I was surprised at the letter writers on the original article up in arms about using the term "torture porn." If you are making a pornographic movie and torturing someone (by shocking them, drowning them, clamping their head in a box or through a wall, etc.) in it, what else would you call it? It's simply descriptive. I don't think anyone is going to confuse it with Saw or Hostel.

Also - I wouldn't want to share custody of a child with someone that had an illegal job such as being a prostitute. Porn isn't technically legal to make anywhere that prostitution is illegal, right?

I take a certain voyeristic pleasure in reading the many testimonials posted here in honor of 1950's era black and white television morality that any mention of sex is still (pardon the pun) BOUND to elicit. This ritualized sexual repression has more recently been claimed by the GOP as "Family Values".

I attended Catholic schools and it was there that I became familiar with the theological underpinnings of the culture from which black and white TV (I don't mean TV as in transvestite) morality springs. What the long term results of this Christian shame culture are can be surmised by a review of the Arizona Revised Statutes as a case in point. Arizona is the state where prisons are the leading industry and not coincidently there are some 42,000 reasons you can do prison time and nearly 1600 of them have something to do with concentual sex. I would discribe this phenominon as America's redstate punishment culture.

In many jurisdictions make believe human bondage is still considered a sin and possibly even a crime whereas real human bondage as in human beings brutilized, raped and tortured in steel pens called prisons is casualy accepted as a "sentence" and even regarded as a sacred rite by the more saintly among us. Lets not delve into what we do with those sorry heathens we call "detainees"

I am thinking about George Orwell and his crazy parinoid vision of a future society dominated by a unified surveillance system that provided live online imagery to its fundamentalist enforcement group. This improbable premonition of our present conservative movement Orwell named the Anti-Sex League.

I seem to remember that Ozzie and Harriet slept in seperate twin beds, at least while the cameras were rolling. After all the fuss that is still being made over sex, perhaps twin beds would provide the safest sleeping arrangement for those of a wayward nature today. The dangers are certainly real. I understand you can win the popular vote and still get impeached for a BJ, of course you would have to be a Democrat for this to occur, so it makes sense.

I always thought that unless we were dealing with illegal activity or some other form of criminal behavior, journalists had an obligation to protect the identity of people who requested it.

It seems to me that a slippery slope is involved here - who is going to want to speak up as an anonymous source when that anonymity can be forcibly taken away by an over-zealous reporter?

The problem as I see it, is the disconnect between having access to privileged information and then an unconcern with how the spread of this privileged information can damage normal people.

Being a parent and a porn star has less to do with someone's fitness to raise a child, and more to do with our society's general need to dictate who can be victimized and who can be protected. In this case, the victim was a mother who turned towards one avenue of making money.

Plus: It is very freaky and weird to me that one of the stipulations her ex-husband stated was for her to return to Indiana. Why? So he could monitor her behavior? The truth of their relationship might very well be that she left him because of very good reasons, and this "journalist" is now perpetrating an injustice.

I'm a strong believer in staying out of people's bedrooms and their business, and in this case, the "journalist" seems to have taken it upon himself to confuse a bedroom filmed to create a porn movie and someone's private life. Having access to the former does not dictate that an individual no longer has access to privacy.

" It is very freaky and weird to me that one of the stipulations her ex-husband stated was for her to return to Indiana. Why? So he could monitor her behavior?"

I think it's Louisiana, not Indiana. Also, I think he wanted her to return to Louisiana to visit with the child, not to return period. He probably doesn't want to put the child on an international flight, which I've got no problem with.

When you deal with a reporter, a professional will tell you immediately who they are and why they are there or calling. There is no skulking about. You will know who you are dealing with.

If you feel you need anonymity to talk with the reporter, then work that out from the start. If the reporter can't promise it, the interview should be a no go until you get that assurance or agree on your own to do the story on the record. Nowadays, in a legitimate newsgathering organization, the OK for an anonymous interview almost always has to come from a line editor or higher. That person will want to know who the person is that's being given the publication's assurance that their identity will be kept secret.

There can be more ins and outs with an agreement, ie. sometimes if it goes to court, a source will allow their name out. It's essentially a verbal contract.

What could break it? Well, our adult film star's given name could have already been widely attached to her screen name in circles in the porn world. Maybe not the same exposure as Michael Jackson, but a few hundred people might be enough to say this person really isn't keeping this a tight secret.

Maybe the writer found out she gave similar interviews using her name (similar to previous scenario). The more news outlets the anonymous source goes to, the lower their veracity and protection levels go. It's an odd calculus, but news organizations don't want to be used either.

Perhaps there are other mitigating circumstances.

Perhaps not. On the margins there are some tough calls.

If the reporter is actually some kind of dirtbag figuring to make a name for himself, God only knows how, outing this woman for whatever reason, then she should seek whatever legal remedy she can. Get a rabid lawyer and make junior wish he wore a set of Depends for a couple of months.

It wouldn't hurt if his boss canned him, too. Our profession is getting too thin to keep morons on board.