Green, Xydexx's long-standing position has always been that "talking about a problem that affects the fandom's image HELPS ruin the fandom's image".
There's nothing "muckraking" about this story, not to anyone who bothers to check what the journalistic use of the term actually means. It means you're sensationalizing nastiness just to get better ratings.
In this case, NOT reporting on it would be a matter of trying to pretend it never happened. It could only be considered muckraking if Flayrah were to try and do something "extra-special" with the piece above and beyond its actual context --- and that has not been done.
There are no wagging fingers in this article, no editorial screeds, not even a slanted headline.
This is, simply put, NEWS.
On Mitch himself --- I am a very long-time friend of his. I was the preacher who "wedded" him and Minerva. I've seen most of what he's contributed to the fandom, and knew/know many of his friends and enemies alike...
...and NO ONE, not even the people who drew up and made hay out of unflattering animated caricatures of the man, thought he was a pedophile.
There are plenty of people in this fandom who draw animal characters who are specifically identified as children, engaged in every sexual habit and fetish known to man, who are routinely defended by prominent members of this fandom as NOT being pedophiles because "these aren't actual children". Mitch? He was never known as a prude, but also never known to draw anything younger than a teenager.
On basis of the limited information at hand? I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts --- literally --- that the "thousands of images" on his hard drive are furry characters with a sexy look to them, tagged by police and prosecutors looking for evidence as "Joe Camel" material.
It was successfully argued in court that a cartoon camel, by dint of BEING a cartoon camel, can be used to target children for promotion of a given subject. Sexy animal characters? A talented prosecutor can and most likely will say that these were created and distributed in order to lure children into a net of sexual predation, and that even if such predation never took place, the artwork itself is sufficient to qualify as "conspiracy to commit".
Turning a blind eye to this case is the worst thing this fandom could possibly do. We need to know, not as a matter of leaping to conclusions or vilifying Mitch like a mob with pitchforks, but because we need to be ready to respond to a legal issue that could very well mushroom into a witch hunt against a great number of people in this fandom.
Green, Xydexx's long-standing position has always been that "talking about a problem that affects the fandom's image HELPS ruin the fandom's image".
There's nothing "muckraking" about this story, not to anyone who bothers to check what the journalistic use of the term actually means. It means you're sensationalizing nastiness just to get better ratings.
In this case, NOT reporting on it would be a matter of trying to pretend it never happened. It could only be considered muckraking if Flayrah were to try and do something "extra-special" with the piece above and beyond its actual context --- and that has not been done.
There are no wagging fingers in this article, no editorial screeds, not even a slanted headline.
This is, simply put, NEWS.
On Mitch himself --- I am a very long-time friend of his. I was the preacher who "wedded" him and Minerva. I've seen most of what he's contributed to the fandom, and knew/know many of his friends and enemies alike...
...and NO ONE, not even the people who drew up and made hay out of unflattering animated caricatures of the man, thought he was a pedophile.
There are plenty of people in this fandom who draw animal characters who are specifically identified as children, engaged in every sexual habit and fetish known to man, who are routinely defended by prominent members of this fandom as NOT being pedophiles because "these aren't actual children". Mitch? He was never known as a prude, but also never known to draw anything younger than a teenager.
On basis of the limited information at hand? I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts --- literally --- that the "thousands of images" on his hard drive are furry characters with a sexy look to them, tagged by police and prosecutors looking for evidence as "Joe Camel" material.
It was successfully argued in court that a cartoon camel, by dint of BEING a cartoon camel, can be used to target children for promotion of a given subject. Sexy animal characters? A talented prosecutor can and most likely will say that these were created and distributed in order to lure children into a net of sexual predation, and that even if such predation never took place, the artwork itself is sufficient to qualify as "conspiracy to commit".
Turning a blind eye to this case is the worst thing this fandom could possibly do. We need to know, not as a matter of leaping to conclusions or vilifying Mitch like a mob with pitchforks, but because we need to be ready to respond to a legal issue that could very well mushroom into a witch hunt against a great number of people in this fandom.