Clayton Cramer responds well to the National Review Online article that argues:
Why are we shocked by these images from Abu Ghraib, but when the victims are women (or gay men) the images are called pornography or “adult entertainment”? Why can we easily see the violations of human beings in one set of images, but miss it in others? What if the Iraqi men had been forced to smile, could we be convinced that there was a newly formed “publishing and film production” company in Baghdad instead of sexual abuse and humiliation being perpetrated?
Cramer (no fan of constitutional protection for pornography) quite sensibly points out that there’s a little difference of consent here. See his post for more details.
Comments are closed.