H
Pomposity be damned. The specific characters involved are irrelevant
Are you saying that it's ok for someone in a position of power...i.e. psychological power to abuse that power.
I would suggest you are ignoring some fundamental issues.

An imbalance in power, capacity to make an informed decision and duty of care.
By your reasoning any parent can pass all three to a third party and thereby indemnifying themselves.
Good luck with them under law.
I think the 'crew' ignored all of the above.

H, your reasoning negates 40K years of social development. I suggest you read with a more critical mind rather than Examinator = pomposity= crap....I am simply looking a little wider at the implications of the 'crews'' predatory actions.

Say for example I turned out to be your child's boss and I decided to play a game with their future because I can would I set them up . Theirs/Your compliance is assured because I lead you both to believe it will be in their/your interests. ( agreement) Yet because of my greater experience and my power I know it will be entertaining for me but probably disastrous for you both. Ask yourself are my actions acceptable or not?
KS at al have a duty of care under the assumption that in their experience these people would trust them (an expert).

I don't see that advocating the golden rule(enlightened self interest) is either pompous or cause for ridicule.

If I'm pompous I could level that your reasoning is paper thin/indifferent to others and based on "I'm alright jack."

pontificator,

'Pomposity be damned. '
Then damned you will be.

'By your reasoning any parent can pass all three to a third party and thereby indemnifying themselves.'
Exactly the opposite. The mother or guardian is responsible for the child. Pretty simple really.

As to the rest, it's no surprise to me that you aren't brave enough to answer my questions or examine your prejudice. Your use of 'predatory' is a good hint. As is the fact that you believe there was a 'set up'. You have no proof at all, it's all based on your opinion of the people involved and your likening of any commercial venture with the devils work. Well I say the Devil has a pretty easy job if his bait consists of a free holiday. You talk about the greed of the broadcaster, and totally ignore the greed of the mother.

'probably disastrous for you both.'
As I said, go sit in the line with the other masters of hindsight.

'I don't see that advocating the golden rule(enlightened self interest) is either pompous or cause for ridicule.'
It is when used selectively.

"I'm alright jack."
I am alright, and that is my responsibility. I take no responsibility for a mother who not only decides she wants to use her child for a free holiday, but encourages her to reveal her sexual history to get it. The providers of the medium are neither here nor there either. I fully endorse the law to intervene on my behalf as a citizen, and do what's best for the child.

But you keep on banning things that have any potential for risk. I know which world I'd rather live in. Your Nanny state no personal responsibility attitude is indicative of a lot that is wrong with the society you despise, constantly likening it to faeces, excrement and such as you do with human nature.

As Pericles said,

"It will be very generally found that those who will sneer habitually at human nature, and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant samples." Charles Dickens

Pontificator “The free speech argument is a red herring.”

That is the common excuse made by those who do not understand the underlying principle of “free speech”, “freedom of the press” and the insidious use of censorship by those who would seek to control us from their lofty heights of their bureaucratic rarity, usurping their position of “Servant” (civil or otherwise) and anointing themselves “Master”

Actually, pontificator, I recall you and your little committee of self appointed arbiters of OLO taste trying to censor the free exchange of views of other posters in the past, so it is understandable why you lay scorn on one of the cherished principles defended by those who have actually lived lives based on principles throughout history .

As to “The subject matter isn't the issue it is both the method and the motive.”

Hmmm strange

Whilst the method.. bring a child into a studio, with her mother and get the mother to then freely questions her daughter, seems to lack any guile or hidden agenda, I would have thought

The “motive” was a subjective issue … and indistinguishable to the “subject matter”

“Clearly Societies exist for mutual protection, greater than the sum of its parts or else at what point do WE become expendable for the amusement/interests of someone more powerful?”

Yes that is why freedom of individual expression is a cherished RIGHT.

Because when it is abandoned, in the manner you have abandoned it, then the interests of someone more powerful are more likely to prevail.. just ask Hitler and Stalin..

If you control freedom of speech, you control your critics.

I further refer you to the poem by pastor Martin Niemöller,
Fortunately, we still have “freedom of speech and expression” along with free access to the internet (until Obersturmbannführer Conroy censors that current freedom (as an the act of a maniacal fascist minded socialist), so you can still look it up for yourself

Houellebecq,
“we must start thinking in terms of morality'
Whose morality?”

And

“'at what point do WE become expendable for the amusement/interests of someone more powerful?'
We never do, if we choose not to expose ourselves for concert tickets.

I leave you now to enjoy your dreams of a Nanny State utopia.”

yes you are definitely a libertarian in the making..

My congratulations H… it is all part of personal growth and development and why some wars have been fought :- )

H and Col,

my bad I did get one thing wrong I meant to say that just because a parent OKs something that doesn't necessarily indemnify the third party. There remains a duty of care. and knowledge of the third party whether all pertinent facts were disclosed and if the acceptee had the capacity to understand the facts as disclosed. Issue like expertise also come into play. That is the basis of consumer affairs legislation.

By your reasoning your approval for a 3rd party to assault your under age daughter would indemnify the 3rd party . Both of you are culpable

BTW these aren't my laws or principals these are yours too unless you believe yourselves above the law.

None of us have ALL the relevant FACTS all Therefore all we can do sensibly is talk in principal. As such the specific personalities and the actual substance are side issues court is the place for them.

I am now as always, expressing an opinion all I have done that is different to you is point out what I understand are associated implications and or considerations that would have some bearing (in this specific, in a court case) oh yes avoiding name calling etc.

The reference of under age sex is in the context of FoS is a furphy.
Issues like methodology, motive have a bearing particularly the well-being of a minor (again not my law).

Is it sneering to acknowledge that not all people have the same knowledge experience which can (not exclusively) be as a result of conditions and lack of opportunity out of their control.

I am as always uncomfortable with what tantamounts to opinions based on emotional bias . Particularly ones that ignore important contextual issues or purport to represent inalienable rights (of the knowing) versus the forgone of the unknowing.

Whose morality? Good point. Do I suggest the golden rule is a good place to start. This is the basis of civilised society. Respect for the laws and their underlying principals also come to mind.

Excuse me gentlemen, if I could just slip in here. Adults have certain freedoms and responsibilities and one is the protection and care of children, this is something we have been doing for 40,000 years (I got this number from you guys). Some don’t manage it and because the damage can be done to an innocent, especially in the case where an innocent has low brow parents, then the rest of society came up with err... laws?

And maybe a Nanny State is something that should operate in regards to our children. Maybe the whole “Nanny” thing makes sense for kids.

Freedom of speech and other freedoms are for the adults and should be for adults and a freedom chosen for only the individual adult embracing it and not chosen for a child, their own or anybody elses.

Now how do you make this not go too far – children and the media... ANNA PAQUIN starred in “The Piano” but couldn’t watch it for years due to the rating. What if she actually decided when older the movie shamed her in some way? Damage done, oops.

Now, slightly off base; this 14 year old girl, if she had a baby due to her “experiences” do we let her keep it? Does she get single mothers benefit and become independent? Get to make choices for her child? Do we say yes to this because she is now officially acknowledged as “parent”?