|
|
|
April 24, 2006
HELP! I'm a victim of blogging!
One of the driving forces behind the latest push for Internet censorship seems to be a former live webcam performer (aka a "camwhore") named Justin Berry, who made quite a bit of money charging clients to watch him do things in front of his web cam. Now that Berry (with lots of MSM hype) claims he's reformed, the former live performer still performs live as a new kind of celebrity -- a sort of moralistic scold condemning his former life and demanding that the government crack down on the evil Internet which seduced him. (Internet "seduction" is a familiar theme these days, I'm afraid . . .) While my ultimate worry is that such a crackdown might lead to every web site (possibly including this blog) having to carry some sort of government seal of approval, I'd like to stick to the more narrow issue of what it is that constitutes a victim. Like it or not, being a victim -- especially a high-profile victim -- can be a very rewarding experience. Americans have plenty of empathy, and these things sell newspapers and drive network ratings. So, if someone is able to cast himself as a victim in such a way as to elicit strong public appeal, he can pretty much write his own ticket. Whether the victim really is a victim is secondary. The recent hoopla over the still-anonymous "escort" who claims she was raped by Duke University's La Crosse team is a good example of this. We still don't know whether the crime even took place, but because of the nature of the media hype, the woman will always be able to claim that she was a victim. (Of rich people, or sex, or hype, or something.) And no matter what happens, there will of course be a book deal, an Oprah appearance, the rest of it. I know I haven't been put in charge of these things, but it just goes against my sense of individual responsibility to allow someone to claim he was a victim of others when he deliberately engaged in the conduct said to constitute victim status. If I drink too much, it is not the responsibility of the Seagram distillery, and if I run in front of an SUV, it is not the fault of General Motors. Similarly, if Justin Berry deliberately sold images of himself, that is not the fault of the Internet for being there any more than it would be the fault of Nikon if he sold glossy photographs of himself on the street. This in no way excuses the conduct of people who violated the law by buying his pictures. They committed crimes -- just as in a drug transaction, both the dealer and the user are legally culpable. I just can't see any of them as victims, because (absent a showing of compulsion) they are doers, participants, actors, not innocent bystanders. A webcam does not invade my home unless someone else installs it surreptitiously and does not tell me. Therefore, in logic I cannot be a victim of it, any more than I can be a victim of my own gun. Or my own blog. Or can I? To play Devil's Advocate, am I missing something here? Or is this another example of the hopeless split between communitarian and libertarian thinking? posted by Eric on 04.24.06 at 07:40 AM
Comments
A teenager can be "facilitated" by being given a phone, a computer, a car, or a web site. I suspect there might have been a few issues related to parental supervision as well. (According to Wikipedia "His father became aware of the source of Berry's funds and they collaborated on a new site titled mexicofriends.com.") But never mind. We are all guilty. Eric Scheie · April 24, 2006 11:13 AM Lest people misunderstand my argument, I neither condone nor defend the conduct of Justin Berry's clients in any way. During the time he was under the age of consent, his clients were pedophiles, and deserved punishment for their crimes. But just as murder is still murder even if it is committed by a juvenile, prostitution is still prostitution. It isn't society's fault. Eric Scheie · April 24, 2006 12:07 PM Stupid kid plus abusive adults. Never a good combination. We forget how immature people in their early twenties can be. Teens are even worse, and as long as we insist on treating them as adults they will continue to get into situations like this. The price of well behaved kids is eternal supervision. Alan Kellogg · April 24, 2006 07:56 PM It sounds weird but these are the good problems. A surfeit of riches and few con-men have made it possible for kids to be kids in their late teens, and for the worst kind of cons to be taken at face value. Really it is like having a national obesity problem- it does suck, but it is so much better than the alternate extreme! Harkonnendog · April 24, 2006 08:30 PM I agree that Justin Berry was a victim of himself. He knew he was doing something that was wrong. He took measures so that his mother would not find out what he was doing, such as renting an apartment where he could carry on his web porn business with even greater privacy. Only the most hysteria-afflicted child protection advocates could argue that he was totally ignorant of the nature of his activities, a completely innocent victim of evil pedophiles. The thing that hasn't been said in anything I've read about Justin so far is that the likely reason he got caught in this mess to begin with is that he had a need to be an exhibitionist. He likely enjoyed appearing nude and "performing" for his webcam audience. The money was gravy. Fetishes or paraphilias don't just suddenly appear when a person hits 18 years of age; they appear long before that at the start of one's sexual awakening. And God knows there are plenty of legal adults out there indulging their fetishes online even as I type! So before we start blaming webcams or MySpace or the entire Internet universe for the poor judgement of one kid who found it titillating to expose himself publicly, let's be honest with ourselves and identify the real causes behind the behavior at issue. Let's not insult the vast majority of kids out there who go on MySpace, chat with strangers, and even transmit their images via a webcam without crossing any legal or moral line. And, yes, mom and dad, your little 13-year-old probably can experience sexual arousal just like you when you were his or her age. Try being more frank in your discussions of sexuality with your children and perhaps they will learn how to direct their newly-found feelings toward healthy, socially-condoned outcomes. puermalus · May 10, 2006 10:43 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Who was this 'adult acquaintance' who hosted Justin's site when he was underage? Was it the internet that 'seduced' him, or the adult who facilitated his 'seduction?'