Raising the Bar on child porn prosecutions
Jun 29, 2009 TV Review
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
When my son was two we lived next door to our neighborhood’s biggest and most popular playground. We basically treated it like our backyard, and were there all the time. There were some tense moments that summer between a few parents and one of the Parks Department workers who maintained the playground. Some of the parents were letting their kids run around naked in the sprinklers. These were not big kids, these were diaper-age kids having some fun in the sun. Now, my son wasn’t one of the nudie kids. I’m sure he would have loved it, but I just don’t think it’s proper. It’s one of those things I’m uptight about. Out in public, I think that kids should always wear pants (boy or girl, I don’t care; they basically look the same on top at that age anyway), or in the sprinklers at least underwear if a bathing suit isn’t handy. But, I was lucky enough to live next door to the sprinklers. If I forgot my son’s bathing suit, I could let him run around in his underwear and then be home in 60 seconds to get him changed. Other parents didn’t have that luxury, and I could totally understand why you wouldn’t want your kid stuck in wet undies for the long walk home. So, whatever, let your kids run free and unencumbered. Who’s it hurting, and what business is it of mine?
I wasn’t all that surprised when the Parks worker told the parents the kids couldn’t be naked – I figured there was some sort of rule pertaining to the public health code. It seems like every year they pick something to get worked up about. One year, it was bikes. Another year it was water shoes. That year, apparently, it was naked two-year-olds. But it was the reason behind it that got me pissed: this worker claimed that having naked two-year-olds running around in the water would encourage perverts.
Excuse me? The little little kids can’t run around sans clothes because it might excite some child molesters? This seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. It seemed to me that if there were a potential problem with child molesters in the playground, perhaps we shouldn’t assume that keeping underwear on the kids will make everything OK. Perhaps we should try to address the problem in such a way that puts the burden of behavior on the adults in the park, and not on the innocent children.
I felt the same sense of misplaced blame last night as I watched an advance copy of the newest episode of Raising the Bar, a legal show on TNT. Every parent with a camera and a computer should watch this show tonight (it airs at 10pm on the coasts, 9 central time). It centers around a man accused of endangering his child and promoting child pornography. What did this man do? He snapped a picture of his son in the bathtub, penis showing, and posted it on the internet, on his personal page, for his family and friends to see. Dumb? Yes. Lacking foresight? Yes. Criminal? Oh my fucking God no, at least it shouldn’t be. The criminal charges should have been brought against the scumbag who grabbed the photo off of the personal website and put it on a child porn site, without the father’s knowledge.
I don’t think there’s a parent out there who hasn’t inadvertently put her child at risk at some point. Whether you’ve driven around without strapping your child in, or turned your back while your kid ran into the street, or forgot to wind up a blind cord, you’ve probably done something that could have ended in disaster for your child. Every single summer, a handful of parents leave their kids in hot cars to die a slow agonizing death because they forgot. Other parents go inside for just a minute to answer their phones and their kids drown in pools. These are accidents. Attempt to harm is not there, even if cluelessness and stupidity might be. These parents generally aren’t charged, though, because everyone involved tends to agree that you would never mean to harm your own child, and that the tragedy is punishment enough. We’re not talking about repeat offenses here.
But – and this is what got me so pissed at this episode – we have to rely on having smart, capable DAs working on our behalves to make sure that the right people are prosecuted. A lot of these decisisons are judgement calls for the DAs. And if a prosecutor decides to make an example out of you, and can draw a wavy line from you to a crime, then you could be charged with something like this. Even if you’re eventually acquitted, you’ve probably lost precious time with your children, and a lot of money in legal fees, and you’ve been labeled a pervert.
Raising the Bar is a well-acted show with a fantastic cast (Jane Kaczmarek as a judge, Mark-Paul Gosselaar as a public defender, Gloria Reuben as his boss, and many others), and I was sick to my stomach for this dad. He wasn’t even being prosecuted for doing something wrong, he was being prosecuted for making it possible for someone else to do something wrong. It’s like if I forgot to lock my door and my house got robbed, and instead of looking for the robbers, the police arrested me for leaving my door unlocked. People with no intent to harm should not be criminalized for mistakes. Sure, we should all try to look ahead and prevent problems, but sometimes it’s hard to assume the worst in people when your own mind doesn’t think that way. I’ve struggled in the past few years with how much of my kids I should put online, and I think we can all agree that their privates should be off limits. It seems like a no-brainer. But if I make a mistake, if I don’t take into account the worst that’s out there, should I be thrown in jail and lose my kids?
My grandmother was over for dinner last night, and she had with her her favorite tote bag. I had it made for her a few years ago, with pictures of my kids all over it. There’s one of them in the bathtub. They are both completely naked. The water is obscuring most everything below their waists, but if you look closely you can probably see some naughty bits. Pictures of kids in bathtubs are cute, there’s no doubt about it. When I was picking out the pictures for that project, it didn’t really cross my mind that this bag would be taken with my grandmother pretty much everywhere, and that some sicko sitting near her in a restaurant could get turned on by that picture. But if he does, whose fault is it?
It’s easy to go after the low-hanging fruit (and of course there is no pun intended). It’s easy to prosecute doctors for writing out prescriptions for too many painkillers because arresting them probably won’t involve a street corner gun battle and the headlines will make it look like you’re doing something in the bull shit war against drugs. Going after my neighbor for building his deck with the wrong kind of materials will make your statistics look good in terms of finding building code violations, but you don’t have enough inspectors out there and perhaps you should be sending more of them to the hugh-rises with giant cranes and the buildings with huge cracks that are ready to fall down. Prosecuting people for mistakes, when they’ve obviously learned their lessons, leaves less resources for the real criminals, the ones trafficking in underage children and taking pictures of them in situations that are designed to be sexual. Don’t waste time on the easy marks.
