Some “Experts”Just Figured Out That Exploiting One’s Children Online Is Wrong and Bad For Them [Links Corrected]

Where’s that woodchipper? I’m thinking about sending a copy of “The New Face of Child Labor?” in The Harvard Gazette to child actor advocate Paul Petersen, but I’m afraid the essay will send him to a woodchipper too.

Leah Plunkett, the Meyer Research Lecturer on Law and a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, is the author of the book “Sharenthood” (What a cute title! Yecchh!) warning of the risks of parents sharing their children’s lives online. She’s also the reporter for the Uniform Law Commission’s Child Digital Entertainers Act drafting committee. Hillary Robinson, an associate professor of law and sociology at Northeastern University School of Law, is the principal investigator on a National Science Foundation research project on the digital platform economy. Both have suddenly had a “Eureka!” moment and want to let the world know that putting one’s kids’ images and activities online for all to see forever might not be responsible parenting.

Ya think? Ethics Alarms has been beating that particular metaphorical drum repeatedly over more than a decade.* A recent post (2024) on the topic is here. This is the Harvard Gazette today (in part) reporting on this sudden discovery as if the perpetual motion machine had finally been invented, beginning like this:

“A mother posts her toddler’s first steps on Instagram. Children gather around the kitchen counter to help their father make sourdough bread in a YouTube video. On TikTok, a young gymnast performs a backflip atop a balance beam. These intimate snapshots of family life may look spontaneous and wholesome, but they are also often the raw material of a $30 billion (or more) influencer industry — one in which children’s lives are packaged, promoted, and monetized, often by their own parents. When does sharing family life online become child labor — and what protections do children have when it does?”

My answers of long-standing: 1) Immediately, and 2) Ethics literacy, if the parents have any, and most don’t.

But those aren’t the two experts’ answers. They muse “whether a child being paid to play with a toy on camera should be regulated like manual labor in a factory,” pose “the alarming parallels between influencer culture and the adult entertainment industry,” and ponder “the real-world harms that can result when images and video of children are posted online — either by themselves or by adults.” Then—and here’s the path progressives follow as surely as night follows day, the two professors wonder “what what policymakers can do today to better protect kids.” They ask, “Does the platform economy upend one of contract law’s most basic assumptions? Traditionally, mutual assent precedes production. Online, however, people may create the product, generate its value, and expose themselves to its risks long before any contract — or meaningful consent — exists.”

Ugh. I answered those questions 16 years ago when PBS was peddling the child exploitation and abuse “reality show” “Kate and Jon plus 8.” That show’s EA dossier is here. The current social media abuse of children is the same social contagion, just on a different platform and a far more widespread infection. I was substantially guided in my posts by the genuine expert on the subject of show biz child labor exploitation Paul Petersen, my friend who was a famous child star himself.

Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias! [Corrected]

The amazing part is that they are so shameless about it! Can you imagine the Axis media calling the J-6 riot—which lasted a single day—“mostly peaceful” based on all the video showing protesters casually touring the Capitol while the physical confrontations were going on? Even the conservative media didn’t try to spin the protest-turned-riot as “peaceful.”

In 2021, as the George Floyd Freakout, the BLM scam and The Great Stupid spread their dark wings over the land, CNN national correspondent Omar Jimenez was reporting live on the violent rioting taking place in Kenosha, Wissonsin  following the police-involved shooting of Jacob Blake…who absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably provoked it and got it.

[Notice of Correction (and my stupid mistake): I carelessly wrote “fatal” with “shooting” while describing ever so briefly the Jacob Blake affair. That one, of course, was the one police-involved-shooting where the perp survived. I didn’t check my own sources, including EA, because the details were irrelevant to the reference. Stupid, as I said.]

Standing in front of a raging fire, Jimenez was accompanied by the fake news chyron at the bottom of the screen reading, “FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING.” The moment became an iconic example of Axis media dishonesty and spin, and rightly so. “The phrase ‘beyond parody’ doesn’t begin to describe this,” conservative commentator Matt Walsh said. “Clowns. Irresponsible clowns. It’s not even funny. Months of enabling violence and destruction by ignoring and downplaying it, thereby eliminating any pressure on politicians to take action,” conservative writer A.G. Hamilton reacted.

Naturally, the Axis news media—the Times, the Post, PBS, the rest— circled the wagons and featured no criticism or even mention of CNN’s mendacity. And now, here is the BBC, pretending that kind of gaslighting is “independent journalism,” doing the exact same thing again as if it is competent reporting.

