Child Porn? Are We too Careful? Prudish?

[Rachel Foster]

We've run into this issue on OPF in the past. Perfectly innocent images of children have become the center of controversy here because of the possibility that the images might be misused by sick, perverted persons who are perverted scum. Are we too careful?


In "real life" we can spot the freaks who traffic in and use child porn can't we?

Maybe not. This man was our family physician for years, and delivered my son. We switched a few years ago. Now, keep in mind: He hasn't been convicted and is "innocent until proven guilty." Still, I just want to throw up, howl at the moon, maybe punch his face. Innocent until proven guilty. I'm trying to remember that.

He delivered my son! He was the primary care physician for my entire family until about five years ago.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? I need to remind myself of that...innocent until proven guilty. I mean, there might be a mistake, right? Innocent until...excuse me, I have to throw up.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

I'm so sorry that you feel so abused and deceived.

The affidavit supporting the Complaint states that ICE agents executed a search warrant on Tubbs' email account and found images of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The search was based on information obtained in an ongoing investigation into online child pornography. The investigation led ICE agents to Tubb's e-mail and IP address, and eventually to his home in St. Louis.​

This is a shock for sure. I do hope there's some misunderstanding. Did he actually download the said images. Are they in fact "explicit" as claimed? A grandmother was similarly charged when she went to pick up pictures of her grandchildren. Some were shots of them bathing! One can look at an art site, then click something wrong by error and have scores of pages pushed at the computer as a result. Who knows what actually happened? For sure this news about someone you trusted is most painful for you, but hold on to you good thoughts for a while! f he should turn out to be as guilty as charged, then there will be time enough to be angry then. What if he's not monster so described? What if he's entirely vindicated? Right now it's tough for you, but hold on to the good thoughts!

The facts will come out out in due course!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Quoting the local paper, "Agents interviewed Tubbs June 10, and he “confirmed that he is the sole user of the...account and has maintained the account for several years,” according to the complaint.

Tubbs told ICE agents that he originally created the account for “online sexual role playing,” according to the complaint.

He also admitted that the e-mail address contained images of child pornography and estimated that 80 to 100 images were stored within the account, according to the complaint."

Here, "Authorities say in a court filing that Tubbs admitted to having 80 to 100 child porn images stored in e-mail."


By his own admission, he's guilty. The point is, though, that we can NOT be too careful. If my former and trusted physician is into kiddie porn, just about anyone could be.

 

[Asher Kelman]

His office said Tubbs is on leave. Alma Family Practice Dr. C.J. Holmes says Tubbs has provided "excellent professional care" without a complaint or "hint of impropriety."

Thank goodness for that!

To all of us, obtaining and storing such images is not only illegal but also distasteful. The whole process of an economy and trade, (fee or not) in actual child pornography is a disgusting feature of our society. We have to be aware that it can occur. It's fully justified to have an active and energetic law enforcement policy against such behavior since the fostering of demand for such photography creates a potential need for even more pictures and therefore risk of even further abuse of children.

While we need to have programs to be alert for traffic in child pornography, when it comes to prosecution of receivers, we need to be very wary of an over-eager police. The quick release of child molesters is what really upsets me a thousand times more than someone who is obsessed with the mages, but not a molester.

I admit, I'm not an expert in the criminally deviated mind. I do not know how many collectors of true child porn go on to make such pictures themselves or to sexually abuse children. This doctor, whatever images he has stored, has still done right by your family. AFAIK, child porn collectors have many thousands of disgusting pictures on their computers. It seems to me odd that this guy has 80-100 pictures. If he is a really pervert, this is one unusual collector. These folks are much more likely to be devouring content on the internet.

Also it's very strange that he would admit to having a special account for storing the images. That doesn't make too much sense. I think there's more to know!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, there is a great deal more information needed. Still, the main point for us here is what guidelines do we, as photographers, need to observe? Knowing how easily freaks can misuse innocent photos, what are our obligations to protect children?

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

..."as photographers, need to observe? Knowing how easily freaks can misuse innocent photos, what are our obligations to protect children?'''

I tend to not posting images of my son at all.

When we where in NY he went to PS3 and there they had strict rules regarding teachers and students: no hugs was one. In Bolivia he goes to an American Cooperative School and there are lots of hugs. I must say that I am happy to be in a place where teachers can be allowed to do that... but I do understand rules in New York.

Advances in communication have traditionally been used to fuel the porn industry. After the first book printed, Bible, guess what was on the TO DO list of the first print press...

We probably have to make a balance between protecting our kids and being free to enjoy and trust people at the same time.

 

[Asher Kelman]

..."as photographers, need to observe? Knowing how easily freaks can misuse innocent photos, what are our obligations to protect children?'''

I do look at all pictures here and will privately let someone know if they are, IMHO, going where it might be misinterpreted as sexually provocative or emotionally exploitative. I have the right to be utterly wrong on those very rare occasions and asked folk to swop out the picture for something else. Nothing has ever occurred where there was ant question of a need to report anything. What happens is htat hte community sets a standard for itself and it becomes pretty obvious.

I tend to not posting images of my son at all.

That's one choice. I think we are safe but each parent has to decide.

When we where in NY he went to PS3 and there they had strict rules regarding teachers and students: no hugs was one. In Bolivia he goes to an American Cooperative School and there are lots of hugs. I must say that I am happy to be in a place where teachers can be allowed to do that... but I do understand rules in New York.

They should vet teachers and then encourage hugs. I'd start with all the kids in a circle and one big hug! Teachers should be trained to hug. It can be perfectly fine. A hug should be just that! Maybe teenagers should hug each other so that they don't bond too much with the teachers, LOL!~

We have introduced an impersonal and destructive atmosphere in schools by eliminating normal signs of affection or holding hands. I don't think there's any proof of more abuse or assaults in cultures where there are hugs between kids! The most important thing is to teach personal values and respect for each other.

We probably have to make a balance between protecting our kids and being free to enjoy and trust people at the same time.

It's always a balance!

My grandson of 18 months goes up to a dog ten times his size and pats it on the back! Now that is amazing trust. Could that be a risk? Of course!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

How does one find the balance? That's the trick. There have been ruffled feathers on OPF over the issue. But it's important to remember there are reasons why we must be careful.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, there is a great deal more information needed. Still, the main point for us here is what guidelines do we, as photographers, need to observe? Knowing how easily freaks can misuse innocent photos, what are our obligations to protect children?

Hi Rachel,

I'm looking at this from a comfortable distance, so it's easier for me to look at these things a bit more rational (so please don't misunderstand what I'm going to say). If I were a parent I'd be upset, and I'm generally upset when children are abused in any way. However...

I saw Michael Moore's (I know he's a provocator, but even he puts his finger on some confrontational/interesting points once in a while) "Bowling for Columbine" documentary again the other day. He makes an interesting observation about American society in general, but it applies to other 'cultures' as well, in various degrees. US society in general is driven by FUD, and it's also used by the authorities as an instrument to increase control (by obtaining powers that diminish constitutional freedoms). The media also use FUD, because feeding primal instincts it's the easiest way of creating viewer ratings.

Ask yourself the following question: How does it hurt your child in any way that the man perhaps(!) gets excited when looking at pictures of other children engaged in 'sexual' activities not befitting their age? You have to admit that it's the thought of the man having such aberrant reactions when looking at children in general, and yours in particular, that gives you the creeps (it would to me). It's a process of projection that raises our defences, not something the man has actually done to your child(ren). We have nothing to fear, but fear itself?
In come the media, to boost the FUD a bit more. The government doesn't mind, because it will make it easier to pass laws that allow the government to pry into your private life.

Of course, people that are sick need treatment (assuming it's possible). If they have broken the law, then the consequences are for the legal system to determine and execute. But we also have to remember that the boundary between acceptable and not acceptable is a somewhat arbitrary one, based on one's shifting cultural beliefs, although the declaration of human rights outlines a general consensus (and yet look how that affects a huge percentage of the world population). There certainly is room for improvement.

Now to photography, and resisting the FUD culture. How can an innocent picture of a child hurt that child? Think about it.

There are many people with strange fetishes., Apparently some like to sniff panties. Do we stop making images involving underware? Some people get strange ideas when looking at a banana. Do we stop making images involving fruits or vegetables?

Let's ease up on the FUD, and just be cautious enough to not set something in motion that leads down a slippery slope of moral decay. I for example detest those beauty pageants for small kids, it sends all the wrong signals (starting with parents abusing their power/influence), but there is nothing wrong with children having fun dressing up in some oversized clothes and shooting images of that. Capturing the joy of childhood in an image, nothing wrong with that.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Here is a definition of child porn- lest we become too hysterical-I think clearly defines what child porn is-


What is Child Pornography?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or


the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or


the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or


depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Who Is a Minor?
For purposes of enforcing the federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), “minor” is defined as a person under the age of 18.

