Thoughts about the law that affect us today.
Having just read, “Kids for Sale: Look but Don’t Touch”, I am struck by the irony of the title. If, as stated by Mr. Newbury, he knew that some of his clients were “looking at the pictures sexually” while viewing his website, could a case not be made that he was creating online erotica? Would he then not be guilty of pandering of obscenity since he paid this eleven year-old to appear on his website? Is he not “advertising” the life of a young girl for the pruient interests of his customers? Whether the pandering takes place face-to-face or via an electronic media it does not change the scope of the act.
These parents cannot be living in a bubble. The fact that they “pretend” that it is all innocent does not change the common understanding that the people who are paying (the optimum word is PAYING) for these websites are not interested in how a 16 year old girl combs her hair. They see the dollars signs and they rationalize their acceptance. They are selling the images and lives of their children and represent a new generation of procurer–the electronic pimp.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 122 other followers