, and gone into a more nuanced description of the LIBRARY policy, which exonerates the library from any policy which resulted in the arrest. That is their only policy is to BAN viewers of child pornography from the library permanently. They have had similar cases in the past, but did NOT call the police to have the patron arrested.

Because there is really no accepted legal stance on viewing.

So far the person who was arrested, who was supposed to appear in court today, does not show on he county court docket.

what prosecution of "pornography crimes" has devolved into. recently in Virginia federal Court a man was sentenced to 65 years in federal prison (he was 50 ish I believe) for having cartoon depictions of children engaged in sexually provocative behaviors with other cartoon characters who appeared to depict adults. So the first thing we say Buh Bye to is the whole far reaching premise behind these laws."that a child was sexually abused when they were made" and the need to dry up the supply by attacking it from the demand side of the equation. None of those issues factor into this prosecution and draconian punishment... here is a statistic for you ...the USA currently has incarcerated 50 times more people (99.9% men with no record) than the number of actual children they have identified who have ever been involved in the creation of these disgusting images. Do you believe that this latest broadening of what is legally considered illegal CP will increase or decrease the with hunt by the thought police? and I suppose I need to mention the Arizona father of 3 ...a 54 yr old award winning teacher with 54 years of never having anything more than parking violations ... he was discovered to have 20 images of naked children apparently NOT engaged in any types of sex acts on his hard drive in .dat files (not exactly an accessible format to view any images legal or not) no claims that he produced this or sent it around the world etc. or sold it to others ... and truth be told he probably was guilty of looking at the actual pictures at some point in his life thus creating those dat files....but thank god the citizens and prosecutors reasonably and justly found him guilty on all 20 counts and he was sentenced to ...(are you sitting down) 200 years in prison with no good time and no executive clemency available (his name I think is Morton Berger look it up) Which among other things begs this question ... why is that a 200 year crime in the first place ...have people lost their minds? ...#2 If he had actually kidnapped sexually abused and tortured and killed a 10 yr old child he would have only gotten 25 yrs? color me ignorant or whatever you want but personally I would prefer that no one kidnap, abuse, torture and kill children to avoid the 200 year sentence versus somehow having 20 non sexual types of images trapped in a .dat file somewhere in the bowels of their hard drive... wouldn't you? I dont feel any safer nor do I feel any ones childrenm are any safer with him in prison for 200 big ones than I did with Martha Stewart in the slammer ....this sex and porn stuff has gone way to far over the deep end ...

Pages