Is Child Pornography a Crime?
Yes, it is a federal crime to knowingly possess, manufacture, distribute, or access with intent to view child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2252). In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws criminalizing the possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography. As a result, a person who violates these laws may face federal and/or state charges.

Where Is Child Pornography Predominantly Found?
Child pornography exists in multiple formats including print media, videotape, film, CD-ROM, or DVD. It is transmitted on various platforms within the Internet including newsgroups, Internet Relay Chat (chatrooms), Instant Message, File Transfer Protocol, e-mail, websites, and peer-to-peer technology.

What Motivates People Who Possess Child Pornography?
Limited research about the motivations of people who possess child pornography suggests that child pornography possessors are a diverse group, including people who are

sexually interested in prepubescent children or young adolescents, who use child pornography for sexual fantasy and gratification


sexually “indiscriminate,” meaning they are constantly looking for new and different sexual stimuli


sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity


interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up web sites requiring payment for access2
Who Possesses Child Pornography?
It is difficult to describe a “typical” child pornography possessor because there is not just one type of person who commits this crime.

In a study of 1,713 people arrested for the possession of child pornography in a 1-year period, the possessors ran the gamut in terms of income, education level, marital status, and age. Virtually all of those who were arrested were men, 91% were white, and most were unmarried at the time of their crime, either because they had never married (41%) or because they were separated, divorced, or widowed (21%).3

Forty percent (40%) of those arrested were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors.4

Who Produces Child Pornography?
Based on information provided by law enforcement to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children's Child Victim Identification Program, more than half of the child victims were abused by someone who had legitimate access to them such as parents, other relatives, neighborhood/family friends, babysitters, and coaches.

What is the Nature of These Images?
The content in these illegal images varies from exposure of genitalia to graphic sexual abuse, such as penetration by objects, anal penetration, and bestiality.

Of the child pornography victims identified by law enforcement, 42% appear to be pubescent, 52% appear to be prepubescent, and 6% appear to be infants or toddlers.

What Are the Effects of Child Pornography on the Child Victim?
It is important to realize that these images are crime scene photos – they are a permanent record of the abuse of a child. The lives of the children featured in these illegal images and videos are forever altered.

Once these images are on the Internet, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. The child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.

End Notes
1 As stated by Janis Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor in Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003, page vii), “The term ‘child pornography,’ because it implies simply conventional pornography with child subjects, is an inappropriate term to describe the true nature and extent of sexually exploitive images of child victims. Use of this term should not be taken to imply that children ‘consented’ to the sexual acts depicted in these photographs; however, it is the term most readily recognized by the public, at this point in time, to describe this form of child sexual exploitation. It is used in this [document] to refer to illegal pictorial material involving children under the standards developed by statute, case law, and law-enforcement-agency protocols. It is hoped a more accurate term will be recognized, understood, and accepted for use in the near future.”
2 Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly Mitchell. Child-Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings From the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005, page x) citing Eva J. Klain, Heather J. Davies, Molly A. Hicks. Child Pornography: The Criminal-Justice-System Response (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, March 2001) and M. Taylor and E. Quayle. Child pornography: An Internet crime. Hove: Brunner-Routledge, 2003.
3 Id., pages 1-3.
4 Id., page viii.


Back to Child Pornography




Contact Us Privacy Policy Site Search Terms of Use
Copyright © 2010 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. All rights reserved

 

[Rachel Foster]

Good points. Abuse of trust is a big factor, true.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Charlotte,

How does one get past: such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Asher

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Asher

Huh? You lost me

Charlotte-

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

The point regarding us as photographers is defined in the text provided to us by Charlotte. If we take it apart a basic element is:

...minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct...

The image of a clearly a minor. Then there is the deffinition of minor etc etc.

Beyond that we only need to define the SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT.

That part is also not ambiguous ... maybe, probably the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." and I am thinking here the fine work of Sally Mann. Where we get to two elements. One is the definition of "LASCIVIOUS", and the other part is the one Asher was talking about

...such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

If you have plead "SERIOUS ARTISTIC" value. Your child pornography becomes other peoples "body of artistic work"???

Anyway. It is very easy for most of us to stay away from unknowingly falling in to making child pornography but maybe a few photographers will have to inhabit that borderline zone where their creative destiny sent them and where things are not so clear and defined.

