Last week, news accounts spoke of arrests involving a ring that had been involved with transmitting live acts of child molestation via Internet Relay Chat. The story caught my attention because Bushfolk Alberto Gonzales and Julie Myers rushed to get in front of the cameras in order to take credit, even though the actual work in the case was overseen by none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the man going after the Plamegate perps. (Myers is a high-ranking Homeland Security official. Is kiddie porn really a Homeland Security matter? Did she have anything to do with Fitz' good work?) The image of Gonzales hogging a spotlight that belongs to our Fitz is rather irritating.
I googled some of the people accused in the indictment, on the theory that one of them might turn out to be a Republican activist. (Hey, you never know!) I was unnerved to find that one of the accused, Brian Annoreno, appears to have previously made attempts to adopt children via the AdoptionChoice Yahoo Group. HuffCrimeblog did some excellent research into this individual, who is accused of molesting an infant on camera. His former girlfriend believes that the child was one he had with her; unfortunately, the court declared the mother unfit and placed the baby in his care, even though a few minutes' worth of internet research would have revealed indications of his unhealthy interests. I'd love to publish the name of the judge who made that brilliant decision.
This same Annoreno apparently left the message "Let's kill all the Niggers!" on this web site. So perhaps I was justified in my initial suspicion concerning the political leanings of child molesters. (Incidentally, the most recent fish caught in Fitzgerald's net is, I am sorry to say, a priest.)
The main reason I bring up the topic concerns a couple of disgusting images I stumbled across the other day. As you know, I'm a graphic artist and illustrator, and a recent gig required me to draw a picture of a gorilla. You know what Picasso said: Immature artists borrow; mature artists steal. So I fired up Google Images and tried a few key words, including "Tarzan illustration," with an eye toward finding some of Burne Hogarth's work. (Hogarth, who drew the Tarzan newspaper strip for some years, did great gorillas.)
Two very disturbing images turned up. I did not click on the actual pages, but the thumbnails on Google revealed that someone had created extremely explicit and unsettling kiddie porn paintings involving the young Tarzan from the animated Disney version of the story. The artist emulated the look of the film; at first glance, these paintings looked very much like the studio's official product.
Previously, I had felt that no-one should go to jail based on a mere piece of art. These images turned that opinion around. Whoever painted those things not only belongs in a cell -- he belongs in solitary.
But then the question arises: At what point does pornography earn its label? Any number of great paintings include naked children -- cherubs, putti, infants in the lap of the Madonna. And then there's Maxfield Parrish's Daybreak. Even if you consider this work kitsch (as I do not), no-one can deny that this is one of the most famous paintings ever produced by an American. It is also a work which, if it were created today, might cause some legal trouble for the artist. Parrish worked from photographic reference. (Oh, don't look shocked: So did Norman Rockwell and some of the Pre-Raphaelites.) Most people do not realise that the naked standing figure in Daybreak derives from a photograph of a child, reproduced at a larger-than-normal size in relationship to the reclining figure.No-one presumes Parrish to have been sexually interested in the underaged; he operated in a different era. But if the term "child pornography" includes paintings as well as photographs, then can we arrive at a definition which allows Parrish while damning the creator of those stomach-turning images I ran into on Google?
As always, it's not so easy to know just where to draw the line...
Putting aside the largely unnerving content of this entry for a second--ah. "(O)ur Fitz." That's how I've come to think of him, too. Because he is.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can't follow that sentiment up with anything having to do with...egh. Thoughts of my Fitzy don't belong anywhere near thoughts of those other things.
maybe that tarzan toon looked so close to the original because that's what it was. rumor has it, there's been a long history of xrated versions of disney films made by none other than the disney animators themselves. my guess is that it's not so rampant these days, but who knows? computers make things much easier...
ReplyDeletekudos to fitz for blasting some light on the scourge of the earth. i don't care who tries to steal his glory. all that matters is that those monsters are going to get their day in court... and then in jail.
would the quick response on the part of the AG and the WH (in the guise of myers) not also possibly be interpreted as a quick deflection of attention to their possible role in this industry?
ReplyDeletei know i know, conspiracy tin foil. but it's like a huge bust too close to the bone of cia involvement getting a quick admin address, replete with dismay and harsh words and gratitude that justice will be done, now let's move along, nothing more to see here......
Perhaps what we need is to lock people up for what they DO, rather than what they THINK, no matter how obnoxious that thinking is.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed the most obnoxious cases that need the most care. If a person attacks an actual child, Bury him deep, but if he fantasizes such only, then he has hurt no one.
I hear the "yet".... but that is true of most crimes, from theft to Murder. If a person really is sick in mind, as perhaps child porn (and a lot of other horrid private "art") would attest, then social intervention can/should be had on a lot of levels below that of stoning.
On top of that, the over reaction to the worst stuff leaves no grey areas and a lot of personal nightmares, for people lumped in with the worst, and mentally wholly innocent.
A classic case was a woman who took film in to be processed, and someone else in the family had taken pictures of two young boys (her sons) swordfighting with cucumbers. It wrecked the entire family.
A very good friend has spent a year and a half in jail for publicly cussing out a banker (for manipulating his account to score excess fees). It is a very good thing it did not include "go F**k yourself" else he would be registering as a sex offender as well.
Freedoms Americans have always taken for granted are already in shreds, there is no reason for reasonable people to help blur differences of actual crimes from thought crimes. There are actual crimes enough that need attention, that no one is even trying to solve.
BTW I would agree that most such perverts are conservative, the selfishness and arrogance go well with both. There are tales that curdle the mind that are not proven but there there is smoke enough to be concerned about actual horrors. (follow links)