[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rushing to judgement



Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:34:22 -0000
From: "Una Padel" <una.padel@ukgateway.net>

I have been a Who fan for many years and nothing will change that, but I
have been a bit amazed by the number of poeple on this list who seem to
think that they can judge Pete's guilt or innocence because they 'know' him
so well.
I've seen people who state that they believe Pete when he says he isn't a pedophile. Fewer have made the bald statement that he isn't. In all logical honesty, I realize no one but Pete truly knows whether he's sexually attracted to children. A slightly larger but still miniscule number know whether he's ever acted on that attraction in the extremely unlikely (IMO) case that it exists. As I have said before, even if the worst is true, it will have no influence on my appreciation for the music he's written.

There were a lot of abuse victims there and they were unanimous in their
view that it is never OK to look at this stuff.
Predictably so, given that they are the, well -- victims, and (again IMO) have the deepest emotional response to the subject. But perhaps not the best group to ask about legislation.

Every viewer effectively abuses the child again.
Sorry, but this is simply rubbish. "Effectively" is just an empty modifier stuck in to allow the implication of an effect where none exists. Does someone ring up Billy 10 years after the fact and say, "By the way, I'm looking at that picture of you when you were 5?" No. Is Billy telepathically smitten with new feelings of pain, rage and shame if someone three hundred miles away and 5 years later happens to see "the picture". No.

Once the images are available on the internet they will always be there and the child lives with the constant risk of being identified. The child also has to cope with knowing that they have no control over where their images are and they could still be circulating
years later.

Yes, it's terrible if it happened, and I understand that it leaves lasting emotional trauma. Knowing that pictures are "out there" is certainly an issue that must be dealt with. Nevertheless, the child can and does go on living his/her life regardless of whose eyeballs are or are not aimed at an image. All the penalties that are needed concern performing the acts (first and foremost!) and creating, distributing, and paying for the pictures. Making a crime of no more than VIEWING a picture is over the line into making thoughts crimes, and I want no part of it.

It is not OK to look and should remain illegal, but perhaps
better warnings should be given to deter the foolhardy and curious.
"Viewing the pictures on this Website is illegal and could result in prosecution"? No thanks. A few hundred years ago it was illegal to dissect human bodies. Making it illegal to view certain pictures strikes me as equally unenlightened.



Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 04:51:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Cady <brianinatlanta2001@yahoo.com>

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/entertainment_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_84_1679143,00.html

Even if he's telling the truth - he says he viewed it one time as research - his logic is all messed up.
Here's another thought: real research would almost certainly require multiple visits to a site.

Besides forever tarnishing his own life, art and career, he put actual cash in the pockets of child pornographers - the profits and working capital they need to keep doing evil.
"Actual cash"? How much? #10? Big deal. I realize this IS a crime, and I can even concede that it should be a crime, but this "episode" is way down on the list of fish to fry. Find him guilty of this -- "inciting to distribute" -- if he is, but the penalty should be a small fine and/or some community service, if that's done in Britain.

According to the BBC, Operation Ore turned up 6,000 people paying $30 each
per month for access to the kiddie porn. That's nearly $2.2 million a year going to a single Web site for child exploitation.
Fine. Nail people who show significant and repeated payments to the sites...more money paid, higher penalties.

And some of that money was Townshend's. That's close to unforgivable right there,
"Some of that money". $15 out of $180,000 (using the BBC's figures) that month? $15 out of $2,200,000 that year?

and something that Townshend should well have realized as he was entering
his credit-card number on the Web site.
Granted, he should have. Wish he had, wish we all weren't going through this right now.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true"
-- Howard Stern, 5/25/00