Over to you, Frank Drebbin…

New York City’s Ethics Horse Carriage Wreck

The famous “Dancing in the Dark” number from “The Bandwagon” (one of Fred’s best) ends with Fred Astaire and the ethereal Cyd Charrise seamlessly collapsing in to a horse-drawn Central Park carriage. Can’t have that! New York’s communist mayor Zohran Mamdani (“There’s your party! There’s your party!”) has accomplished what New York City’s previous communist mayor Bill DeBlasio couldn’t. The New York City Council voted on last week to ban horse-drawn carriage rides from Central Park in two years.

Why? Because they could. Because a progressive constituency, albeit a wacko one, had been trying to put the Central Park carriage ride drivers out of business for decades: it’s cruelty to animals, see. It’s so much better to have those horses end up as dog food and their owners on Welfare. Anyway, it’s the principle of the thing.

Let’s look at the ethics elements in play:

Uenthical—But Funny!—Quote of the Month: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn/Somalia)

“Not to my knowledge.”

Rep. Omar actually said this on live TV after asked by MSNOW mega-hack Chris Hayes whether she married her brother as part of the tangled web of fraud and lies the anti-American “Squad” member is accused of creating. Wow. Is she setting up a Luke and Leia defense? Hayes asked, “You’re not related to him at all?” “Not to my knowledge,” she replied.

That’s Omar’s lawyer banging his head against the wall above.

Omar also called allegations that she married her brother “insane”and then gave that hilarious answer. Allegations that Omar and her ex, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, got married in a failed effort to get him a green card are all the inventions of “right-wing conspiracy theorists,” the Congresswoman insisted in her first interview since federal agents raided her Washington, D.C. home last week.

Omar then told Hayes she was living “paycheck to paycheck,” when Hayes asked about documents in which Omar seemed to say she and her current husband had a combined net-worth of some $30 million. That was just a mistake, she said. “I have a Toyota Camry that’s from 2016. It’s our only car. I rent my DC place and my Minneapolis place, and so I mean, I don’t know, that sounds like not the majority of Congress, but there’s some of us that don’t come from wealth and don’t have wealth,” she insisted.

There are reports that many voters are ignoring true accounts of statements and conduct by Democrats running in the mid-terms because they can’t believe what they are reading and hearing. Omar’s answers about marrying her brother and making the “mistake” of estimating her wealth at $30 million when she must really have to shop at Costco make this phenomenon completely plausible.

Finally, regarding Hayes: I watched the interview so you don’t have to. This is journalism to MSNOW: Hayes talks to Omar in an obsequious, sympathetic, “you poor dear, how terribly you have been treated” manner that is the opposite of putting a politician on the “hot seat.” Putting her in a comfy chair while getting a foot massage and yummy snacks would be more accurate. This is how Axis journalists “speak truth to power” now when they are speaking to progressives and Democrats. My mind flashed back to Katie Couric on “Today” grilling Ross Perot like he was Beelzebub and Tim Russert interviewing Louis Farrakhan like Perry Mason cross-examining a witness he was trying to make confess to a murder. Quite a contrast.

Ethics Dunce: “The Diplomat” and Everyone Associated With The Netflix Series

Inexcusable.

Unforgivable.

I have watched Netflix’s “The Diplomat” for four seasons now, and until the last episode of the latest season, I would have recommended it to anyone as well-written, well-acted, and consistently entertaining, dramatic and interesting.

However, in the last part of that final episode, which I watched tonight, the script repeatedly indicated that if the Vice-President of the United States didn’t please the President, the President would “get rid of him.”

That’s impossible. The VP, even an appointed VP (confirmed by the Senate as in the case of Hal, “The Diplomat’s” husband) cannot be fired or replaced by POTUS.

Stuff like this is why the public is so absurdly ignorant about the Constitution and our government, and is so vulnerable to misinformation from elected officials and aspiring candidates.

Shame on everyone associated with the show for allowing “The Diplomat” to make Americans more civically obtuse than they already are thanks to our miserable education system. Especially blameworthy is Keri Russell, the star and executive producer. Bradley Whitford and Allison Janney spent all those years on “The West Wing,” and I would think they’d know better. Apparently not. Rupert Sewell (Hal, the Veep) is British, so I’ll give him a pass.

I thought the final scene in Brian DePalma’s “The Untouchables” where Al Capone’s lawyer pleads guilty while his client protests (and after the judge switches juries with a different trial after evidence and testimony has been given) was the most unforgivable example of a script flagrantly distorting the law and procedure. It probably still is the winner, but “The Diplomat’s” imaginary Presidential power is close.

Unethical Quotes of the Month: President Trump and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries

First Trump’s…

Now Jeffries….

“Well, it’s an extraordinary insult, but he continues to repeat it. And what’s so ironic is that Donald Trump is clearly the dumbest person ever to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…”

Jeffries was talking to the execrable Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNOW so of course there was no push-back. Such a classy exchange between a President and a Congressional leader! “You’re stupid!” “Oh yeah? Well you’re stupider!” I can just imaging Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun talking to each other like that.

Actually I can’t. Those career-long adversaries has respect for the positions they held, our institutions, and, yes, each other. They also understood the importance of civility.

Donald Trump’s penchant for stooping to ad hominem attacks is another one of his obnoxious and self-destructive habits. I wish someone would explain to him that “IQ” does not mean “intelligence” and that it is ignorant, indeed stupid, to think so. I’d bet at some point Trump’s IQ was tested, probably as a kid, registered in the relatively high range, and his parents or teachers told him it meant something. (My father told me that what proved one’s intelligence was what you did, not how you scored on a test.) The President has always been obsessed with ratings, scores and numbers (“Subscriptions way down!). Heck, if I used that to measure the value of my life, I would have killed this blog years ago. Maybe myself too.

You could excuse Trump a bit, especially given his “tit for tat” reflex, for resorting to ad hominem since his political foes constantly use the practice. Trump is fat, he’s orange, his hair is weird, he’s nuts, he’s demented, he’s stupid. It’s still no excuse for him returning fire in kind. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that Hakeem Jeffries is “low IQ.” He had an impressive academic record, he was a law review editor in law school and graduated at the top of his class, clerked for a judge and was a corporate litigator before entering politics.

Why Does Katie Zacharia Still Have Her Job? [Update: She Doesn’t!]

UPDATE: Literally minutes after I posted this, I saw reports that she is “transitioning” out of the White House Press Secretary role. Good.]

***

There’s no excuse for this.

The new details on the latest White House paid liar’s misrepresentation of herself as a “lawyer” or “attorney” make her (and the decision to appoint her) appear worse and worse; she’s either a fraud or an idiot. In either case, she has lost all credibility. A paid liar must have credibility, as strange as that sounds.

Katie Zacharia confirmed yesterday that she had never passed a bar exam or and has never been an “attorney.”Then she claimed that she had not misrepresented her legal career by saying she “is” a lawyer. As I have explained already, she’s not. If many members of the public—you know, morons—think that a JD or LLB degree means one is a lawyer, that doesn’t excuse the holder of a law degree thinking or saying that. “Lawyer” means one can act as a lawyer—Duh!—and a mere law school graduate cannot. It is against the law for such a person to practice law, which is what lawyers do—again duh.

In interviews with The New York Times and Real America’s Voice, Zacharia said she had consulted Pepperdine’s president and “others” about how to describe her qualifications before appearing on television, and was told she could use the term “lawyer,” but not “attorney” or “esquire.” Zacharia hasn’t said which “president of Pepperdine” advised her. She graduated from law school there in 2011. Andrew K. Benton was the university’s president at that time. In 2019, Jim Gash became the president told the Times that he was not the one who advised her, though he did call her “a young woman of high integrity.” You know, a a young woman of high integrity who represented herself a lawyer without having a law license. Gash’s representative said “he does not comment on private conversations,” but a statement from Gash said: “Pepperdine is proud to count Katie among our alumni, former colleagues and friends. As she takes on this significant responsibility, we pray that God will grant her wisdom and courage. We look forward to seeing her use her incredible gifts and extensive experience in service to our nation.”

Got it. A non-responsive answer. A law degree from Pepperdine isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, and the school’s presidents are cowards and suck-ups.

Unethical Quote of the Week: James Talarico

“The Bible is silent on the issue of abortion.”

Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Texas James Talarico, in response to a questioner (a Catholic theology professor) during CNN’s “town hall” featuring the Texas House member and divinity school student (he has yet to graduate despite starting at the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 2018.

The answer was appropriately contradicted by the questioner, Jody Hunt, who shot back, “I just want to add that the Bible is not silent on abortion. There is the 10 Commandments: ‘Thou shall not kill.” She added, “And as Catholics, we take great insult, I guess sometimes, when [the Bible is] described that way.”

It didn’t take a theology professor to come up with that response: a relatively astute 12-year-old who has seen “The Ten Commandments” should be able to do it. Talarico’s answer is not only a lie, it’s offensive. This is the “invisible baby” dodge again. No one, nothing, is being killed! Abortion just involves the woman. It’s a choice, not a killing!

Talarico lied and flip-flopped throughout the session, with no push-back from the moderators. (“This is CNN!”) He denied saying that he wanted to abolish ICE, but Talarico is on video saying “It is time to tear down this secret police force.” Asked about the SAVE America Act, he said that he didn’t know enough about the bill to have a firm opinion about it. In August, he said, again on video, “With the SAVE Act, they are trying to rob our neighbors, strictly our black neighbors, of those God given rights.”

That’s a lie too. Just as Bernie Sanders assured radical progressives that Kamala Harris was just pretending to be moderate to get elected and then would show her true colors (you know, like “moderate” Abigail Spanberger in Virginia), Talarico’s woke pastor has said of her devout flock-member, “I can guarantee you that once he gets elected, he’ll change his tune back to where he was.” Have I mentioned that Democrats cheat?

Talarico isn’t even good at lying. I bet Bill Clinton is embarrassed for him.

Let’s Cut Through The Media Feeding Frenzy: No, Katie Zacharia Is Not A Lawyer. Yes, That Means She Has To Go.

You can read all about the investigations and arguments over terminology many places. The Washington Post’s is a good as any, but its headline is crap. “Katie Zacharia calls herself a lawyer. Legal experts aren’t sure.”

Really? Ethics experts are. She’s a JD, meaning she has a diploma from a law school. That no more allows her to practice law than a diploma from medical school allows a grad to do brain surgery. She hasn’t passed a bar exam in any jurisdiction. She’s not a lawyer. Representing herself as a lawyer is a misleading statement and dishonesty (or stupidity). All by itself it is grounds for a bar association to decide that she lacks the character to practice law.

Trump’s Truth Social post about her selection to replace Karoline Leavitt described Zacharia as “a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax.” Wrong. Either Trump was misinformed or he doesn’t know what an attorney is. Technically, an attorney is a lawyer who represents a client, but the distinction between lawyer and attorney has gone the way of the distinction between “implied” and “inferred.” Either way, a JD degree doesn’t allow you to practice law and you aren’t either a lawyer or an attorney until you pass a bar exam and get a license. Fox News has identified Zacharia as a lawyer at least 18 times since March 2025. Same as with Trump: Fox News is misinformed or stupid. She isn’t a lawyer.

Zacharia’s LinkedIn profile says she was “General Counsel” for a nonprofit organization called “Fix California.” If she was, she was practicing law without a license, a bright-line ethics violation as well as illegal. She also claims to have been licensed to practice in China, which is interesting but irrelevant. It would not make her a lawyer in the U.S. any more than being chef in China does

The conclusion here is clear and unavoidable. Zacharia has been misrepresenting herself. It is no less serious than lying on a resumé. Such a gross misrepresentation is a serious ethical breach, and in my view, disqualifies her from getting a law license. She may have the job of White House paid liar, but even that job requires some level of credibility and trustworthiness. She doesn’t have either; she can’t have either.

She’s got to go, and now.

Whoever vetted her needs to go too.

Morons.

And “The Great Stupid” Crawls On: White Female Executive Fired Because Her Hairstyle Was Too Black

I can’t believe I even wrote that.

That’s Kelly Carnes above, the recently-hired executive director of the apparently insane Baltimore Rock Opera Society. After the blonde, white female returned from Burning Man with newly braided cornrows (above), her organization began receiving complaints from the staff regarding her choice of hair style. Cultural appropriation, you know. Can’t have that.

Carnes, who apparently has a habit of exploring daring hair displays…

…was fired, being told only that she and her new job were “not a good fit.” She had adopted the cornrows, she says, to deal with the desert where Burning Man is held annually. I wouldn’t regard a white woman’s cornrows as especially daring almost 50 years after “10” —Hello, Bo!

but The Great Stupid is full of nasty surprises.

The society’s board was especially stupid, publicly acknowledging “concerns” over their organization’s new executive director’s cornrows and that it was “taking the matter seriously.” It also said it planned to revise its anti-discrimination policy and require anti-racism leadership training, which apparently means that whites are racist when they adopt styles, behavior or dress that emulate our African American brothers and sisters. The board advised her not to attend a town hall that was called to discuss the controversy. That’s always a bad sign: they said that to Gene Hackman in “Hoosiers” when the town was meeting to fire him as the high school basketball coach for trying to teach the kids team play. Then the town’s star player got up and said he would only play if they let Gene keep coaching…wait, where was I?

Oh, right: the cornrows.