Friday, March 01, 2013

Taube on Flanagan

 I agree with Michael Taube's column. Tom Flanagan is not evil. He made a mistake and apologized for it. Child porn is abhorent and children used in this crime are true victims. One doesn't walk away from friends in trouble! This doesn’t mean Flanagan condones anything past this. As he wrote in an email to me yesterday, “Sexual abuse of children and using children to make pornography are crimes and should be punished as such.” I hope we can all agree on that. Regardless, let’s call a spade a spade. Who in God’s name would want to possess child pornography? Sure, you can’t say with confidence that everyone who has these images has evil thoughts. But only the most sick, twisted and demented of individuals would want to own photos or drawings that sexualize children. As the father of a four-year-old boy, it also disgusts me beyond comprehension that some people want to classify these child pornography pictures as “art.” The choice of words I really want to use aren’t fit for print. So, I’ll just say this much: anyone who believes that child pornography belongs in the same category as nude paintings and sculptures created by the Old Masters should have his or her head examined.


Anonymous said...

This reminds of the Libertarian Ron Paul I believe saying there is no need for the Civil Rights Act. Maybe such discussion would be interesting as a debating exercise at a university, but in the political or near-political word you can no longer go near these subjects.

Anonymous said...

I'm very angry at the verbal decision made by Flanaghan because it was a stupid decision however I do respect HIS RIGHT to say it and my right to be disgusted. His apology would have been enough had he been a bleeding heart liberal but because he isn't, he is done and should just accept it.

Trying to push the envelope should never have been done with this subject nor this inappropriate suggestive thought. He didn't just 'choose his words wrong', he lined up his brain cells even worse.
This was a horrible, horrible example of 'free speech' and despite believing, respecting, acknowledging a person the right to have it, when it involves crime and kids, it is a serious brain freeze.

Now....if only the same campus dwellers/media would react the same way when kids speak out against abortion? Double standards dwell.

Anonymous said...

Flanagan is not the devil but he is a disgusting pervert for thinking that there is no harm in looking at child porn.

Nadine Lumley said...

repost from comment board: Mr. Harris, I am a computer forensic examiner that works for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force in the USA. Having been chronically exposed to child exploitation material for years during the performance of my job duties, I can only gather from Mr. Flanagan's statements that either, a) he is severely ignorant of what "child pornography" really is (not generally cutsie naked kids, but instead graphic depictions of the true rape and assault of children as young as infants in diapers)

or, b) he is making a very poor attempt (as pedophiles often do) of masking his own predilections. In either case, his statements were disgusting, though my gut instinct (which is very finely tuned these days) tells me the professor has dabbled in this type of material way more than he is stating, and has the warped sense of a true pedophile who does not classify the memorialization of sexual abuse as a big deal. His statements, I venture, had nothing to do with politics, but an ill attempt to justify his own "tastes." It's too bad that search warrants can't be based on pure observational experience, because Mr. Flanagan would not only lose his jobs, but his personal freedoms as well. Thank you very much for the article.