Pastor wants prosecution

One man who describes himself as a local pastor has emailed County Attorney Larry Davis to express an interest in launching a criminal prosecution over images that accompanied a recent Hook article. This is is our response, which will likely be the last thing we have to say on the tempest.

Read more on: playboy


Perfect response--end of story.

Pastor Dorman certainly takes on an unnecessarily belligerent (and un-Christian) tone in his email. Hope the Commonwealths Attorney ignores him.

ââ?¬Å?Sweep around your own doors.” Elvis, your grandmother was a wise woman, and I think the Pastor would do well to hear a sermon from you.

Editor, while I can appreciate that there may be a small minority of people who do not approve of any form of nudity on TV, in movies, or in readily available print media, I do not feel your standards are indicative of the majority of residents in our community who see this as a reasonable article with appropriate pictures to illustrate the content. I have read the Hook for several years and do not agree that this was a publicity stunt, but rather a report of an event that took place at the University.

As to your claim that advertisers are pulling out, I believe many will begin advertising because of the obvious interest in this publication. You might find this article interesting in terms of what blogging can do to increase readership and support for a worthwhile publication, which certainly speaks to the quality of the Hook. Andrew Sullivan, well-known political blogger, wrote recently at as reported in today's New York Times-

ââ?¬Å?Whenever I feel grateful for some reason that The Atlantic still exists, I give it a shot,” he said. ââ?¬Å?Many readers care enough to want to support media that say the hard things and do the uncommercial things. It’s actually wonderful, I think, that new media can support old media in this way.”

I have heard that a group is trying to get advertisers to stop advertising in the Hook because of the pictures (or possibly other reasons using the pictures as an excuse). If I hear of any company that has pulled its ads, I will personally contact them and let them know that they will never get any more of my business and that I will encourage all of my friends to do likewise.

don't care what the pastor says, but there was absolutely no reason to have that article show those pictures. for a free newspaper that is available anywhere, it's unnecessary. both the hook and cville try to shock the community for no reason other than their own amusement. companies that advertise with the hook should be upset. no reason as a parent i have to explain to a 12 year old what that article is about. i'm not all high and mighty, but give me a good reason why that article had to show prior acc/uva girls in the nude. there isn't one...

Caroleanne, obviously I was being sarcastic.

"Not religious but"-- I'm sorry that you and The Hook aren't on the same schedule for you discussing things with your child. Are you the last person on earth who doesn't realize that alternative newspapers generally skew to an older demographic?

I'm fed up with parents thinking that they are the center of the universe. They need to take care of business in their own homes and stop expecting the world to raise THEIR children. My parents didn't think that the world existed for my pleasure. If they or I didn't like something, then we were free to not watch it/look at it/read it etc. Nor were they afraid to discuss things with me if they needed to. It's actually quite simple.

Not Religious but-- I'm sure you're a good parent, and that you're raising your child well. But there are many things outside your control, and you just have to roll with the punches. Stick with the things in your own family that ARE within your control. It's about priorities. All you can do is raise a smart, resilient and compassionate child, and you've then raised someone well-equipped to deal with all the crap the world delivers.

The Hook doesn't exist to help you raise your kid. And I dare say that the concern over the cousin's accident, and the brutal murders in Farmville far transcend some breasts in your child's mind.

FYI, just because someone has different priorities than you doesn't mean they're not a good parent, or a parent at all.

it's just inappropriate, that was my point from the get go. and businesses and companies have a right to be upset if they so choose. reality check, let me know when you have kid and the real world becomes such a strange place that in the same week you need to tell your kid why 4 people were brutally murdered in farmville, why one of their cousins was in an accident, why a kid from school was expelled, why they're looking at nude girls in a newspaper, and why they're not able to get more playing time in their sport. i have no problem doing this, as i'm a responsible parent who raises a brilliant little child who understands the world around them, however, i wish at times i could keep them sheltered at times, the world is effed up and i'd prefer my 12 year old didn't worry so much about things they cannot control. you're obviously not a parent.

This is not a first amendment issue. As someone who has made a living off the first amendment and someone who has actually studied it you're using it incorrectly in this case. The pastor as well as the readers. Pornography (say what you will it is certainly that) has been upheld by all courts over and over again as being protected speech. It's just something that is not to be distributed to minors...hence the fact that Playboys are behind the counter at 7-11 or anywhere else b/c you need to be an adult to read it. The pictures are not obscene by any standard you can use. Obscenity is not protected speech. It's not a religious vs. sane person issue. It's about whether these photos are actually appropriate for minors. (They aren't). I'm also a mother...nothing wrong with naked women but this case it's completely inappropriate as any one of any age can view it. I think there's a HUGE difference between these photos and a burning house set of photos to illustrate the're obviously not in the news business and shouldn't be allowed to decide whether something is appropriate to illustrate a story (thank God for that). You won't find a bigger supporter of free speech...I tear up reading the first amendment. This was a publicity stunt that backfired on the Hook as advertisers pull out and their numbers rise b/c more people picked it up than would have. You're not the paper of record and never will just proved you do not deserve that responsibility.

