you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 52 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Is the girl in question the one blurred out? And is he not touching her? How is that appropriate? It's not JUST the inappropriate sexual comment, but also TOUCHING of a minor, during a public meeting.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 56 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Yup, blurred out cause under the age of 18.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Since when is that a thing? Or they didn't want to be on the news.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago*

    Protecting the identity and privacy of victimised children is the default stance for journalists here in the UK. I just assumed that was true in most of the western world... Does Canada identify child victims in news articles then?

    The reason this girls been anonymised in this case is likely because she's already been objectified, and would be subject to further trolling/ harassment from people outraged with the situations outcome and looking for a target to blame.

    Just look at what happened to Virginia Guiffre, after publicly coming forward with her allegations she was subject to consistent death threats and harassment. Sparing anyone that situation seems merciful in my eyes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago

    They'd have to blur her because otherwise she'd be doxxed, and have incels claiming she's ugly and should be grateful that a man noticed her, and worse. As it is, her name is probably readily available and she is probably getting worse attention than the asshole who harrassed her.

  • source
  • parent