Salon published an opinion piece headlined "Why I Need to See Child Porn" by Debbie Nathan on Aug. 25. The story argued that under child pornography laws, Nathan and other journalists and researchers had no protection from prosecution if they viewed visual depictions of child pornography, even inadvertently, in the course of their work. In fact, federal law does offer some legal protection for journalists and other researchers. An "affirmative defense" may exist that would protect such work under certain circumstances, and the opinion asserted by Nathan that her work, and the work of other journalists, would constitute a violation of the law was inaccurate.
Salon regrets the error and has removed the article from the site.
Shares