Re: The Dark Times

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

> Think for a moment this absolutely same thing happened not to Pete 
> Townshend, but to a very dear and close friend. You would believe your 
> friend, but would this mean you would approve of the WAY he was doing his 
> research? What would your actions be? Would you support your friend? How?
I think you're going to start a serious fight here, Helen.  When everybody 
comes out with their true opinion of what Pete has done, I suspect we're 
going to have a humongous brawl.

Part I, The definition problem.

Did everybody see this article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,880251,00.html

Everybody has been talking about this issue like it's a matter of black and 
white.  All the advocates I've heard talk about it phrase it that way, too, 
i.e. you're a criminal if you look.  Some will say this about porn in 
general--however, everyone takes it as a matter of course as far as child 
porn is concerned.

So what it child porn?  It's possible that this guy is painting a rosier 
picture of "pedophiles" than is actually true, but if this was what he was 
actually convicted for, then the definition of child porn is very gray 
indeed.  I found some comment today that the court must consider the 
artistic merit of photos, etc. and I'm reminded of the Mapplethorpe trial a 
few years back where the offending photos included one of a little girl 
holding her dress up.  The museum director was up on obscenity charges for 
showing it, but it was judged art.  Would a large collection of similar 
artistic photos on a website which charges for entry be considered a child 
porn site?  What about a website that featured the sex-charged music videos 
they show for kids on the Disney channel?  What about a website that 
featured a collection of pay to download Calvin Klien ads?  Why are all 
these media considered okay to show on TV and in magazines, and a similar 
photo/video made by an Internet entrepreneur considered to be not-okay?

I know there's a clear difference between hard-core and soft-core porn, but 
I submit that arrests and prosecutions based on collection of the kind of 
material that shows on TV and appears in upscale magazines is hypocritial 
and only weakens the position of the anti-child porn movement.

Next: Part II, Is it really a crime to look?

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail