Okay, can we quit quibbling over the definition of child pornography for a minute and consider an important question for a second. Namely, who is this guy? He was arrested for the real thing (unless I missed something); in other words, furry has nothing to do with his arrest. As far as I know, this guy isn't a major player in the fandom (and the fact that I don't know much about him doesn't hurt my case here); we've got a ethical dilemma, here.
This guy hasn't thrust himself in the furry spotlight; he was as close to an anonymous everyman as you can be in the furry fandom, and therefore has a certain amount of right to privacy. He barely even has a WikiFur article, apparently. As his crime has no bearing on the furry fandom (unlike, for instance, the guy who wanted to shoot up a school for crimes against animals), and at this point he is "presumed innocent," it could be argued that this article unduly sullies his reputation.
In journalistic ethics, the guidelines for reporting on a person are that a. the person has put his or herself in position of public scrutiny (say as a politician or celebrity) in his or her community b. the person's actions are of importance to the community, and c. if the person gives his permission. I argue that a doesn't apply here (and c is unlikely), but, of course, b is the sticky one.
What I'm pointing out here is that both the reporter, Higgs Raccoon, and Flayrah's editor, Green Reaper, had to make an ethical decision on this one (which I assume they were aware of, if not exactly consciously). In fact, this one comes down real close to the line; I'm not entirely sure of this one. I will say that this editorial decision was probably necessary; if it had come out that an article was written on this guy and rejected by some of furry's noisier but less nuanced critics, Flayrah's reputation as a news source would have been damaged. And Higgs Raccoon hasn't exactly dug up facts that weren't already available publicly.
Okay, can we quit quibbling over the definition of child pornography for a minute and consider an important question for a second. Namely, who is this guy? He was arrested for the real thing (unless I missed something); in other words, furry has nothing to do with his arrest. As far as I know, this guy isn't a major player in the fandom (and the fact that I don't know much about him doesn't hurt my case here); we've got a ethical dilemma, here.
This guy hasn't thrust himself in the furry spotlight; he was as close to an anonymous everyman as you can be in the furry fandom, and therefore has a certain amount of right to privacy. He barely even has a WikiFur article, apparently. As his crime has no bearing on the furry fandom (unlike, for instance, the guy who wanted to shoot up a school for crimes against animals), and at this point he is "presumed innocent," it could be argued that this article unduly sullies his reputation.
In journalistic ethics, the guidelines for reporting on a person are that a. the person has put his or herself in position of public scrutiny (say as a politician or celebrity) in his or her community b. the person's actions are of importance to the community, and c. if the person gives his permission. I argue that a doesn't apply here (and c is unlikely), but, of course, b is the sticky one.
What I'm pointing out here is that both the reporter, Higgs Raccoon, and Flayrah's editor, Green Reaper, had to make an ethical decision on this one (which I assume they were aware of, if not exactly consciously). In fact, this one comes down real close to the line; I'm not entirely sure of this one. I will say that this editorial decision was probably necessary; if it had come out that an article was written on this guy and rejected by some of furry's noisier but less nuanced critics, Flayrah's reputation as a news source would have been damaged. And Higgs Raccoon hasn't exactly dug up facts that weren't already available publicly.
So, guys, you wanted "hard news" on that poll way back when; Flayrah has delivered.