“2 charged with possessing child porn on computers” reports:
“Two Manor Township men were charged recently with possessing child pornography on their home computers…
“Manor Township police said neither man is believed to have had any improper physical contact with children.
“In both cases, police said, relatives found the material on the home computers used by the suspects and contacted authorities.”
WATCHDOG: We concede that there is some validity to the contention persuasively presented as an op-ed in NewsLanc that the very act of watching child pornography creates a market for the exploitation of children.
Nevertheless, this old dog is deeply concerned about the law intruding into a person’s household to investigate what he or she is thinking or watching, not even doing with another. Also, one has to wonder about the motivations of relatives that would report such a matter to authorities.
How easy it would be for a mischievous child or angry spouse or relative to download pornography on one’s computer and report it to the authorities!
As a puppy, the Watchdog heard stories about how union organizers were driven out of Central Pennsylvania by similar tactics.
The whole thing smacks of George Orwell’s “1984” and Kafka’s police state.
As is our practice, we object to the Lancaster Newspapers reporting the names of the accused rather than at least awaiting trial and conviction. Their desire to titillate the public trumps fair play.
Growl!
