That's because Weiner has no power base. As I understand it, before he was a congressman he had no job. He had no independent power base outside of his position in Congress.
It is not the same as sending the pictures to a group of second graders. If had deliberately uploaded these pics to a children's site, then yes it would be bad. But what he did was post it on his Twitter. How many second graders do you know visit politician's Twitter profiles? Putting pictures on the internet is not the same thing as exposing yourself on the street. If I'm a photographer and some of my portfolio includes nude photography and I put this on my blog, it is not the same as doing it in public. If a kid stumbles on my site... well that's not my problem. "Kids" are not supposed to be using a computer unattended anyways. There's plenty of porn ads or popups on various sites, such as certain file storage places or music download sites. Teenagers who can use a computer by themselves have probably already seen porn, so I doubt it will cause them to lose any sleep over it or cause their brains to explode. Besides, if a teen wants to see naked pics, all they have to do to see some pictures is to type "porn" in Google image search and disable safe search (even safe search doesn't filter 100% of "naughty" things). He's not a pedo. The age of consent is 17 in New York. Real pedos usually tend to target much younger ages and so far there is no indication he did this. The age of consent varies between states. Here in Canada it's 16 which is quite logical. After all, a 16 year old girl can do plenty of things that could cause disaster if done improperly like driving a car, flying a private plane, working in a chemical factory or construction site, etc. So I think she would be mature enough to talk about sex. Do you really think the following is true: 17 years and 364 days: DERP! HEEERRP!! 18 years old: e=mc2... I'm not sure about what exactly happened with the 17 year old girl. Was she a willing participant in the "naughty" talk? Wouldn't surprise me. A 17 year old is NOT a "kid". There are plenty of 17 year old who say they are 18 on dating sites. Heck, there are even 17 year old girls who have bought forged documents that say they are older so they could work as strippers or escorts. Since the age of consent is 17 in the state, he could have legally banged the girl if he wanted to. Think of it, you could get a 17 year old girlfriend and screw her brains out all you want... but if you talk dirty on MSN or send her a naughty picture then: "ZOMG!! ZOMG!!! Humanity will collapse!!!! Pedo!!! Die!! Worse than Hitler!!!!" While what he did may have been stupid, I don't really care much about it, nor will I all of a sudden hate him for it. At least he didn't pocket millions of dollars in bribes or use public funds to buy cocaine. I'm not sure what his political or social views were, but the only thing that would bother me is if he was of the "family values" type that preaches morality to everyone. Then it would make him a hypocrite. But if not.... bahh.... who cares.
Let me put it another way - Weiner exposing himself on Facebook and Twitter is EXACTLY the same as if Weiner did this live in an interview on any of the U.S. public television networks NBC, CBS, or ABC during normal family programming hours. For any of these, there is an expectation of PG-rated content. Children commonly use these mediums, so there is an excellent chance that a child that expects to see something else will be shocked by what they see. Parents may monitor their child's access, but parents won't expect these mediums to show anything inappropriate. As Mia wrote, it's the same as if he intended to expose himself to minors because any reasonable person can assume that minors are using these mediums.
99.99% of the public (including minors) would not have seen the pic Weiner mistakenly Twittered, if it had not been for the media. What do you feel about Andrew Breitbart for breaking this story with pics, and the media sensationalism of exposing these pics to the entire world? Weiner thought he was sending the underwear crotch pic privately, but accidently sent it publicly. If that constitutes exposing yourself to children, then, for the media to take the same pic, and expose it on a grand scale, worldwide on the Internet, what does that constitute? Weiner sent pics in private to women he met on the net, he admits, he had no way of knowing 100% if they were over 18 yrs., you would have to get their id for that. However, many have come forth- all adults. The only female they've found he spoke to underage was the 17 yr. old, but after investigation they've determined no inappropriate pics or conversation occurred.
Hmm... and yet it is perfectly fine for the daily news to show pictures of the Iraq war, complete with scenes of gunfights, blood splashed all over the streets, dismembered body parts, people burned to a crisp, etc. But showing the human body?!?! Aaaaaarrrghhhh!!!! How daaaaareeee you show something sooooooooo disgusting, right? Never mind the fact that there are plenty of very sexually suggestive magazine covers, fashion advertisements, beer ads, as well as music videos full of actors dry humping each other, etc. all over the place (not that I am opposed to that). Had this happened in Europe, I would doubt such a big hoopla would have happened over it. Heck, there are quite a few times that porn was accidentally shown on a German or Dutch TV during regular programming hours, such as on a TV shopping show where they were showing a television for sale and it was accidentally (or maybe not...) tuned into a porn channel. The presenters simply chuckled about it and changed the channel on the television for sale. Sure kids might have seen it. But there was no big scandal. No calls for anyone to be fired, jailed or executed. Let's face it. Kids have probably already seen what a human penis looks like. It can be found in encyclopedias, biology books, as well as in plenty of artwork found in museums. I remember when I was about 10 in elementary school, all we would do would be to chuckle, laugh and make jokes about it, nobody was shocked or outraged. None of us needed therapy, nobody that I know of became a serial killer, rapist, heroin junkie or genocidal dictator because we had seen a naked human body.
You forgot to factor in that Corwin is a Republican who takes any opportunity to shout down a Liberal, or ex Liberal politician. As we all do! The bloke did what many people do daily without breaking laws and without the press it would all be a non-event.
