Tuesday, January 14, 2003
Something troubles me about the media coverage surrounding Who founder and lead guitarist Pete Townshend's recent arrest (and subsequent release) on charges of allegedly possessing child pornography. Because the whole issue of child porn and childhood sexual abuse is so emotionally charged, virtually any discussion rapidly polarizes into a shouting/finger-pointing match, with one side screaming "perverts!" and the other yelling "witch-hunters!" After all, Pete could be a pervert. It's been the case with some of the most unlikely - and otherwise likeable - people.
Pete could also be innocent.
Townshend claims the whole issue is a misunderstanding; that he'd only visited a website advertising child porn once, and only for the purpose of research for his upcoming autobiography. You see, Pete was also reportedly a victim of child sexual abuse as a boy.
I have no way of knowing whether he is guilty as charged, or not; and certainly only time and investigation will tell. I certainly don't condone child porn or sexual abuse in any way; I believe it's an awful crime that keeps on hurting long after the act has been committed. While stolen valuables can be replaced and most physical wounds eventually heal, the damage done by childhood sexual abuse can continue for a lifetime and beyond, because many abuse victims become abusers themselves. Lost innocence can never be returned.
That being said, I am troubled by the tone of the media's coverage of the Townshend case - he was arrested, questioned, and released - and it seems the decency of being considered innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here. His arrest may make for great headlines, even more so than the child-porn-possession arrest of fellow UK rocker Gary Glitter a few years ago. But still, news people should exercise some restraint until there's concrete evidence someone's committed the crime they are accused of, especially on so hot-trigger an issue.
Confounding things further, there is a tremendously fuzzy range of what defines "child porn": on one extreme, there are explicit images of a blatantly sexual content, on the other, there are cases of parents being arrested for having taken ordinary photos of their naked toddler in the bathtub. The extent of legal ire has become unbelieveable, as can be seen in this 1/14/03 CNN news story: in the UK, for even "clicking on a web site containing indecent images of children under 16" - once, you could get 5 years in the hoosegow. Have one of those indecent images on your own website, and you've just won 10 years of bread and water at the Graybar Hotel.
New York's Village Voice has an excellent, insightful piece on "forbidden images" and the new "witch-hunting" in Richard Goldstein's 'Persecuting Pee-Wee'. Another article worth reading on the subject appeared in Wired magazine.
And more from the wacky world of Big Brother, London's Observer reported in November that the British government is exploring whether to require convicted pedophiles to receive microchip implants that would allow them to be tracked by satellite after their release from prison. The government would know not only whether pedophiles visited schools or parks but, based on a proposal by one company whose software monitors astronauts' bodily functions in space, whether the pedophiles are feeling nervous or excited (but so far, sexual arousal cannot be tracked by the software). [The Observer, 11-17-02]
Here's the problem. In many of these news stories, I'm not even seeing that magical cover-your-ass word: allegedly. Because once the hubbub and furor is over, if Pete isn't guilty, he'll still have the tag of "alleged child-porn viewer" on his head for the rest of his life. Those same words still apply:
Lost innocence - in the legal sense - can also never be returned. Something to think about, Mr.-and-Ms.-If-It-Bleeds-It-Leads.
