Pete article

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> the article is great; the comments are depressing
> http://www.postget.com/get/article.php?newsid=97815
Actually, I think it's a pretty good discussion.  Everybody has said what 
they think with a minimum of trollish flaming.  They're a little vague on 
the facts, but they've covered the issues pretty well.  I think this is the 
sort of thing Pete will have to be prepared for in any interviews he gives 
from now on.  Like the questions about homosexuality, this will continue to 
turn up like a bad penny.

The most important thing is that they've pointed out that Pete's story 
doesn't ring true, and that his defenses are likely constructed after the 
fact.  I personally think this is because what he's saying is at the 
recommendation of his lawyer, who's looking at the idea of having to defend 
it in court--plus he's fighting the PR battle.  The truth will be in what 
the police find on Pete's computer.  Six or eight pics from the cache: 
innocent.  Five thousand pics downloaded and saved: guilty.

I'm personally expecting the six or eight pics.  Still, Pete will have to 
address this point in any interviews.  I suspect people will be more 
satisfied with a description of how he got into doing this (he mentioned 
Gary Glitter, and Joe finding a site) and his feelings on the matter, rather 
than trying to defend his actions.  He'll also have to explain what he means 
when he says he and Joe found a site when they were surfing together.  It's 
suspicious that a teen would let his dad surf with him.  What I think Pete 
means by this is that Joe does not look at child porn on the Internet--his 
dad is the one responsible.  Pete should make this clear.

Another sticking point is that Pete paid for entry into the Texas gateway.  
Whether or not he paid to download anything, folks are concerned about this. 
 However, if Pete was really investigating how the porn industry worked, I 
think this was an important step in the process.  It clearly illustrates how 
the credit card companies act as middle men, raking in a percentage of every 
transaction, on what was presumably (from Pete's reaction) hard core child 
porn.

Other interesting things that have come up in the discussion is various 
feelings on child abuse and the recovery from it--definitely an emotional 
issue.  Also, it's clear that folks are concerned about younger children and 
automatically assume that child porn features little kids.  I thought it was 
interesting that one poster came right out and said that older kids should 
be allowed a choice whether to "model" or perform in sexy videos.  I would 
have to agree that it's most likely been in Ms. Spears best interest to 
perform.  ;)




_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail