International Press Institute calls for Barbados to allow newspapers to publish child pornography

International_Press_Institute

Well… that’s exactly what  IPI executive director Alison Bethel McKenzie is calling for.

Same with the Association of Caribbean Mediaworkers.

For background, see BFP’s Barbados Nation News publishes child porn in quest for sales

7 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Culture & Race Issues, Freedom Of The Press

7 responses to “International Press Institute calls for Barbados to allow newspapers to publish child pornography

  1. robert ross

    BFP

    Your post is a total distortion of what was said in the two reports, You have begged all the questions. Rather sad really.

  2. BFP

    Beg to differ Robert. For if what the IPI wants is allowed, newspapers will be able to publish child porn without regard to the laws that govern everyone else.
    Nope, no way that is going to happen on this island.

  3. Ian Bourne

    … There is a popular suspicion among Barbadians how the Nation tends to favour the Barbados Labour Party now Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (this is not assisted by the fact certain former MP’s of the BLP are supposedly Nation shareholders) and thus the Courts and Police of the day are considered to be performing similar yet apparently legalised roles comparable to Eric Gairy‘s Mongoose Gang or Duvalier Sr & Jr‘s Tonton Macoute?

    Is it a clandestine move to suppress the Media before they get too uppity and decide to discern the truth for a change, as Barbados hits tougher times including the latest downgrade – is this move a subtle yet pre-emptive strike designed to cow the 4th Estate in case they choose to finally perform their correct duties in Bim? As it is now? Two media houses (print & radio) favour whoever places Ads (How many rapped Barbados fast-food emporium Chefette on the knuckles for removing old mahogany trees in Holetown to build a branch which has since disappeared?), while two entities (print & video) favour whosoever resides at Bay Street.

  4. robert ross

    But BFP….it is you who are labeling the pic “child porn” in advance of the decision, But is it? And why is it? And what of s. 4, Child Protection Act? Yes, let the charges ring a warning not to abuse press freedom – but without that we are lost. What I find objectionable in the post is the facile conclusion about the two reports. “Supports child pornography” is simply silly – and inaccurate – and, for me, irresponsible journalism. It’s moral posturing is rooted in prejudice not argument.

  5. Anonymous

    Ian. You have hit the nail on the head. The charges brought were exactly that, designed to keep the media in place & under control & discourage them from asking the real questions that require the del answers. This is the beginning of “cracking heads & shooting some people”. Next stop, the People of Barbados.

  6. Mac

    Ian. You have hit the nail on the head. The charges brought were exactly that, designed to keep the media in place & under control & discourage them from asking the real questions that require the del answers. This is the beginning of “cracking heads & shooting some people”. Next stop, the People of Barbados.

  7. just want to know

    If a M of G can do this & make lots of money from it, yet what is all the talk about ? What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. The voters of Barbados think so. So who will protect the innocent ?