Child Abuse Organization Urges NFL to Drop The Who From Super Bowl Halftime Show. Are They Being Fair?

Posted January 06, 2010 02:05:11
Read all 24 opinions

Pete Townshend did a bad, bad thing and it may cost The Who a performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. Though the guitarist and songwriter for the mega-successful rock band fell into notoriety back in 2003 for viewing child pornography online (he claimed he was conducting research for his autobiography [Townshend also admitted to being sexually abused as a child]) he was able to avoid trial.

But now a Pompano Beach, Florida child abuse prevention organization, Child AbuseWatch.net, is urging the NFL to drop The Who from the Super Bowl XLIV halftime show set at Dolphin Stadium in the suburbs of Miami. The group's founder and CEO, Evin Daly, spoke with a journalist at SunSentinel.com, saying, "The Who is a great band. Pete Townshend is the only issue here." Daly also stressed that he will continue to present his case to members of the media, politicians and sponsors of the Super Bowl.

Joe Browne, NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs, fired back in a letter to Daly, writing that the league was familiar with Townshend's prior arrest and referred to the musician as " a champion of children's charites." Browne also had this to say: "We recognize that the Super Bowl is annually watched by millions of Americans and we have worked hard in recent years to ensure the presentation is suitable for this mass audience."

First off, any stab at getting The Who dropped from the show will prove futile. The Who is one of the most popular and commercially successful bands of all time. Townshend's arrest barely made a dent in his career and few people remember it today. I'd be surprised if the NFL even entertained the notion of losing an act that will generate plenty of advertising dollars, high ratings, and media frenzy, all of which The Who is sure to do.

Next, who cares if Townshend was looking at child pornography? It was never proven that he wasn't accessing it for research (sounds bogus, but as a journalist, I've honestly viewed bizarre porn sites in the name of research myself) and why should this one incident take over this man's life? What about all the good he's done with his work with charities? I don't believe that Townshend performing on stage at the Super Bowl is equivalent to our country condoning abuse against children. I believe it's about Americans not allowing a publicized arrest to completely destroy a man's reputation and his career. For once, can we just sit back and enjoy the music?

terencesp January 08, 2010 14:11:57

+4
i am shocked at how the majority here seem to tacitly condone the viewing of child abuse, apart from any proof pete townsend may or may not be telling the truth; and apart from wether or not the nfl should ban them; people are so egocentric; i am sure if these same commentators had their children as the victims of this horrific crime against children, they would be screaming for the death penalty; it's like the guys who are willing to fornicate with babes, but hypocritically, don't try to hit on 'their' daughters......shameful
>> See Replies

Graeme Daniels February 08, 2010 18:01:05

+2
I think the argument that people are condoning child abuse via their sympathy for Pete Townsend is wrongheaded and hysterical. As many have indicated, while he admitted to viewing images on his computer, he did so for research purposes, and was not found guilty of any crime. Those of you who scoff at this explanation should consider your implications: should research into child pornography be conducted only via state approval, and thus prohibit independent research? That is the effect if observing such images constitutes 'an offense', as Townsend was warned by UK police. I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and I am not a member of the Orwellian measures in the name of children foundation. The man whose art and charitable work has done more for children than all of the shrill outcries of his critics gets the benefit of my doubt.

reply
shelly February 08, 2010 14:35:05

+1
Disgusting. Sick. I won't condone it or look the other way.

reply
Graeme Daniels February 08, 2010 07:07:27 (edited)

+3
One of the great features of 'Tommy' is the artful manner in which it draws attention to the various aspects of trauma.Like Hamlet, Tommy is impacted not only by the commision of a crime (in his case, witnessed), but more importantly, by the pervasive air of secrecy that surrounds that act. His deaf, dumb, and blind conditions are the metaphors for his emotional, spiritual demise. Pete Townsend wrote 'Tommy', and later, 'Lifehouse', in a spirit of exhileration, wanting to bring a mythos to rock culture, and alter to conditions by which audience and performer relate to one another. Forty years later, his attempts to transform the form and presentation of rock seem lost amid hype, trivia, and scurrilous drivel. I doubt very much whether he is interested in babysitting any kids in Florida. I do hope he completes his autobiography, and that the many who are familiar with his tumultuous life afford him the dignity he deserves as he bares his soul to us. It won't be the first time he's been so brave. Those who have followed his career and paid attention to something other than sensationalism may recall his many provocations: from his pontifications on the importance of rock during the early seventies, to his public acknowledgement of addictions; from his implicit declaration of bise...

One of the great features of 'Tommy' is the artful manner in which it draws attention to the various aspects of trauma.Like Hamlet, Tommy is impacted not only by the commision of a crime (in his case, witnessed), but more importantly, by the pervasive air of secrecy that surrounds that act. His deaf, dumb, and blind conditions are the metaphors for his emotional, spiritual demise. Pete Townsend wrote 'Tommy', and later, 'Lifehouse', in a spirit of exhileration, wanting to bring a mythos to rock culture, and alter to conditions by which audience and performer relate to one another. Forty years later, his attempts to transform the form and presentation of rock seem lost amid hype, trivia, and scurrilous drivel. I doubt very much whether he is interested in babysitting any kids in Florida. I do hope he completes his autobiography, and that the many who are familiar with his tumultuous life afford him the dignity he deserves as he bares his soul to us. It won't be the first time he's been so brave. Those who have followed his career and paid attention to something other than sensationalism may recall his many provocations: from his pontifications on the importance of rock during the early seventies, to his public acknowledgement of addictions; from his implicit declaration of bisexuality after 'Empty Glass', to the foreshadowing of the 03' episode, as provided on his lesser known 'Psychoderelict' album. Between the windmilling chords are the musings of a complex and sometimes contradictory artist: an idealist and a showman; a truth seeker and a hypocrit; a frail spirit, and a tough nut.
(more)

reply
manny January 09, 2010 20:11:12

He was never cleared of "inciting to distribute"- thats what he plead guilty to. Thats what got him on the sex offender register. He also had advanced "tip" before the police came knocking on his door. At least 3 days warning. So.....where was all that "reasearch" if Police found nothing on his 9 computers????
Perhaps on the computer that made the original credit card transaction- which was NOT found......

