I am including a copy of Cohen?s column, my response, and ?The Ethicist?s? reply to me:
>
>Q: I am an Internet technician. While installing software on my
>company's computer network, I happened on a lot of pornographic
>pictures in the president's personal directory, including some of young
>children - clearly less than 18, possibly early teens. It is probably
>illegal and is absolutely immoral. Must I call the police? I think so, but I need my job.
>
>S.M.N., Vancouver, British Columbia
>
>A: It is a crime to possess child pornography, and understandably: The
>sexual exploitation of children is reprehensible. Yet you have no legal
>obligation to contact the police, nor should you. The situation is too
>fraught with uncertainty. These photographs might depict - legally -
>not children but young-looking adults. The images could be digitally altered.
>Your boss may have acquired free (albeit illegal) images rather than
>bought them and provided a financial incentive to those who harm
>children. Someone other than your boss may have downloaded the pictures.
>
>In any case, while protecting your job should not forestall your
>calling the police, the consequences of doing so should. Even if your
>boss were acquitted of criminal charges, the accusation itself imperils
>his job, his reputation and the company. If convicted, he faces years
>in prison. (Arizona recently sentenced a man to 200 years on similar
>grounds.) Since you have no reason to believe your boss has had
>improper contact with children, you should not subject him to such
>ferocious repercussions for looking at forbidden pictures.
>
>Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University and an
>expert on sentencing, describes the rationale for these laws: "We
>punish the kind of possession many concede is not inherently harmful
>but which contributes to behavior which produces much harm." That is,
>by stopping buyers, even those who have had no contact with an actual
>child, we hope to stop sellers, who do exploit children. Is this
>effective? Tough to prove. Berman observes
>that: "The criminalization of child porn consumption is premised on
>contestable utilitarian calculations."
>
>Why not target child-porn producers directly, much as we differentiate
>drug dealers from drug users? We try, Berman explains, but it's not
>easy: "A lot of these Web sites are offshore. And the domestic ones are
>good at covering their tracks." But if the intent of the law is
>estimable, its effect in this case would be too destructive to your
>boss and too ineffectual in protecting children for you to abet.
>
>You do have duties to your employer. Because this material is on its
>computer, the firm risks prosecution. But short of calling the cops,
>your options are few. Nor would deleting the pictures eliminate all
>legal risk; that could be seen as destroying evidence. Your best
>recourse? Alas, silence.
>
>.Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to
>ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in The New York Times Magazine.
>
>Below is my first response:
>
>Randy Cohen:
>
> Your Dec. 3ird column was horribly disappointing. All the people
>I've asked about what they thought of it could hardly believe that you wrote it.
>The writer was not asking for any of the legal advice, but guidance on
>what would be a moral decision. Legal or not, those images were created
>for the gratification of pedophiles. Only a trained investigator could
>make a judgment of legality. You are not a lawyer. You are also
>absolutely unqualified to judge whether or not unknown consequences to
>the boss justify protecting him from an investigation that may well be
>protective of his business. The boss and law enforcement (we the
>people) have a 100% right to a full investigation. Additionally,
>neither you nor the writer knows whether or not the images may be vital
>to an ongoing investigation. In spite of your unconvincing
>acknowledgements regarding the unforgivable crimes of child abuse, it
>was clear you favored covering for a perpetrator, whomever he happened
>to be or do, over the rights of children not to be violated and
>exploited. It was ridiculous to propose the fact (?) that the writer
>did not himself know whether or not his boss or anyone else had abused
>a child as an excuse for "silence". The writer cannot be expected to personally investigate such a possibility.
>
>Legal or not, we are all morally obligated to report child pornography,
>whether you disagree with the laws and consequences of downloading
>child pornography or not. If the writer indeed uncovered the boss's
>ugly little secret, and then got canned for it, there are very good
>legal remedies to protect and compensate the writer from the vengeance
>of whomever the pedophile is.
>
>Mr. Cohen, you're a dad. You should be passionately advocating any and
>all methods used to identify and persecute pedophiles, even the ones who "only"
>view child pornography.
>
>Below is Cohen's response to my letter:
>
>Thanks for the interesting note. Of course the sexual exploitation of
>children is vile; I wrote as much in my first sentence. The more
>difficult question is how to respond to those who do not produce but
>consume it. I believe that child porn producers should be vigorously
>prosecuted but that its consumers should receive a more therapeutic
>response. Sadly, that is not the case.Reporting this in-house amounts to passing the buck, letting someone
>else send the boss to prison for looking at an illegal picture.
>However, in S.M.N's particular case, this is a very small company
>owned by the person who seems to have the child porn, so that limits
>the options S.M.N. has and obviates those measures you suggest. But
>even if this were a larger company and there were higher-ups to whom he
>could report it, he should still be reluctant to do so because the
>consequences to the boss and his family are, as I wrote, likely to be
>wildly disproportional to any actual harm he'd done and would have a vanishingly small chance of protecting any child.
>If you can think of another action S.M.N. could take that might do some
>genuine good, I'd be happy to hear about it. But to me, the unwise laws
>concerning child porn consumers foreclose any action on his part. It
>is demoralizing to do nothing in such a situation but worse still to do harm.
>
>RC