Pete's reputation

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

I didn't see this come through on the list.  Brian must be aggravated by the 
off-topic discussion again.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=405670

> The world's biggest convicted child pornographer
Thomas Reedy used to be a nurse. Then he found the Net and made a fortune. 
Now he faces 1,335 years in jail
By Pip Clothier
11 May 2003

> Last week Pete Townshend lost his reputation and gained five years on the 
> sex offenders register after accessing a child porn website.
<massive snip>

First, I'm wondering why Pete has suddenly lost his reputation over this.  
Do you suppose they know he's been arrested for assault and spent the night 
in a Canadian jail?  And what about all that alcoholism and drug abuse?  
Well, I guess those things don't really affect your reputation these days.

Despite the inauspicious beginning, this is an interesting article because 
of how it applies to the business ethics we've been discussing.  Go to the 
page and read it.  Here's one of the more pertinent passages:

> The jury in Reedy's trial was evidently appalled, taking just a few hours 
> to convict. The only person who seems to have been surprised was Thomas 
> Reedy, who to this day professes his innocence and says that he has been 
> the victim of an appalling injustice.
Reedy apparently did see himself as only a businessman and a distributor.  
The police investigation was unable to prove that he was a pedophile, or 
that he was making or directly selling child porn himself.  However, he 
failed completely to understand that ethics should enter into his decisions 
on what to sell.  I can see that his defense might have worked if the 
websites had been selling legal porn as well as illegal child porn, and he 
could say the webmasters misrepresented to him what they were selling. After 
all, this is what the ISPs and credit card companies say, right?  That they 
can't be expected to check through the business of their clients to see what 
they're selling?

Also, this points out the parallel with what Mark is saying, that drug 
dealers are only in it for the money.  Again, they're businessmen who are 
not concerned with the ethics or legality of the situation, and figure that 
the good profits are only a payback for the risk of the job.

This attitude that the profit is more important than ethics occurs in other 
businesses as well, for example, the Hooker Chemical company that dumped 
hazardous waste at Love Canal and then sold it to the school board for a new 
school.  The executives at Enron come to mind, as well.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail