If city council staffers can’t bring Playboy to their offices in City Hall, then firefighters shouldn’t be able to browse pornographic magazines while on duty at the firehouse. That seems to be the reasoning behind Fire Chief Darryl Von Raesfeld’s recent decision to ban porn from the city’s fire stations, which tend to become a second home for firefighters who work 24-hour-plus shifts. The new policy is in line with the city’s current harassment policy, which prohibits city employees from carting around Playboy or other skin mags while at work. It used to be that firefighters could have porn discreetly tucked away at work as long as it was hidden in a locker or somewhere not on display. Until recently, when someone at the station was offended by what they saw. “That’s when we said ‘boy, we need to change the policy,’” Von Raesfeld says. So they did. Apparently, the firefighters union wants to discuss this matter more, but the chief says he’s rather comfortable knowing porn is no longer allowed at the fire houses. “As chief I need to make sure our station is a place where everyone is comfortable coming to work,” he says.
San Jose Inside
San Jose Inside (https://www.sanjoseinside.com)
Let’s play a trivia game. Who will be the first SJI regular to give the traditional Republican Party talking point.
a) John Galt
b) Hugh Jardonn
c) Frustrated Fin Fan
d) Novice
Bonus Question. What will that talking point be?
a) Praising the decision as a means of cleansing the Fire Station of vile material that goes against traditional values
or
b) Attacking the decision as a plot of Left-Wing Feminist activists who are taking political correctness to a whole new level.
Egads, another slooooooooooooooow news day!
We need information re this person who was “offended”. We also need to see the wording of the ban, and to know exactly what she was offended by.
Because one person was “offended” hundreds of people must bend their will to the dictates of that one, probably, hyper PC person. Playboy could hardly be considered porn; but if you don’t like it, don’t look.
Recently, when reviewing Gran Torino, Leonard Pitts, Jr. of The Miami Herald wrote in part:
“Here in the United States of the Aggrieved, there is no malady, mark, mannerism, mindset or malformation too miscellaneous to have its own support group, along with a cadre of lobbyists and lawmakers hyper-vigilant for any suggestion of mistreatment or actionable discrimination. Largely as a result, American English has become a morass of compound constructions and newly invented terminologies designed to leave no one out, give no one cause for offense.”
Pandering to the single hyper sensitive misfit has been taken to new heights by the chiefs of both our public safety depts.
It’s high time porn was removed from firehouses.
…. And Pete, exactly what do you know of porn in the Firehouse?? You spend a few years as a cop and suddenly you know exactly what’s going on in the firehouse?? Get real, your out of touch with the times as is the Chief of San Jose Fire. Hey, heres an idea…. Lets get porn out of the libraries….. oh, thats right.. that went over real well.
JMOC- I’m sorry, but those firefighters are being paid quite handsomely by both you and I whilst at the fire house. I think it’s totally appropriate that they’re not allowed to check out playboy, or juggs, or whatever skin rag they want when they’re on the public’s dime.
I would just like to clarify the record here:
The post commented on above [#4] was not posted by me.
As many of you know, I am not shy about my comments and opinions – that is, of course, if they are my words. In this case it appears another anonymous blogger has posted, but this time decided to unethically attribute the comments to me.
Imagine the lives that will be saved now that the firefighters’ reaction times to an alarm will no longer be delayed while they “finish” an article in a skin mag.
1. Pete Constant has a right to be angry with such a nasty tactic. Over at the Mercury News, some guy who attacked Santa Clara City Council members uses a phony name or the name of council members to attack people, and it is not right.
2. Can we ask why Victor Ajlouny’s computer has no filter, and from what we have been told, Victor has an interesting reading list in his own right.
3. I am fussy. I like our firefighters to be treated well, be given very good salaries and be allowed to relax in their surroundings. These are people that are asked to go into burning houses and buildings, and I think they should be allowed to have very relaxed surroundings. They deal in tragedy every day. Let them relax when they can. Indeed, there may be a time when our firefighters in Silicon Valley will have to deal with WMDs and then we will care less about their reading material. From what we were told at the Santa Clara City Council meeting by local wacko Steve Hazel, there is a nuclear device already in our area. The only person Hazel says that he will support is Jamie McLeod, who actually keeps telling the city manager to listen to Hazel. Oh, well, wackos tend to stick up for each other.
J in Berryessa (#1),
If there is such thing as a “traditional Republican Party talking point” on personal reading material in the workplace, I haven’t the slightest idea of what it might be, but since you went to the trouble to chum the waters, I’ll be happy to take a bite.
First of all, the workplace is not the proper battlefield for defending one’s right to particular magazines, music, movies, posters, etc. In this case, the fire department has the right to control what is brought onto its property, and if management concludes that there is no place for Playboy magazine in the firehouse, so be it. The real story is, of course, how and why management arrived at its conclusion.
