Letters to the Editor
-
Almost a Relief
I have to admit, I was a bit concerned by a giant headline and hot-pink, eye-grabbing graphic on the front page screaming about "Why I Need to View Child Pornography!" I understood the gist of the piece, but was it really necessary to lead with that, "above the fold" as they say in newspaper circles? (Prior to checking your facts, too.) I mean, I understand the desire to run controversial subject matter, but I read Salon at work, and headlines like that can lead to some serious questions from others, if anyone should happen to be looking over my shoulder.
That said, removing the article entirely from the site seems like a bit of revisionist history. Shouldn't it be available in the archives with some sort of editor's note? (The letters, too!) Don't you frequently harangue other sites for pulling down stories when heat comes down (as I assume it must have on this one)? (See: The Forbes "Career Woman" piece from this week.)
-
The Debate Was Great...
Did you miss the posts on the original article? Here is what happened:
Radical Lefties came out in favor of utter censorship, agreeing with Reactionary Righties. Almost everybody agreed that nobody ever should look at child porn, even to find out about it. They had some good points. But a few posters said that we need to know about it, no matter what. The point was well and truly fought.
Maybe Salon could put the original posts back up? It is great to hear that we might investigate child porn without going to Alcatraz, but what came out in the debate went far beyond that point. One obvious point was that the Left and the Right agree on child porn. But other interesting stuff emerged, stuff you would not expect, but stuff that might make you think.
-
Bring back the letters about the article, at least
I read the letters at work earlier today and I came home looking forward to reading more only to find that they (as well as the article) had been deleted.
C'mon, Salon, bring those letters back.
-
The premise might be faulty, but . . .
I agree with Patrick Keller, I saw the headline at work and opted not to read it there, but I was intrigued enough by the subject (controversial though it may be) to log on at home to read it. When I saw it wasn't there anymore, my first thought was that Salon had caved to controversy, not something I expect from this site. I understand that the article had no actual journalistic merit, due to a faulty premise, but I'm willing to bet the letters were red-hot and an interesting and informative read, so I think making it available via the archives would be a service to us readers.
Jean.
-
Now I'm confused.
Kurt Eichenwald himself says in the oDToday blog, "There should be no reporters' exemption to child porn laws. It is possible to do with the reporting without breaking the law. Which is exactly what I did." However, in the Correction, Salon's editors are claiming that there is, in fact, such an exemption (affirmative defense).
It seems to me that two reporters are in disagreement about the interpretation of a law, which is, of course, an issue for the courts to decide. But is this the same as saying that either was factually incorrect, especially when both reporters seem to agree that the exemption does not exist while their editors maintain that it does?
Removing this article seems to suggest that not only is it not permissible to investigate child pornography, but neither is it permissible to investigate investigations of child pornography. A friend of mine recently commented to me, "These days, censorship is outsourced to lawyers and insurance companies." I'm not convinced by this correction.
-
unfortunate headline, even more unfortunate correction
The story of this story just goes from bad to worse. I'm familiar with Nathan's work and admire her journalism, still I cringed when I read that blaring headline. Whoever signed off on it is the one who should have been singled out in the correction.
I failed to read the story before it was pulled so I can't speak to how Nathan described, if she did, federal law. But it seems to me that the story shouldn't be pulled entirely just because she got the substantive law wrong. She is a journalist and not a lawyer. If the article was an opinion piece it probably need only be accurate about the writer's perception that she was in legal jeopardy for her research into child porn. Clearly one would hope for legal accuracy as well but then, as her editors, you perhaps would have caught it if her mischaracterization of the law was so obvious.
You guys really botched this one and I regret that Debbie Nathan is being put in this situation by Salon.
-
Tough subject.
Sorry I missed the comments on the article. Apparently I didn't miss anything not reading the article itself.
But I'm glad to know that journalists can view child pornography for research. I guess. Well, maybe not. I'm having trouble understanding why you would have to see it to write about it.
It is something so vile I have trouble imagining any worthwhile reason for viewing it other than law enforcement and child protection.
And yet, I do want to protect freedom of the press.
I hate it when values conflict.
-
Removal is Cowardly
I think it was cowardly of Salon to remove the article; fact-checking or editing beforehand could have made a world of difference, or even adding the correction at the end of the piece as I have seen Salon do before.
So why was it deleted? Why not just add a correction? The article raised some very good points. What about the journalist who was imprisoned for researching child porn?
I have to wonder if the article was removed for other reasons.
Today I am very disappointed in Salon.
-
Additional research.
Thanks to friends for advising me on this issue.
According to the U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2252, the only "affirmative defense" provided in this charge requires that the viewed images number less than three and immediately either destroyed the images or reported them to law enforcement. Preemptive reporting of a search for such images, according to the text of the law, does not qualify as an affirmative defense.
Thus, unless there is a court ruling indicating otherwise, it seems that Debbie Nathan was not as "incorrect" as Salon's editors would have us believe.
Furthermore, Salon's editors only allege that there may be an affirmative defense, not that there is one. So Nathan's article can be disclaimed to express her concern that it could be a violation and it still stands.
This is not a legitimate correction. It is overt censorship.