Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
Gotta say I love SL's comparison of kiddy porn to other crimes. The woman even said she imagined her own son could be the boy the deaf guy was wanting to publically masturbate about.
She was personally offended by kiddy porn. That's why it's the crime she chose to report. Even if she could detect insider trading or money laundering, would she have reported it? Only she can know. But I suspect not.
Therefore I suspect I'm glad she lost her job.
|
You obviously would not report someone for buying or selling drugs. Even so, I'm sure there are some crimes that you would personally be horrified by and would report. Wait - aren't you offended by kiddy porn? Maybe I shouldn't be asking, yeech.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alex
And who is going to define when a pornography line has been crossed? I almost guarantee you have actual books in your collection that contain pictures that would be considered pornographic by a healthy cross section of the public. Hell, growing up, before I learned how to get access to it myself, the public library was the greatest source of pornographic imagery available to me.
|
Same here. I checked out my share of certain books at a certain age. But that doesn't mean that I opened them up and lay them on the table at the library for anyone to see the pictures.
Who is going to define it? The Librarian in Charge, that's who. We get plenty of
tattlers patrons who like to complain about things that aren't a big deal. It's up to the LIC to figure out when to take action and when to reassure the complainer and go back to work.
Again, I say that if someone is trying to hide their monitor, they most probably should not be using the computer in the public library. I see no problem with investigating that.