It is a topic that will probably be open for argumentation permanently.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Charlotte,

How does one get past: such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Asher

Huh? You lost me

Charlotte-

Charlotte,

If one is privileged and can frame ones pictures/movies as literary or artistic or even political, then the description you gave of child pornography does not apply. So sexual content can be shown as part of say a Lolita movie. The same pictures would be the cause for someone to be imprisoned.

I'm not saying that one is not right and the other is not wrong, but pointing out the paradox of having an explicit escape clause for educated folk who can better express ideas and intentions in a socially acceptable form.

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

There is an extra factor that comes also in to play regarding what Asher has mentioned and that is the issue of consent.

As photographers we have to deal with releases and consents, and in the case of minors, the parents are responsible for giving it.

What happens with the case when the photographer is also the one in "charge" of signing the release form?

This is an image of Sally Mann. Redirected from a simple image search. Don't know the age of the sitter. It is probably a good example of the issues we are talking about...

http://t0201.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sally-mann.jpg

Asher: Should I even re direct this image here for the purpose of this dialog?

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Asher

this was defintion cut and pasted from "Missing and explotied Children Laws of Child Porn-

such as the definition of what is against the law is also explicte
d -
artistic ideas may vary- we border laws at all times as artists- but this clearly defines the ugly explotation of children and is in no way art! for me it's clear! and defined- as such devious individuals remain as such and always will most likely-
a nude picture of a child is not porn unless it goes against such our laws define- as I have brought to attention-
there is beauty in all forms of life- certainly porn isn't such a beauty-

Charlotte-

 

[Asher Kelman]

]
a nude picture of a child is not porn unless it goes against such our laws define- as I have brought to attention-
there is beauty in all forms of life- certainly porn isn't such a beauty-

Charlotte-

Charlotte,

If there was a movie about a Lolita heroine and she was involved in sexual acts, pictures would be called artistic from one point of view and then from another, pornographic. The difference would be only whether or not the jurisdiction felt that the work was "seriously artistic"

But you have used the word "certainty" here

"there is beauty in all forms of life- certainly porn isn't such a beauty-"

For sure in all jurisdictions, a sexually explicit picture is likely to be called "definitely porn". However, if it's wrapped as a work of art, in that we have 90 minutes of drama associated with it, then it becomes art. However, the explicit scenes are the same.

So to some extent, an erotic scene can be pornographic and get someone arrested and yet more of the same in a polite society setting can get someone an award as a great artist.

It should be that crimes of actually harming children should be severely prosecuted. This guy who allegedly downloaded images is seemingly a weirdo or troubled but he is not, himself harming anyone unless he paid money that was used to exploit children and harm them.

I'm concerned about lax application of laws against abusive adults, teachers or priests who actually molest children while police go nuts about a weirdo's collection of pictures. The only thing I'd want to know is this. Was a crime committed in the taking of the pictures? If so find that person and keep them away from kids. If the collector is also a child molester, throw the book at him/rarely her.

However let's not go totally ballistic about pictures just because the police say the are porn.

For me here, I have little tolerance for child exploitation, but then, I don't pretend otherwise and I am not arresting anyone, just removing the images by PM quietly. However, for the public space, the police arresting folk always has to be our concern that they are innocent until proven guilty.

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, I think that, even if the crime of producing, or distributing the images is hugely and clearly in another level of badness than merely "consuming" them, one will not occur without the other.

Should the career of a doctor be on the line for collecting child porno images, I think so, but only after proven without reasonable doubt. I personally would be happier if the police would concentrate on the people making them more...

 

[Rachel Foster]

What about his kids? They are 14 and 12, I think. What about Tubbs' kids?

 

[Asher Kelman]

What about his kids? They are 14 and 12, I think. What about Tubbs'
kids?

Rachel,

Lots of women have affairs, men too. There better halves often know nothing. They are good folk but are in error/sinners or whatever you might call them. Take Elliot Spitzer, just the kind of person, (an Elliot Ness type anti-crime guy to go against the big bank swindlers and Wall Street insider-traders), that's too rare in our States' Attorney Generals, has a long term relationship with a beautiful prostitute. He lead a double life, essentially. Only when he was found out did the whole house of cards collapse around him. Until that point, her was considered a good father, a devoted husband and one of the most valuable white collar crime fighters in the entire USA. Yes he was an hypocrite, but his behavior was segregated. At home he was a good family man, at work a great crime fighter and in the apartment of the high class call girl, a man enjoying sex with a new woman like a girl might enjoy new shoes because they are so different and, well, "new"!

The indictment against him reported that she "had a rendezvous with Mr. Spitzer on Feb. 13 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington".

