[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pete's logic- long but worth a read
For what it's worth, there is logic in what Pete did. It was reckless, but
I can see what he was thinking when he paid to access the site (I guess I
have now accepted the fact that he paid). Here is the scenario.
1. Pete stumbles across the Russian orphanage site mentioned in ADB and is
aghast not only at what it showed but how easy the access is.
2. His "genius" lawyer tells him to do nothing (as if Pete would ultimately
follow that advice concerning a subject he is so sensitive about).
2a. Pete's son Joseph reports to his dad that he's found a site that looks
like a kid's game, but actually turns out to be a child porn site.
3. He decides one day while at his computer to see what other sick images
might be polluting the internet and harming children. He comes across the
infamous Texas site and sees what it is advertising, but a trial membership
is required to see what is there, and he must pay a fee by credit card.
4. He weighs his options. He could leave it alone, allowing the site to
continue to profit from illegal sex acts which victimize children and
enable pedophiles or... pay a small fee out of his pocket to gather
evidence and then shut down the site by alerting authorities, which serves
the ultimate moral good.
5. In addition, by addressing the subject in internet articles on his own
website and in his autobiography, he will be helping even more people cope
with the effects of child molestation and bring more attention to the
problem.
I think someone else called what we've seen of this the tip of an iceberg,
which I though was very descriptive. There's a huge emotional component
underneath Pete's actions, and this sort of thing doesn't lend to clear
thinking.
*This being said, there is one glaring flaw in the thought process. Why
not get the site address and simply alert officials and allow them to do
their jobs? Remember, Pete is one who analyzes things much more for
morality than legality. He's an admitted liberal thinker, after all, so
this fits the situation. Isn't it justified to commit a technical
violation of the law if it serves an overall moral good? It's case by
case, but in some circumstances it most definitely is. I think Pete
probably determined that the ease by which he accessed two disturbing sites
which were supposed to be illegal meant that authorities weren't doing
their jobs (and indeed he was probably right). Well, if the police weren't
going to do it, Pete Townshend was going to. This obviously was fueled by
his own unique sensitivity to the issue. It was a reckless course of
action, but one clearly rooted in solid logic and based on a moral
foundation.
Mc
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail