LOS ANGELES -- Pee-wee Herman actor Paul Reubens was sentenced to three years probation Friday after pleading guilty to a misdemeanour obscenity charge involving photographs seized from his erotica collection.
The former star of the children's TV show Pee-wee's Playhouse and two Pee-wee movies won't be allowed unsupervised contact with minors during the probation period.
Pee Wee's busted again!
Pee Wee's busted again!
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
selfmademug
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
I'm not an expert on the first case, but a lot of people felt that Paul Reubens was unfairly targetted. True, masturbating in a public place is probably not on any sane, sober person's to-do list but, considering the porno theater venue, he probably wasn't alone. (One writer at the time said poor Mr. Ruben's was being targetted for essentially doing the porn equivalent of applauding!) His attorneys, I recall, argued that he was being targetted strictly because he was a celebrity and a children's show host -- though Pee Wee Herman started as an adult comedy character at L.A. nightclubs and such.
As to the pedophile claims, my only source is a brief radio report, but they said that Reuben's attorney's claimed that material in question were old art prints from the turn of the century.
If that's true, then it's a pretty egregious violation of his civil rights. Even if the material is worse than that, it's a bit of a gray area -- assuming he didn't actually purchase sexually explicit photos where children were actually harmed in the making of them.
To me, from a legal standpoint, the idea of "virtual child porn" is an oxymoron. It's clear to me that the crime of true child pornography is not in the content, but in the fact that making it requires molesting children, which is one of the worst offenses a human can commit. I think laws against purchasing it are probably good and neccessary. Not sure about where downloading it for free comes in, though.
I have at least one or two friends who, back in the earlier days of the internet, would go trolling for free downloads of the sickest stuff they could find -- bestiality mainly, but possibly kiddie porn of one sort or another, I can barely remember. I'm not sure how bad exactly it was as, when offered the chance to view it, I turned it down. I can definitely go to my grave without seeing anything like that. Still, owning something like that doesn't make you a child molester, or even neccessarily a person with pedophile tendencies, just someone with a typically late 20th century post-modern obsession with transgression.
I'm not neccesarily approving of that -- transgression for its own sake is pretty pointless. But is it a crime?
As to the pedophile claims, my only source is a brief radio report, but they said that Reuben's attorney's claimed that material in question were old art prints from the turn of the century.
If that's true, then it's a pretty egregious violation of his civil rights. Even if the material is worse than that, it's a bit of a gray area -- assuming he didn't actually purchase sexually explicit photos where children were actually harmed in the making of them.
To me, from a legal standpoint, the idea of "virtual child porn" is an oxymoron. It's clear to me that the crime of true child pornography is not in the content, but in the fact that making it requires molesting children, which is one of the worst offenses a human can commit. I think laws against purchasing it are probably good and neccessary. Not sure about where downloading it for free comes in, though.
I have at least one or two friends who, back in the earlier days of the internet, would go trolling for free downloads of the sickest stuff they could find -- bestiality mainly, but possibly kiddie porn of one sort or another, I can barely remember. I'm not sure how bad exactly it was as, when offered the chance to view it, I turned it down. I can definitely go to my grave without seeing anything like that. Still, owning something like that doesn't make you a child molester, or even neccessarily a person with pedophile tendencies, just someone with a typically late 20th century post-modern obsession with transgression.
I'm not neccesarily approving of that -- transgression for its own sake is pretty pointless. But is it a crime?
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
)-
selfmademug
An interesting distinction Bobster. I think, though, that I'm very much against the pictures no matter their source or how they're procured. (I wonder whom I'll offend more there, Mr. A or RopeLeash??) I'm interested by the question in theory but still believe that promoting the idea of children as sex objects must be stopped because of the real consequences.
But the business in the porn theater was bullshit, absolutely. Do I give a shit that a children's entertainer (albeit one who plays the edginess between adult jokes and kids' jokes, and whose brilliance lies therein, it was the same with all the best cartoons of every era, IMO) likes porn and masturbating? Absolutely not. Of course not. It's healthier than loads of the other behavior celebrities engage in.
But the business in the porn theater was bullshit, absolutely. Do I give a shit that a children's entertainer (albeit one who plays the edginess between adult jokes and kids' jokes, and whose brilliance lies therein, it was the same with all the best cartoons of every era, IMO) likes porn and masturbating? Absolutely not. Of course not. It's healthier than loads of the other behavior celebrities engage in.
-
Mr. Average
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Orange County, Californication
It is an astounding implication that I might be offended by your remarks against Child Pornography. Absolutely amazing. How in the world would anyone gain the notion that I would support any aspect of the exploitation of children for any reason...much less for sexual gratification and perversion.
Where the hell are you coming from? I think maybe your remarks to my Chicao Report post in the EC General Discussion thread are bleeding into this one. And I mean bleeding.
I won't even bother to espouse my position. Right-thinking people already have a firm understanding of my incontrovertable views on child pornography. To make it fodder for a more incendiary post approaches repugnance.
Sad tactic. I won't stoop to the level to return the volley.
Have fun.
Where the hell are you coming from? I think maybe your remarks to my Chicao Report post in the EC General Discussion thread are bleeding into this one. And I mean bleeding.
I won't even bother to espouse my position. Right-thinking people already have a firm understanding of my incontrovertable views on child pornography. To make it fodder for a more incendiary post approaches repugnance.
Sad tactic. I won't stoop to the level to return the volley.
Have fun.
"The smarter mysteries are hidden in the light" - Jean Giono (1895-1970)
-
selfmademug
Mr. A., my genuine apologies. I actually meant to type 'here' rather than 'there,' because I had a feeling you might disagree with the part I was about to write-- that I don't mind if child entertainers masturbate at legal, adult porn films. And even that was presumptuous. But no, of course I knew you'd agree with me in being against child porn, as ARL surely is too. I thought RopeLeash might support the idea the Bobster is suggesting, however. Again, a presumption, I admit.
In any case, I'm sorry. I respect you a lot because you've been respectful to others.
In any case, I'm sorry. I respect you a lot because you've been respectful to others.
Just to clarify my position a bit, the problem with laws against "virtual" child porn is that, legally, it opens the doors completely wide open. Where do you draw the line? Are all photos of real naked children now a crime -- who decides whether they context is sexual or artistic?
It's a touch nut to crack because a photo can be made with the best intentions by a photographer (sometimes the photos are of their own kids) only to become pornography in the minds of pedophiles.
And when you open the door to "virtual" -- i.e., images with computer generated children -- again, just where do you draw the line? I don't believe that such "slippery slopes" are illusory. It really doesn't take much once you open that door. Lots of people feel that "Lolita" isn't much better than kid-porn. The Nobel Prize status of its author sort of protects the book a bit, but the recent movie caused howls of protest from a lot of quarters.
If someone were to write an update of "Lolita" now -- maybe a bit more explicit -- what would the reaction be.
And what about movies that, say, feature young looking actors over 18 having sex as, say 15 or 16 year old characters? What's that?
We all know pornography when we see it -- but in a country where a young man can still be convicted of a FELONY simply for drawing a comic book that was horrific -- but clearly not pornographic in any normal sense of the world -- we do, in fact, need to be very careful. Countries do regress.
Now that how I feel on a legal level. On a personal level: here's a story.
A long time ago, a friend of mine -- a guy who was pretty much my film geek mentor as a teen -- showed me some promotional materials for a new home video company he was working with. They were for a film about a couple of boys, about 9 or 10, I guess, marooned on a desert island. They were naked but it all seemed non-sexual, at least on the surface. This was long before "Survivor" but they could be just a couple of young Richard Hatch's, I suppose.
Then he showed me press material for another film. Again, more naked kids in an apparently non-sexual context.
It became clear to me that what they were doing was finding a legal way to market stuff to pedophiles. Unfortunately, my soon-to-be ex-friend chose this moment to come out to me.
A year or two later, he ran into a gay film school friend of mine and told him that I reacted badly to his coming out. It wasn't the guy's homosexuality I was responding badly to.
It's a touch nut to crack because a photo can be made with the best intentions by a photographer (sometimes the photos are of their own kids) only to become pornography in the minds of pedophiles.
And when you open the door to "virtual" -- i.e., images with computer generated children -- again, just where do you draw the line? I don't believe that such "slippery slopes" are illusory. It really doesn't take much once you open that door. Lots of people feel that "Lolita" isn't much better than kid-porn. The Nobel Prize status of its author sort of protects the book a bit, but the recent movie caused howls of protest from a lot of quarters.
If someone were to write an update of "Lolita" now -- maybe a bit more explicit -- what would the reaction be.
And what about movies that, say, feature young looking actors over 18 having sex as, say 15 or 16 year old characters? What's that?