The New York Times wrote:

"Born Ashley Youmans but now known as Ashley Alexandra Dupré, she spoke softly and with good humor as she added with significant understatement: “This has been a very difficult time. It is complicated.”

The harm done was to morals or conscience, yes. But to the family, only because the police intervened and outed him!

In the same way this alleged offense by your trusted M.D. doesn't mean he was a bad father or doctor or in anyway abused your trust! Yes, he disappoints our expectations of high moral qualities, but it's entirely possible that he just has this walled off segment of his life in which he got his kicks from pictures that maybe should never exist. The damage is then to him and his family and the feelings of all who have respected him so much. So far, unless facts are produced to show otherwise, there is no a priori damage to any child that cannot be healed with normal family support.

So, right now, the suffering is with all of you. t's a great loss to have someone disappoint you. I'm so sorry this happened and feel empathy for the larger community in your home town where this occurred.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What about his kids? They are 14 and 12, I think. What about Tubbs' kids?

Well, what about them? Were they harmed in anyway by pictures of someone else?

It's not the pictures that are the problem, it's the people making them. I they are bought, then that is also a problem that must be dealt with because they keep that industry going.

The legal system is failing when they go after the wrong people, just because it's easier to score.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Rachel Foster]

It's been made public their father is accused of consuming kiddie porn. How would you like to go to school, walk through your neighborhood, knowing everyone is aware of that? Maybe you all live in areas more tolerant, but here that's considered pretty damn shameful.

 

[Asher Kelman]

It's been made public their father is accused of consuming kiddie porn. How would you like to go to school, walk through your neighborhood, knowing everyone is aware of that? Maybe you all live in areas more tolerant, but here that's considered pretty damn shameful.

Exactly! the damage might be put to the police and newspapers! He should be investigated but not publicly charged unless there's evidence of child abuse by him. That's the problem perhaps. If he has not caused any victims, the photos may be immoral, sinful and wrong but he's just damaging himself. The publicity creates a shower of victims, including you Rachel and your family. Was justice served, at this point?

In such case in the U.K., I think the press cannot report on on certain details until a verdict is in but I'm not sure of the circumstances where that applies.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

The whole thing makes me sick.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Exactly! the damage might be put to the police and newspapers! He should be investigated but not publicly charged unless there's evidence of child abuse by him. That's the problem perhaps. If he has not caused any victims, the photos may be immoral, sinful and wrong but he's just damaging himself. The publicity creates a shower of victims, including you Rachel and your family. Was justice served, at this point?

Indeed, now there are many more victims thanks to the police and media.

In such case in the U.K., I think the press cannot report on on certain details until a verdict is in but I'm not sure of the circumstances where that applies.

Don't know about the UK, but in the Netherlands the media follow a convention of only reporting suspects by their initials. Only after an irrefutable conviction will names be published in full. That at least reduces the risk of some of the tar and feathers landing on innocent bystanders like the family involved who may have nothing to do with the situation. It's not perfect, but better than what I see happening in some other countries.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

...."If he has not caused any victims".... ok what if I use a $500 computer program that a friend has copied. No harm done? what if I had 10 programs installed, and all the movies, songs etc.

I am not causing any victims?

 

[Asher Kelman]

...."If he has not caused any victims".... ok what if I use a $500 computer program that a friend has copied. No harm done? what if I had 10 programs installed, and all the movies, songs etc.

I am not causing any victims?

Leonardo,

I'm not making any universally applicable rules of logic! Logicians might spend 6 months on perfecting just one statement or definition. My statement applies to this type of trespass (maybe watching spectacular fires) and Bart's statements about the Netherlands best explain my point of view.

There's a huge society gap in accountability to be dealt with here. If visitors to an art gallery or museum are not prosecuted on exit when the exhibit is of the nature that might cause prosecution of privately owned on a computer hard drive, then we at least have to make sure that we act with great caution. The net of justice should be directed against those who damage children. There are enough of them going free, repeating their crimes.

We do not, except in Belgium now perhaps, batter down the doors of suspected priests to get their computers either. Just that might save thousands of really abused kids worldwide.

If we follow the principal of "First, do no harm", then we are obliged to First address the issue of direct abuse. The rest is sensationalism which sells newspapers and creates wounds but otherwise serves no benefit to the community. Certainly, it does not tackle the problem

Imagine arresting folk amazed and thrilled by sight of a giant warehouse burning down because it was ignited by an arsonists! Anyone who actually photographed the event would be a criminal too!

Asher