1) Does that make all of the pro-sex underagers wrong too?
2) Should we be anti-sex in regards to underagers?
3) What is an underager?
4) What do we do with all of these sexual underagers that we already have? Some states have started putting them on sex-offender registries…is that the right approach?
5) At what age should we start being pro-sex towards other people?
6) Should we be equally sex-negative to a 3 y/o underager and a 15 y/o underager?
7) How do we stop sites like these…ones that you declare “pro-underage sex”…from creating horny, sex obsessed and lustfull underagers as it seems they have done for the last several thousand years…strangely enough…before the printed word even existed. Is it that this site is pro-underage sex or possibly that it is pro-discussion and anti-willful ignorance regarding a reality that already exists?

man…i could come up with several more…maybe you can help me out with those though.

Your point about Eichenwald was well made. Of course we cannot condemn him for getting involved, but, then again, we have to ask on what basis does he get excused legally when he had to have broken the law.

NPR has a republican head but is hardly a pro-republican radio network. Rather the opposite, speaking as a centrist. And, taking the point further, jury members in liberal counties in California are as unwilling as juries drawn from conservative populations to listen to reason about accusations of child sex abuse according to a high-profile defense attorney from California that I know.

That is what you see here with NPR, not a “right-wing conspiracy”, but a total surrender of both sides of the political aisle and the news media to the hysteria generated around the problem.

For Jo Ann Clair: “This site looks pro-underage sex…and that is so wrong”.

Well, gee, that would depend on your definition of underage sex. 14 years old or 16? 10 or 17?

And how, in your mind, would a site that asked the question about Eichenwald be pro-underage sex?

Reminds me of so many controversies in the US such as gun control. You are either supposed to be for banning all guns or lifting all restrictions.

No place for the middle ground,and always the assumption that if you oppose one side in any way, you are automatically for the opposite side of a controversy. People who react this way have abandoned reason.

This site does look like pro-underage sex anyway… and that is so wrong.

Alice, to answer your questions:

Arnold Friedman took an overdose of prescribed heart medication while in prison and died. His death was ruled a suicide, though some in his family dispute that. Seth prefers not to be associated with the film, so I will not give details about his life; it is a private one. Mrs. Friedman is remarried. Jesse is fighting his conviction and was recently granted a hearing on a motion to overturn his conviction, based on evidence that at least some of the children who accused him were hypnotized during therapy sessions held in conjunction with the accusations. The New York Times ran an article on these efforts a few days ago.
I am on the board of the National Center for Reason and Justice (NCRJ), the “innocence project” I mentioned above. NCRJ began sponsoring Jesse’s innocence claim after “Capturing the Friedmans” came out. The group collects money for his appeal. He is being represented by Ron Kuby, a prominent attorney in New York City. You can contribute to Jesse’s appeal fund by going to NCRJ’s website: http://www.ncrj.com

As for your question: what do we do when witch hunting (what I often call “moral panic”) grows in the US? Everyone has his or her own way of responding. But in a nutshell, I think we need to support every democratic process we can that helps get objective, in-depth information to people. In any age and any country, moral panic and hysteria erupt from deep wellsprings of social anxiety. The springs these days are charged by cynical politicians and by media more out to make a buck than produce truthful, useful information. So we have to challenge the politicians and yellow journos, at the same time we try to find out as much as we can about the world, in order to quell our irrational fears about things that go bump in the night.

PS: Lately I’ve been getting posts from people who sent them with fake email addresses. My blog is comment-moderated, and I often edit posts after letting senders know beforehand that I’m doing this. I will not post comments sent with fake email addresses — or for which writers don’t respond if I contact them. Also, I do not post comments that I think are potentially libelous. Thanks. DN

I’m glad to see your response to the NPR piece. I found Folkenflik’s bias actually fairly shocking, first because I have always relied on NPR as a source of even-handed information, and second because the degree of emotionalism Eichenwald displayed during the interview seemed to me to be seriously over the top.

Eichenwald seemed to be attempting to claim some higher moral ground for himself in his insistence that he was just saving an innocent boy from a life of depravity. Neither the extent of his involvement or the questionability of getting that involved in the first place were questioned.

Ugh. Just….ugh.

I left email on the NPR site telling them pretty much just what I told you, along with a comment that they had pretty seriously misrepresented your role in these events.

Best of luck and regards to you. I continue to admire your work.

Maybe we ought to ask Folkenflik whether he likes red or white with his red herring.