We all know pornography when we see it -- but in a country where a young man can still be convicted of a FELONY simply for drawing a comic book that was horrific -- but clearly not pornographic in any normal sense of the world -- we do, in fact, need to be very careful. Countries do regress.
Now that how I feel on a legal level. On a personal level: here's a story.
A long time ago, a friend of mine -- a guy who was pretty much my film geek mentor as a teen -- showed me some promotional materials for a new home video company he was working with. They were for a film about a couple of boys, about 9 or 10, I guess, marooned on a desert island. They were naked but it all seemed non-sexual, at least on the surface. This was long before "Survivor" but they could be just a couple of young Richard Hatch's, I suppose.
Then he showed me press material for another film. Again, more naked kids in an apparently non-sexual context.
It became clear to me that what they were doing was finding a legal way to market stuff to pedophiles. Unfortunately, my soon-to-be ex-friend chose this moment to come out to me.
A year or two later, he ran into a gay film school friend of mine and told him that I reacted badly to his coming out. It wasn't the guy's homosexuality I was responding badly to.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Bobster,
I've said it once before, but it bears repeating now:
I like reading your posts a lot. You're really smart and you challenge your readers to think. Bravo, even when I think differently sometimes.
You raise good questions. I have taken pictures of my sons in the bathtub to send to grandparents. There's nothing pornographic about that to me or their granpparents. But a pedophile would think differently about the same pictures. While some stuff is pretty blatantly child pornography, other stuff is more ambiguous. I guess my feeling is that we should err on the side of protecting children. I don't think anyone should get locked up for taking pictures of their kids in the tub for Grandma and Grandpa, but maybe if they keep sending the pictures after the kid is 8 or 9, CPS should get a call. Pee-Wee's collection is described by his side as art. And maybe it is. I think you'd have to see the pictures to know, and I don't want to see them. I guess I think that if it's iffy, I'd still rather have less pictures of naked kids out there.
I've said it once before, but it bears repeating now:
I like reading your posts a lot. You're really smart and you challenge your readers to think. Bravo, even when I think differently sometimes.
You raise good questions. I have taken pictures of my sons in the bathtub to send to grandparents. There's nothing pornographic about that to me or their granpparents. But a pedophile would think differently about the same pictures. While some stuff is pretty blatantly child pornography, other stuff is more ambiguous. I guess my feeling is that we should err on the side of protecting children. I don't think anyone should get locked up for taking pictures of their kids in the tub for Grandma and Grandpa, but maybe if they keep sending the pictures after the kid is 8 or 9, CPS should get a call. Pee-Wee's collection is described by his side as art. And maybe it is. I think you'd have to see the pictures to know, and I don't want to see them. I guess I think that if it's iffy, I'd still rather have less pictures of naked kids out there.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
Jackson Doofster
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:25 pm
- Location: Some far flung Canadian Club
Thanks Noise.
And JD, I'm guess I'm not completely surprised that Pee Wee may not be so popular in the other countries. He's spoofing two things -- childhood, which ought to be univeral but I'm sure can can be expressed differently in different countries, but also a very particular type of children's show that existed in the days before "Sesame Street" and "Teletubbies." Most of the goofier ones were done locally, but it's possible that shows like most boomers/post-boomers/early gen-X's grew up with didn't exist in the U.K. and elsewhere.
It's also possible that ol' Pee Wee was just too brash for British sensibilities.
And JD, I'm guess I'm not completely surprised that Pee Wee may not be so popular in the other countries. He's spoofing two things -- childhood, which ought to be univeral but I'm sure can can be expressed differently in different countries, but also a very particular type of children's show that existed in the days before "Sesame Street" and "Teletubbies." Most of the goofier ones were done locally, but it's possible that shows like most boomers/post-boomers/early gen-X's grew up with didn't exist in the U.K. and elsewhere.
It's also possible that ol' Pee Wee was just too brash for British sensibilities.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
miss buenos aires
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:15 am
- Location: jcnj
- Contact:
Just an anecdote on the line between innocence and not...My ex-boyfriend's mother once told me a hilarious story about when he was around ten, and his sister was three or four years old: apparently she was running around naked one day, and he thought this was so hilarious that he used up half a roll of film taking pictures of her, which his mother didn't find out until she picked the photos up from the developers'. She told me when she saw them, she was petrified, thinking that at any moment, there'd be a knock of the door from the police...
I think the photographer who straddles this line unnervingly perfectly is Sally Mann.
I think the photographer who straddles this line unnervingly perfectly is Sally Mann.