"You’re not the paper of record and never will be”Šyou just proved you do not deserve that responsibility."

As if the DP were?

Again the point was missed that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to show the photos in the newspaper. Say playboy and anyone will know what the photos looked like. I think you'd be quite surprised at the ire of businesses over the incident. I know ads have been pulled. Absolutely nothing wrong with the story or reason behind running it. But this stunt-you're na¯ve if you think it wasn't one-proves the fact that neither the Hook nor Cville is the newspaper of record in Charlottesville. On the subject of nudity on television:responsible parents can block channels. Same with the computer. No one expects to tell a child not to read the newspaper. Over the age of majority & I really don't care what you're viewing. It's not a moral thing with me-it's an unnecessary swipe at legitimate media. Stop playing media & act like a member of it! You make all of us look bad because you confuse free speech with the ability to shock & annoy-goes to blogs & other social media as well.

edit time: substitute did for were up there...

my brain is too addled with pron to think straight any more

I wonder if Playboy put up dispensers all over town giving away their magazine if some of you would change your mind.

I also wonder what is going to happen when a student brings a copy to school like he does every week and then gets suspended because it contains raw nudity?

This was a stupid mistake and should not be repeated.

reminds me of page three girls. that sort of thing is pretty common elsewhere and i hope the hook makes it a regular feature from now on.

on a slightly different note. are all of you people who are offended by this unaware that blatant classified ads for all sorts of kinky stuff run in virtually all newspapers, not to mention craigslist? that's been going on for years and the world hasn't collapsed yet.

he washington city paper routinely has ads for videos like rump-humping doll babies in 3d or bordello biker beeches complete with cover images. i guess no more school trips to the nations capitol for your precious babies since they might run into that or g*d forbid the washington blade which is also all over the city.

did'nt we all come from a naked women that had sex with a naked man?or are we all test tube babies?where do I get in line for that Soma?

I would think an intelligent person would discuss this matter with the Commonwealth Attorney, not the County Attorney.

Or is it possible that some people don't even know the difference?

It's sorta like wanting to ask a company director a question, but sending an e-mail to the janitor.

You don't have to explain anything to a 12 year old- just ask them about SEXTING!!!!

There is a reason why playboy is sold BEHIND THE COUNTER.

Would the Hookj allow me to place an ad with my penis hanging out?

Doubt it.

I've had a about enough from some of these "religous people" these days. To many are hypocrites thinking it ok to do nasty things to other people and then profess to be religious. What kind of religion is that? I do think it important to have a personal relationship with God. I emphasize personal. Too often, some folks draw so much attention to themselves and how religious they are supposed to be like they are advertsing or something. Believe you me, I could give this preacher a couple of sermons. The bottom line is what my late grandmother would have told him: "Sweep around your own doors." I personally wasn't offended by the nude photos but I am offended by other folks idiocy and personal hypocrisy.

it should be my choice when i choose to talk with my 12 year old about these things. there is a reason nudity is not shown on basic television, why the fcc has the regulations they do about language, etc. because i don't think my 12 year old needs to see this in a newspaper you think i don't talk to my child? use your brain, just because someone objects to this doesn't mean they are some right wing neocon.

Here's a REALITY CHECK- talk to your kids about nudity and sex!! If you don't want to be put in an awful postion keep your kid in a bubble. If you as a parent don't talk to your kids someone else will and can you imagine the awful position that will put you in?? Its just a naked body!!

The problem is the article is the same as every other article the Hook has ever published. If they wrote a story about a house fire they showed the house...on fire. If a man was bitten by his dog, there's a picture of the man and his dog. This is not a "oh I don't want my kids to see that" deal. This is a first amendment deal. We have already censored ourselves, as a country, to the point we can't say some words on tv or radio and we don't allow people who we label "gay" to marry. Enough is enough, as a parent who thinks a naked body (which we all own by the way) is a big deal, tell your child, "hey don't read the Hook this week, there are naked people in it." The rest of us will live our lives and not make a big deal out of an article about naked ladies with a picture of ladies...who are naked.

Downing Smith, you can tell them the exact same thing for me too if you like. I agree that people are using these images as an excuse to hide their other motives.

I'm happy The Hook showed the photos. The body parts are similar to the ones displayed at the UVA art museum as the school children tour the buildings. We can now have a discussion thanks to The Hook.
It is high time the preacher is asked to focus upon the real problems occuring in Charlottesville,Albemarle.

"no reason as a parent i have to explain to a 12 year old what that article is about." You're so right, there's no earthly reason that a newspaper should be forcing you to talk to your child. Why, that's unconscionable! Parents shouldn't be put in the awful position of explaining things to their kids!