In September of 2015, Salon published two articles by a self-professed pedophile Todd nickerson. The man stated that he has an attraction to girls, and went on to explain his “coming out” story (for lack of a better word). Salon and the author received a great deal of criticism, the man for his positions and Salon for running the article. It is worth noting that majority of the criticism came from victim advocacy groups and right-wing groups. Left-leaning people, particularly progressives, remained silent on the topic or supported Salon.
Things became more questionable when Salon published a follow-up article by this man in which he bemoaned the criticism, painting himself as a victim of people’s bias against pedophiles.
Now those articles are missing from Salon’s website.
This came to my attention yesterday, and it appeared to have happened in response to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation. That appears to be untrue. Salon quietly deleted the articles in January of this year.
It nevertheless looks bad for Salon to delete the articles without leaving a statement about why they deleted them. They did not simply allow one article, but also a follow-up article and video in which the man explained falling in love with a 5-year-old girl he babysat when he was 18.
Sorry, Salon, but you do not get to play this game. You allowed the man to publish on your site. You do not get to pretend that did not happen. And fortunately, because of your general dishonest nature, people archived the articles. Here they are:
Salon did not delete the articles in order to cover themselves as they attack Milo over his comments about cross-generational sexual encounters, yet the hypocrisy remains. Salon and many other progressive outlets and people have turned a blind eye to left-leaning people they like who, unlike Milo, have actually committed sex offenses. They have ignored same jokes Milo told when they were told by their favored personalities. This blatant double standard of giving people who share your politics a pass while condemning the other side is far too common.
This, however, is more insidious because Salon did not leave a message stating why they removed the articles. It looks like they are trying to cover it up, and they do not get to do that. You published the articles and video, giving this man a chance to present his situation as if he were the victim of an unfair society because we do not condone his sexual attraction to five-year-olds, a notion so laughable that even societies that allowed adult-child sex would roll their eyes.
You gave him a platform, which I do not agree with, but you are allowed to do. Now own it.