Is Playboy too offensive for the firehouse? The answer, based upon everything up to the point of this whiner’s complaint, is apparently no. If it hasn’t been offensive in the fifty-plus years of its existence, then no matter how the fire department words its decision, it will be a decision not about a magazine, but about one particular firefighter’s sensitivity and the department’s misguided validation of it.
What kind of firefighter would find a coworker’s Playboy offensive enough to justify filing a formal complaint? Is it a traditional firefighter, the kind that holds to the notion that petty disputes and personal problems in the firehouse should be settled in the firehouse, or is it instead a traditional victim, the kind that holds to the notion that for every grievance there should be a formal stink, a cry of discrimination, a threat to alert the media?
I guess another way to ask that question is this: is the offended employee a genuine, brave, bold, and qualified firefighter, or is it an affirmative action malignancy? If it is the former, then I will have to conclude that I know nothing about today’s firefighters, but if it is the latter then I can confidently suggest the department stand by for more complaints, followed by a soft-tissue disability and early retirement. (Thanks to affirmative action in police and fire hiring, the Bay Area is home to one of the nation’s largest herds of retired young lesbians. Thank you taxpayers!)
Kowtowing to politically empowered malignancies is today an important part of what government managers do. They recognize it as part of the package deal that comes with hiring unqualified people. Department heads fiercely protect the feelings of the empowered minorities, while sending a clear message to others that they’d best keep their feelings to themselves when they get force-fed sensitivity training, stuck working for a moron of color, or passed-over by a minority who scored much lower on the promotional. So ingrained is the culture of protected classes of employees, and the make-believe environment of equal ability, that bureaucrats who demonstrate real ruthlessness in service to affirmative action (think Les White) can look forward to double and triple-dipping themselves to riches.
“the workplace is not the proper battlefield for defending one’s right to particular magazines, music, movies, posters, etc.”
Do you know a firefighter’s schedule? The firehouse is a live/work place, not your everyday office. Typical rules should not apply to personal life.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Ms. Light—head librarian @ MLK library—says its OK for library customers to view online porn in places where young children have access and may (voluntarily or involuntarily) be exposed to it/look at it. She’ll defend to the death the right of a PUBLIC library to have porn viewed at will by adults in the presence of kids. When Pete Constant tried to put a stop to it, he was booed out of the room, so to speak.
BUT, adult firefighters in the firehouse can’t PRIVATELY look at Playboy because one adult found it “offensive”??????
Let’s transfer Ms. Light to the firehouse and transfer Mr. Von Raesfeld to the library. Two problems solved.
#9: “retired young lesbians.”
Wasn’t that a band back in the mid 80’s?
J in Berryessa you’re getting a twofer!
I’m not privy to any details regarding this situation but it wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to speculate that the City (taxpayers like you and me) may be on the hook to settle a sexual harrassment lawsuit brought against the SJFD by a female firefighter. One can imagine many scenarios, involving pornography, that could spark such potentially lucrative (to the plaintiff) litigation.
In response, in order to gain cover from the liability of any such similar incidents, the City might have decided, and rightly so, that if firefighters of the SJFD cannot be trusted to control their behavior, be responsible employees and protect the financial interests of the people who pay their salaries, then it is necessary to make a show of having gone the extra mile to prevent any such recurrence, including the banning of Playboy. This way, in the event of any future similar lawsuit, we, the taxpayers, might not be liable for the punitive damages that could be awarded because the City had not taken seriously this initial incident that caused such grevious emotional harm to the “victim”- presumably a female employee. By banning ALL pornographic material from the firehouse, the City IS, believe it or not, doing the responsible thing. THIS is the brave new world we live in.
Personally, I don’t think it’s too much of a hardship for our heroic professionals. They are incredibly well compensated. Let them wait until they retire. Then the taxpayers can buy them $100,000 worth of porn per year for the rest of their lives.
Let he who is against firefighters with porn next travel to Iraq and tell the troops, in person, that they are next.
If I was working at the fire house and men were looking at porn in front of me I wouldn’t feel offended. I’d just be a little bit creeped out and a little self conscious.
I’m just curious, why is it okay for the public to look at porn in the public library in plain view but it’s not okay for fire fighters to look at porn in the privacy of their own rooms at the fire house. Doesn’t really make sense but, ok.
girl_from_the_net #16 wrote:“If I was working at the fire house and men were looking at porn in front of me I wouldn’t feel offended. I’d just be a little bit creeped out and a little self conscious.”
Exactly. But in our ultra-PC world, that is now called a hostile work environment. So, one self-concious person can change policy for a dept. of hundreds. That ain’t right.