The New York Times recently ran a terrific, compelling story about a kid who had been sucked into online porn. Initially, I was horrified/amused to see the New York Times had posted a video interview with the boy (now 19). At least they didn't charge extra via TimesSelect.
The story is back up because the Times ombudsman is discussing the ramifications of how the story was reported. I'd just had a lengthy discussion with a friend who felt the reporter crossed all ethical guidelines and painted a too-rosy picture of this kid who -- in the end -- was a consenting adult charging people for his services. I disagreed, but it's an interesting argument.
Did the reporter behave appropriately? And do you rate the subject's responsibility on a sliding scale? At 13 the kid is not remotely responsible for his exploitation? At 15 maybe 50%? At 18 maybe 100%? Or do you consider him damaged goods lucky to escape horrible parenting and years of exploitation by sleazy strangers? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
When I first read the article, it seemed to me that the NYT had perhaps exploited the boy further. This new article does seem to put that concern to rest.
I thought the explanatory article published at the time went a long way towards assuaging any concerns. What about giving the kid a "pass" -- any thought that they didn't hold him accountable for his actions once he was an adult? My feeling is someone screwed up that much by parents and predators deserve a lot of leeway. But what if he was still doing it when he was 30? 40? When does he become responsible for his current actions?
18 is the cutoff age, I imagine. But he helped the feds get a lot of intel into the seedy underbelly of the Internet, so it's a real "ends justifying the means" situation.
There's also the questions of rehabilitation and recidivism. It's the same question posed on last week's episode of Stargate.
Post a Comment