See, I want wronged child authors publicised, circulated more into public knowledge as an issue. Exposed as an issue. The world is still too oblivious, and that is a further abuse of every victim.
There is a site on youth mental health, with health links on it, that I have succeeded in getting to remove their link to Luke Jackson's notorious F+G. I had put to them the damage and emotional wrong done to abuse survivors if any book attributed to a child author is publicised without publicising that wronged child authors exist.
I say attributed because the Times of 16 Aug 2002, among other profiles, revealed that it was not an unaided child author work at all, as it was structured into a book by his mother and would not exist without that.
Getting the link wiped is better than not doing anything, it's a success to count as necessary - but it's not what I actually wanted. What I wanted was to get wronged child authorship mentioned on their site, publicised to a further audience. They had an obvious logical duty to do that after they had had the Jackson book link on their site for some finite period. They could have kept the link so long as they told about wronged child authors.
Instead: "I’m sorry for any anguish this has caused by including this link on our website. At the time of producing the content for this page we were linking to information and resources we thought would be useful for our audiences. Following your concerns this information has now been removed so as not to cause any further distress."
Kindly put, but - this is more of that terrible human problem of avoiding responsibility for facts, avoiding taking positions. They have chosen avoidance of the whole thing, instead of the act of compassionate help to hurt wronged oppressed kids, the action of actually passing on the word about wronged child authors.
You pass on the word.
Maurice Frank
There is a site on youth mental health, with health links on it, that I have succeeded in getting to remove their link to Luke Jackson's notorious F+G. I had put to them the damage and emotional wrong done to abuse survivors if any book attributed to a child author is publicised without publicising that wronged child authors exist.
I say attributed because the Times of 16 Aug 2002, among other profiles, revealed that it was not an unaided child author work at all, as it was structured into a book by his mother and would not exist without that.
Getting the link wiped is better than not doing anything, it's a success to count as necessary - but it's not what I actually wanted. What I wanted was to get wronged child authorship mentioned on their site, publicised to a further audience. They had an obvious logical duty to do that after they had had the Jackson book link on their site for some finite period. They could have kept the link so long as they told about wronged child authors.
Instead: "I’m sorry for any anguish this has caused by including this link on our website. At the time of producing the content for this page we were linking to information and resources we thought would be useful for our audiences. Following your concerns this information has now been removed so as not to cause any further distress."
Kindly put, but - this is more of that terrible human problem of avoiding responsibility for facts, avoiding taking positions. They have chosen avoidance of the whole thing, instead of the act of compassionate help to hurt wronged oppressed kids, the action of actually passing on the word about wronged child authors.
You pass on the word.
Maurice Frank
No comments:
Post a Comment