I just found this article, and it was pretty interesting. It ran in Salon, but was quickly retracted. Both the article and the retraction are here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....2b3af78f63040?lnk=raot&hl=en#9a82b3af78f63040
I could totally relate to the fear of accidentally opening up child *advertiser censored* and getting on a watch list. I think that has come up for a lot of us (the fear, not the *advertiser censored*) when we look up things related to cases like Johnny Gosch.
It also talks about the "child modeling" sites, which are another interesting subject.
I don't know if it's valid, but the author points out that if reporters can't do their jobs, you can end up with unfounded panics like the 80s daycare scandals. (She claims, in fact, that little new child *advertiser censored* has been made since the '80s--except by the government, for sting operations. I'm guessing that is photo-shopped.)
Just wondering what the rest of you though of it.
(Here's a follow-up, if you want to keep reading.)
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/64081/?page=entire
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....2b3af78f63040?lnk=raot&hl=en#9a82b3af78f63040
I could totally relate to the fear of accidentally opening up child *advertiser censored* and getting on a watch list. I think that has come up for a lot of us (the fear, not the *advertiser censored*) when we look up things related to cases like Johnny Gosch.
It also talks about the "child modeling" sites, which are another interesting subject.
I don't know if it's valid, but the author points out that if reporters can't do their jobs, you can end up with unfounded panics like the 80s daycare scandals. (She claims, in fact, that little new child *advertiser censored* has been made since the '80s--except by the government, for sting operations. I'm guessing that is photo-shopped.)
Just wondering what the rest of you though of it.
(Here's a follow-up, if you want to keep reading.)
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/64081/?page=entire