That's like saying it's O.K. to expose oneself on the TV program that gets low ratings. And you can't say "if it had not been for the media" because the media is what it is. The truth is, Twitter is a public forum and that is exactly what it is meant to be. Anyone who was a fan of the Congresshuman would have seen that pic. He broke the story. I don't see your point. I'm not a fan of Breitbart because I think he is yet another attention whore (same was Weiner), but from what I saw he handled the pictures well. I think Breitbart himself behaved like a pretentious arrogant clown, but he handled the pictures well. Well, you are making all this shit up. Major U.S. newspapers do not show "scenes of gunfights, blood splashed all over the streets, dismembered body parts, people burned to a crisp" yada yaday yada. If anyone did, they would be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. No. I'm definitely not a Republican. I supported Hillary Clinton for President and here in Mass. I voted for the late Ted Kennedy but AGAINST Kerry. I'm not against liberals, I'm against extremists from any side. I admit I lean to the right. And technically, Weiner was not subject to many of the same sexual harassment laws that we are because Congress and the President are exempt from workplace harassment laws. Isn't that nice I think if you check my record on this issue, you'll see that initially I thought Weiner did nothing wrong because there was no abuse of power. But he lied about a crime. He claimed that a felony was committed, but he rebuffed the FBI when they tried to investigate (as they are required to do). Weiner's seat became untenable when Pelosi stripped all his committee seats from him and and cut Weiner off from all of the Democrats fundraising. This ended Weiner's political career permanently.
The NY Post and the NY Daily News this morning are saying that while last week Weiner announced his resignation, he really didn't resign! Pelosi and Boehner are still waiting for Weiner to submit his resignation letter and there is no evidence that the letter is coming. Boy, Weiner really knows how to milk it!
Quite different. I would agree with you if he had posted this on the a Sesame Street or Pokemon forum... Twitter and Facebook are not aimed at, nor are they supposed to be used by anyone under 13. Anyways, how many second graders are so interested in American politics that they visit the social networking pages of politicians? They would probably not understand any of the content that's posted anyways. Teens that frequent social networking sites have probably already seen hundreds of gigabytes of pictures and vids that are much more "hardcore" than what Weiner posted up. And porn can be found in many places where its not expected either. This happens can happen if you got malware on your PC. There are also dozens of porn ads, adult friend finder ads and porn popups on torrents and "file sharing" sites that teens use to pirate the latest movies. And yet, no one kicks up a storm over these ads, or claims that it will corrupt these "poor little innocent angels that have never seen a penis in their lives"?
BM, sorry, but your argument does not hold water. As I already wrote, there are certain mediums where there is an expectation of PG-Rated content. Because, if you excuse Weiner's nude Twitter photos, then others will take it even further: see Police probe Twitter child abuse images.
So what you are saying is, it is perfectly acceptable if someone sends a picture of their "wiener" to your 13 year old daughter? Ok, gotcha.. Makes so much more sense now.
Does the internet change the world's morals ? Do morals change when people jump on the internet ? I like reminding people that those who condemn porno sites do not realize that it could be the site of their next door neighbor ( the person they see go to church every Sunday ).
I think we are confusing porn with a sexual predator that likes to send his winky through various social mediums to underage children... Its not about morals. Its about a six man that shows a similar profile to the likes of Ted Bundy.
PG content? Hmm... more like PG-13 at least. Any site that has user generated content on it can sometimes contain things that certain people may not like. Ever seen some of the language used on Facebook by certain people? Things like "Damn I'm gonna f**k up that c**k sucker and blow his f*****g head off!" are not too rare. And have you ever seen the graphics used by amateur rappers and DJs on social networks? Some of their promotional material has images that would border on soft core porn. What about the pranskters who post links to shock sites (Lemon party, Blue Waffle, etc) or to porn? Hence why children are not supposed to be on these sites unattended. As for the child abuse images, of course this is unacceptable. This shows children actually being abused and is much worse than some guy just posting his wiener. Obviously this is much worse, as direct physical harm is being done to these kids. No it's not. But if I had a 13 year old daughter, I would at least hope she would have the sense not to talk to a strange 40 something guy on Facebook. Anyways, what Wiener did was post the pictures publicly, he did not send it to a 13 year old. Yeah, this kind of hypocrisy is all too common. I always have a good chuckle when one of the "family values" guys gets seen leaving a gay club or gets caught spending government funds on escorts. Again, he did not send his pics directly to any kids. They were simply posted on his public profile. But if this is such a big deal, why are you not protesting against the World Naked Bike Ride or the Folsom Street Fair (Google them if you don't know what they are). What about all the beaches in Europe where nudity is tolerated? There is public nudity in all of these places and OMG kids can see someone's weiner there!! Similar profile to Ted Bundy? How? From what I know, Ted Bundy was a man who raped and killed women. Weiner did neither. Did Weiner ever physically assault anyone or state that he wanted to rape and kill?
I think you are exaggerating. I think that such language IS not only very rare on Facebook, but it's also a violation of their TOS. Hate speech and calls for violence are strictly against Facebook's Terms of Service ("You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence") It's also against Twitter's TOS ("You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others") Twitter doesn't censor any tweets; instead, anyone who violates TOS loses their account. Actually the problem I have with Facebook is that they claim ownership to anything you write and any pictures you post on their service.