Originally posted on Selfish Mom. All opinions expressed on this website come straight from Amy unless otherwise noted. Please visit Amy’s Full Disclosure page for more information.
Shop Amazon
Tags: child pornography, GloriaReuben, internet porn, Jane Kaczmarek, Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Raising the Bar, TNT
Wonder Pets Save the Nutcracker: not annoying!
Dec 8, 2008 TV Review
This weekend the kids and I watched a preview DVD of The Wonder Pets Save the Nutcracker, which is having its TV debut Monday night at 8pm on Nickelodeon (it’s been out on video for a couple of months). My son was annoyed that we kicked him off of the XBox to put The Wonder Pets on, but he secretly loves them, so he stayed to watch.
I wasn’t being flippant in the title when I proclaimed this episode as “not annoying.” Anyone who has kids knows that when they like something, they want to watch it over and over and over again. So not being annoying is important. But this one goes beyond that – it’s actually enjoyable for kids and adults (although I’m sure I won’t watch it as many times as my daughter).
There are not a whole lot of kids cartoons that I like, especially not for little kids. My son (7) watches some hilarious shows, like SpongeBob and Total Drama Island. But shows for kids my daughter’s age (4) tend to be more sincere and syrupy, and that annoys me. If my kids are going to get along with me they have to learn snark early.
But I’ve always liked the Wonder Pets. There’s something about the animation that I find fun to watch. They take photos of real pets and manipulate them with a process the show creators invented called “photo-puppetry.” The voices are cute (even Ming-Ming, who pronounces her Rs as Ws), and there’s a lot of singing, backed by an orchestra for each episode, which is a nice touch. And the show emphasizes teamwork, something I’m always bugging my kids to use. Even if they’re using it against me, I’m just trying to get them to work together. And often when I tell them to work together, they’ll break into an oft-used Wonder Pets song, “What’s gonna work? Teamwork! What’s gonna work? Teamwork!”
Save the Nutcracker didn’t disappoint. Even my too-cool-for-kids-cartoons son liked it, and my daughter’s been singing lines from it all weekend (she watched it three more times). This special episode starts out with Linny, Tuck and Ming-Ming (class pets who lead adventurous lives after school lets out) finding out that they only have one present under the tree (a nutcracker), but soon realize that one present is better than none, and you should be grateful for what you have (the main lesson of the episode). But when their gift is taken by a mouse king, they have to follow the mouse into his story book to save their nutcracker.
The Wonder Pets always incorporate some classical music into their episodes, and this one is of course filled with music from Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker. So it gets extra points for slipping some culture in to my kids’ day.
If 8pm is too late for your kids to stay up and watch, it’s going to be repeated at different times all this week, so check your TV listings.
Originally posted on Selfish Mom
Shop Amazon
Tags: Nickelodeon, Nutcracker, Tchaikovsky, Wonder Pets
Review: The Librarian on TNT
Dec 6, 2008 TV Review
I just watched a preview copy of TNT’s The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice, airing Sunday night at 8pm. This is the third installment of the Librarian series, and I wasn’t even aware of the first two (surprising, considering how much TV I watch). The title character, Flynn Carsen, is played by Noah Wylie (of ER fame), and his bosses at the fictional New York Metropolitan Library are played by Bob Newhart and Jane Curtain – two actors who are always fun to watch, and who play off of each other well here.
Noah Wylie is perfect as a ridiculously smart guy who really just wants to live a quiet life, find a girl to settle down with, and work at the library. But instead he finds himself traveling the world in search of relics to save, all of which get stored for safe keeping in the library. He’s utterly fed up with it all, so he goes off to New Orleans on vacation, but instead meets a girl with a past – a really long past – and gets mixed up in the world of vampires and ex-KGB agents searching for the Judas Chalice, a cup made from the 30 pieces of silver given to Judas Iscariot in exchange for betraying Jesus Christ.
Also showing up is Bruce Davison, who was so good in the X-Men movies. He plays a brilliant Romanian professor, kidknapped and forced to help in finding the chalice. Flynn’s love interest is played by Stana Katic, one of those actresses who has guest starred in just about every series imaginable. The cast as a whole is impressive, and Wylie is especially well-cast, with his baby face and natural charm. When he utters the line “It’s only fair to warn you that I am a librarian!” you just want to take him in, serve him some cookies and milk, and make sure he’s safe.
You won’t be lost if you start with this third movie in the series. With a bookish, reluctant hero and an adventure story based on ancient history, comparisons to the Indiana Jones series are inevitable, but really, that’s like comparing big-budget apples to small budget oranges. Not having a feature-film budget frees The Librarian from having to be too serious or make too much sense. Characters survive situations they shouldn’t at the hands of inept bad guys who never stick around long enough to make sure that they’re dead. The only “yucky part” (as my son calls romantic scenes) is just a lot of lusty kissing. The special effects don’t get too too scary (although kids who scare easily could get creeped out by the vampires). And as long as you don’t think too much about the plot, it’s a fun way to spend an evening.
Originally posted on Selfish Mom
Shop Amazon
Tags: Bob Newhart, Bruce Davison, Jane Curtain, Noah Wylie, Stana Katic, The Curse of the Judas Chalice, The Librarian, TNT
