[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