I was disappointed to discover that Salon.com, normally a favorite source of online news, headlined this article about an individual who was investigated for the production of child pornography.
Essentially, the author and another father took the kids camping. They took pictures of the kids skinny dipping, then got them developed. The store clerk reported the pictures. Instead of reacting with sincerity and cooperation, the author was defensive and uncooperative. His friend demanded to see the officer in charge of the investigation. He hired a lawyer. By his reaction, he made the process last longer than it normally does.
The author also obstructed justice. On the drive to the forensic interview with the authorities, he told the kids that the state wants to take them away from home. He admits this in the article.
All that said, the process worked. It worked more slowly than normal -- thanks to the author. But it still worked. There were no charges filed, and the state never even attempted to take the kids (when the children could be in danger, they take the kids right away -- so the state used appropriate restraint here). And now, the poor author (who has moved to France) complains about depression and tears. This guy has problems.
To make matters even worse, the author then cites an "expert witness" who makes a living testifying for child molesters and pornographers (I won't even repeat his name or website here). I would expect to see this individual cited in an article in the Weekly Standard, not Salon.com.
Overall, weak.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think there should be a penalty for persuing legal action against someone that ultimately ends in a not-guilty verdict. Not sure how it would work but it seems like stupid shit like this should have consequences for all involved that propogated it as something other than total nonsense.
Retaining a lawyer is not being uncooperative. Neither is asking, as the author did, nor demanding, as the author would have been within his rights to do, to SEE the actual pictures in question. As it turned out, the author's lawyer was the only person able to get any information out of the state bureaucracies.
You suggestion that the accused should not protect themselves and instead simply allow the state to proceed however it likes, without any responsibility to substantiate its accusations is FAR more right wing, not to say fascist, than anything in Salon's article.
"To make matters even worse, the author then cites an "expert witness" who makes a living testifying for child molesters and pornographers (I won't even repeat his name or website here)."
Well, who's the right-wing wacko here? I think it's you. You're clearly opposed to our country's constitution and laws, since you're ready to brand someone a "child molester" and "pornagraphy" when they haven't even been convicted (..."makes a living testifying...). The "expert witness" you're talking about is someone who was falsely accused and cleared himself, and offers assistance to others in the same situation. Where's the problem with that, jackass?
The argument is boring at this point because each side has said what it has to say and really can't add much anymore. Other than calling me a jackass. I wonder if that was the right-wing hired gun himself that will testify for child pornographers if the price is right.
More interesting to me is how this cuts in the political spectrum. I'm surprised that MOST liberals on salon.com took the side of the author and not the state's interest in the protection of children.
The tone (and even substance) of many of the pro-author articles reminded me of those that comes from the father's rights movement.
I do get your point though. It's like kids who run from the cops just for a good time. As it turns out (according to a "know your rights" video I saw recently anyway) just running from the cops, seeing them and bolting just for a laugh, is enough to get you arrested and searched.
In other news, I have no respect for anonymous posts on politics. H had some anonymous tool stalking his blog saying caustic stuff and trying to stir up unpleasantries with a similar tone. Wonder if there's a connection.
Taking the interest of the state over the rights of the citizens is as right wing as it gets. It's an attitude exemplified by the anti-choice movement.
Making general statements - especially ones as absurd as that - is as right-wing as you can get.
Post a Comment