Opponents of Peer-to-peer networking are now focusing their attacks on child pornography. Of course, anyone who has ever used a P2P realizes that a great chunk of the files being shared are pornographic, but the latest attackers claim that file traders are swapping illegal child pornography as well--and with the new IP-cloaking abilities of the latest programs.
In other words, since the RIAA (as if there is any doubt who is behind this) isn't making much progress making people feel guilty about swapping "copyrighted" music, movies, and games, they are bringing children into it. This argument reminds me of that silly anti-marijuana commercial where the "high" teenagers roar out of a Taco-Bell and run over a little girl riding a bicycle. See--if you don't join our "war on drugs," you are putting little girls on bicycles in danger! Please. The new approach to fighting P2P networking is similar: If we don't shut down P2P networking, we're aiding child pornographers everywhere.
Some of the politicians involved have good intentions but half-baked ideas. For instance, Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) advocated finding a way to prohibit, perhaps on the basis of copyright law, the use of terms like "Pokemon" or "Harry Potter" in names of files containing pornographic images.
I'll take the liberty of assuming that none of us here are advocates of child pornography, but I hope none of us are swayed by the rhetoric to condemn P2P.
dumb question
This may be a really dumb question: Why on earth is there a picture of a little girl next to a pornography story? Does she have anything to do with the story? A random photo from the net (from U of Alaska)? I didn't see her photo on the story page.
Just seems strange to me -- I see no other photos on the main page and no real reason for this one. I realize I haven't been keeping up with the Kairosnews changes as well as I should, but frankly, this seems weird....
pic
We've been adding photos to various stories if we think they add some value. Obviously, a pic of a child next to a story like this is designed to provoke an emotional reaction. HOpefully this pic doesn't suggest that the girl in the photo is a victim of child porn!
Should I remove it?
Hmmm...
There are plenty of New Media stories about unforunate juxtapositions (AA banner ads on 9/11 stories, etc.). And doesn't Jay Leno have a "The Story Doesn't Go With the Headline" clipping segment?
If the story you were linking to used a photo, and your decision was whether to use that photo on KairosNews, that would be one thing. But finding an unrelated pic and putting it up with a link to a specific story might give causal readers the wrong impression.
Since the audience for KairosNews is not likely to assume the girl is a victim (given that her photo doesn't appear on the linked page), I can see the value of including the photo for its emotional impact.
Here's where my earlier comments about "Do I really need to be protected from offensive topics on KairosNews" come back to bite me.
I don't think the photo was necessary, but neither am I so offended that I think it should come down (especially now that we are talking about it). But speaking as a father, the words "child pornography" convey sufficient emotional impact that I didn't really need the photo to help me form my opinion on the subject.
Dennis G. Jerz
Jerz's Literacy Weblog
hhmhm . . . Image Ethics?
To me, the more important question is ethical rather than rhetorical(since I don't think creating an "emotional impact" as being all that necessary in this forum). In other words, we should be asking how the actual owners of the picture (and the girl herself and her guardians)would feel about having the image placed next to a headline about child pornography.
This is not a company logo or other icon. This is an actual person who (along with her guardians) almost definitely gave permission for her picture to be used in a specific way on the Alaska university site (or the university owns the image). But the use of the image is not simply illegal. Because it ignores the likely reaction of those that are truly affected, I believe it's also irresponsible and unethical.
I'm not sure whether the measure here can be a certain degree of offense, since this is so variable. Honestly, there's plenty of things that are irresponsible and unethical that only mildly offend me. And those specific things that do generate strong offense are culturally constructed anyway. So, I'm more willing (even without knowing the individuals; problematic, but a start) to try to imagine how the Other in this instance would react, rather than how I react.
Perhaps a more practical measure is that if you'd feel uncomfortable placing a picture of your own child somewhere, then maybe you should think twice about placing a picture of someone else's. Or how about this: would you feel comfortable putting a picture of yourself next to a story on child pornography?