Showing posts with label VT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VT. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Judith Flint: Heroine or Jerk?

The following is word for word from "Best of the Web Today - July 22, 2008" by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:

Judith Flint: Heroine or Jerk?
It's a classic case of the little guy--or, in this case, gal--standing up to authority, at least the way the Associated Press describes it in a dispatch from Randolph, Vt.:

Children's librarian Judith Flint was getting ready for the monthly book discussion group for 8- and 9-year-olds on "Love That Dog" when police showed up.
They weren't kidding around: Five state police detectives wanted to seize Kimball Public Library's public access computers as they frantically searched for a 12-year-old girl, acting on a tip that she sometimes used the terminals.
Flint demanded a search warrant, touching off a confrontation that pitted the privacy rights of library patrons against the rights of police on official business. . . .
Investigators did obtain a warrant about eight hours later, but the June 26 standoff in the 105-year-old, red brick library on Main Street frustrated police and had fellow librarians cheering Flint.
"What I observed when I came in were a bunch of very tall men encircling a very small woman," said the library's director, Amy Grasmick, who held fast to the need for a warrant after coming to the rescue of the 4-foot-10 Flint. . . .

The missing girl, Brooke Bennett, turned up dead a week later. Her uncle Michael Jacques, a convicted sex offender, has been charged with kidnapping her. "Authorities say Jacques had gotten into her MySpace account and altered postings to make investigators believe she had run off with someone she met online," the AP reports.

The cops were in the library that day "chasing a lead that she had used the computers there to arrange a rendezvous":

"The lead detective said to me that they need to take the public computers and I said 'OK, show me your warrant and that will be that,'" said Flint, 56. "He did say he didn't need any paper. I said 'You do.' He said 'I'm just trying to save a 12-year-old girl,' and I told him 'Show me the paper.' "

A Vermont law that requires librarians to demand court orders in such cases had not yet gone into effect, so Flint was acting on her own discretion in demanding a warrant. The cops yielded and obtained a warrant eight hours later.

Grasmick, and by extension the AP, depicts the police as bullies picking on "a very small women." To our mind her smallness is not just a matter of physical stature. Presented with an opportunity to help a little girl in danger, she officiously responded: "Show me the paper."

Far from bullying her, the cops--although they were bigger and more numerous than she--deferred to her, slowing the investigation by crucial hours in order to comply with her demand. You can describe their treatment of her as impressively chivalrous or as excessively obeisant. In either case, it was far from domineering.

Flint, of course, would claim that she was standing up for a principle--for, in the AP's words, "the privacy rights of library patrons." Have you noticed, though, how the people who assert this principle are never patrons but always librarians? We'd say this is really a case of status envy. Librarians want their "profession" to be treated with the same respect society affords the practice of medicine or law. (We should note that people in our own line of work are vulnerable to the same criticism, as evidenced by this item on proposed shield laws.)

Here is a case in which police searching for a missing girl were forced to waste precious time because a bureaucrat, acting on her own authority, said "Show me the paper" instead of "How can I help?" Judith Flint is no heroine.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Note to Vermont Governor Re S220 Library Confidentiality Legislation

Here's an example of another way the ALA pushes its agenda nationally. In this case, the Vermont Library Association decided to use ALA policy to create legislation requiring parents to get a court order to see their own children's library records starting at age 13. That legislation has been amended to age 16 as a compromise, but it has been sent to Vermont Governor Jim Douglas for his signature (05/07/2008). Therefore, I used the Governor's online, 1000 letter limit web form to send him this message:
Governor,

Please don't sign S220 until the age that parents are cut off from children's library records is 18, not 16.

From what I can see so far, the Vermont Library Association came up with this sua sponte, and did so specifically naming the American Library Association as its source of inspiration.

Not only is the ALA external to Vermont, but the ALA has said despite what the US Supreme Court said in US v. ALA, ALA policy will remain unchanged. And that policy includes that it is age discrimination to keep children from any library material whatsoever. What the ALA is ignoring in the case it lost is, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."

The ALA does not agree with that, yet the VLA uses the ALA as inspiration? Please - 18 at least. The VLA's interests here lies with ALA policy, not with VT's children. Don't compromise on VT children.

Thanks.
On this subject, I sent out the following request for information:
Dear Charlene Dindo,

Re: Legislative History of S.220 ( http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/passed/S-220.HTM ), please advise me of, or tell me how to get access to the legislative history of S.220. I am asking you since your name is associated with that linked document, but please forward this to someone who can answer the below questions if you can or may not.

In particular, I am looking to see the source of this legislation, namely, whether that source is internal (Vermont Library Association) or external (American Library Association) to Vermont.

Regarding the age of the children originally proposed to be protected from invasions of privacy by their own parents being age 13 and up, I would like to see if and how that age has changed any, if at all, during the legislative process, and why. I see the age is currently set at 16. How did that happen and why -- was it based on similar rights obtained by children in Vermont at the same age (like driving, voting, drinking) or was it based on "compromise," and who were the parties to the compromise and what were their arguments.

I shall assume these records are available under some open records law, and I will be happy to pay reasonable costs for photocopying any information that answers my request. Please call me at [# elided] to advise of the cost before it is incurred, but anything less than $25 has my blanket approval and no call will be necessary.

I will also assume public notice has been made of this legislative activity and that public records of public hearings are available, perhaps even transcripts online, and any related hearings. I would like to have the URLs for that information, and I would like to learn how I can obtain that information otherwise.

Lastly, if the bill is headed for the Governor's signature as a Vermont Library Association source suggests, please advise me of the expected date of signature and of the means to contact the Governor so that I may exercise my own intellectual freedom in this matter. Given this, if my requests for information can be available in a timely fashion so that I may make an informed comment, that would be greatly appreciated.

FYI, I have begun to follow this issue, and I have a public list of links to related materials here: http://del.icio.us/plan2succeed/S220 I would really like to know what media coverage has been provided on the issue so that I may determine the extent to which that coverage was fair and balanced, then advise the Governor accordingly.

Thank you very much.

CC: Vermont Library Association; S.220's introducer; S.220's drafter; Mary Minow of LibraryLaw fame