And because I've defended Julie, I try to keep abreast of what the Norwich Bulletin is saying about the case these days. I use two search words, "amero" and "porn". Last night nothing new appeared but what did appear surprised me.
The search for "porn" produced the Norwich Bulletin's own recommended product sponsors.
Under Local Web Info is an entry for a Bee Control Co. that offers "teen porn" and "school girl porn". To the right of that a Shop Local set of listings for United Porn products.
If you look further into the listings you'll find this interesting entry:
That's right. Ledyardchurch.com features "...porn pay-site reviews. Largest porn star buyer's guide.", and so on.What this all means is the the hairstyling site Julie Amero stumbled into could very well have been one of the Norwich Bulletin's recommended vendors for all we know. And furthermore the Norwich Bulletin or a like merchant might have made money on the clicks.
Now, not for a moment do I believe Julie, The Bulletin, or a Ledyard Church are pushing porn knowingly. So why is Julie the only one convicted here.
This country has been ill-served by legislation that felonizes the possession of drugs or pornography near school buildings. In urban areas the results are disastrous. In the case of the Norwich Bulletin, a child that accesses porn while doing research on local issues in their newspaper and clicks on a church site that spews porn might automatically hold the newspaper liable on a morals charge.
And I'm guessing the newspaper would sing a very different tune if the shoe were on their foot.
No comments:
Post a Comment