In your April 18 editorial, "Victimless porn," supporting the U.S. Supreme Court's unfortunate decision on virtual child pornography, you stated: "Since no actual children are used in these pornographic scenes, there are no child victims whose rights have been violated."
Wrong. Even if these are computer generated images, they violate every child. And The Chronicle is now on the side of the violators. If the image looks like a child, it satisfies the urges of child pornography users.
My grandmother used to say, "You can tell someone's character by the company they keep." Adult Video News, the official trade magazine of the porn movie industry, gave the Supreme Court a high-five for its ruling, and The Chronicle jumps in with a "Me, too." The editorial position of this newspaper continues to move away from conservative values, far away from values it once held.
Here's another example.: On May 30, 2001, in an editorial entitled, "Scouting for sense," you commented on congressional support of the Boy Scouts' ban of homosexuals from its ranks. You said, "The Boy Scouts based its ban on its belief system that considers, fairly or not, homosexuality to be immoral."
If you believed the homosexual lifestyle is, in fact, immoral, the phrase "fairly or not" would never have been included. By using that phrase you underhandedly attacked Scouting's position that "a Scout is morally straight."
Little by little The Chronicle's editorial positions are attacking this community's standards ...
David Sisler, Augusta