reply
Tata January 08, 2010 15:51:38

In most cases it is the parents of the abused children doing the abusing. If parents watched their children better then they wouldn't be in a position to be abused. For example, I like Michael Jackson and didn't really believe he was guilty but I sure wouldn't send my son to his house. I guarantee nobody will be watching my son being abused on the internet.

reply
terencesp January 08, 2010 14:11:57

+4
i am shocked at how the majority here seem to tacitly condone the viewing of child abuse, apart from any proof pete townsend may or may not be telling the truth; and apart from wether or not the nfl should ban them; people are so egocentric; i am sure if these same commentators had their children as the victims of this horrific crime against children, they would be screaming for the death penalty; it's like the guys who are willing to fornicate with babes, but hypocritically, don't try to hit on 'their' daughters......shameful

reply
TheDepressingTruth January 08, 2010 04:31:51

+1
THE WHO!....I couldn't care less about Townshend's mistake....

Break out the AIR GUITARS! This is one Super Bowl Halftime Show that I will be looking forward to.

reply
Bigstooler January 08, 2010 04:03:08

+2
Guilty until proven innocent only applies to Catholic hierarchy. I would let Pete Townsend babysit my children.

reply
Helen M... to Bigstooler January 08, 2010 18:17:58

I couldn't give him the benefit of the doubt if it involved being around my kids unsupervised. I would probably not allow Pete townesend to babysit my children.

reply
thorston5 January 08, 2010 03:46:17

+1
I never heard about his arrest either. It would be different if there were other evidence over the years that Townsend was into child pornography, but this one incident doesn't prove much. This child abuse organization is looking at this in black and white, but it seems to me to be very murky, especially considering that there's no way to prove he wasn't doing research. I say let them play the Super Bowl. from a fan's perspective, it doesn't get a whole lot better than seeing The Who live. at least that's what I've heard. if I had a time machine and could go back to the 60's and see just one band, it would have be The Who! great music and i can't help but enjoy watching people smash stuff up on stage, ha!

reply
Bear January 08, 2010 03:06:39

Yeah!

reply
caitlyn January 08, 2010 00:12:55

wow... i had no idea he did that... although I think that's discuting.... i would still love to see The Who perform at the super bowl... :)

reply
409 January 07, 2010 22:34:07

Man, I'd never even heard he did that. But there is no way to prove he wasn't doing it for journalistic purposes, so they should let the Who perform. Anyway, this was 7 years ago! They should be protecting kids from child abusers in the present, not whining about something that allegedly happened 7 years ago.

reply
manny January 07, 2010 22:15:29

+1
Join the discussion! Leave a comment.

reply
peaches January 07, 2010 19:31:04

i completely agree

reply
Bob/Freedom Fighter January 07, 2010 02:38:51

Hey Michael Vick was exonerated so as I come from a abusive background and like Clyde said who cares and it is all BS if he was so bad they would never let him into this United States oh thatb is right 911 they were let in. Drop it and like Janet Jackson my god people lets worry about the important stuff like the economy. Child Abuse Watch do your job as I am a product of that sick world no one came forward to say he did any thing just had porn which is up to each persons taste.

reply
clyde wheeler January 06, 2010 18:56:56

WHO GIVES A RATS ASS! if you don't want to see it, don't watch it. Child Abuse Watch should be doing their self righteous anti-march against individuals that are actually out on the streets doing actual physical harm. Yes, I would agree that going on the internet and jerking off is not the best way to be spending down time. However, he was in the privacy of his on home, minding his own business. Has anyone been effected by his actions. If he said he was doing research, who can prove different. And I would be willing to bet, he will probably not be whipping out his boob. Maybe they should get Chris Brown instead.

reply
J is fo... to clyde w... January 06, 2010 23:16:44 (edited)

...

reply
Helen M... to J is fo... January 08, 2010 00:54:50

I don't think Clyde Wheeler meant that he is against Child Abuse Watch, I think he feels that the organization is concentrating too much on this rather than spending their time to help children who actually need their help. I think what you are pointing out J is that the organization is using the Who show to create awareness for the topic. Both valid points.

reply
MILLERTIME to clyde w... January 07, 2010 20:57:43

DAMN STRAIGHT!

reply

1 2 Next » Last »

About Me

Helen Matatov

United States

SodaHead since November 21, 2009 01:59:05

View complete profile

Celebs

PUBLIC OPINION > Bar Refaeli Deserves to Top Maxim's Hot 100

Maxim released its annual Hot 100 list this week, so we asked the public who the hottest woman from the top of the list was.
Is Jennifer Lopez Hollywood's Biggest Sugar Mama?

J-Lo's 25-year-old beau Casper Smart was recently promoted to head choreographer for her world tour. Now, the guy's getting his own show.

Film

Do You Like to Go to Midnight Movie Showings?

In a time when most people prefer to watch films at home instead of in theaters, one New York Times writer describes the midnight showing as possibly the only way to really enjoy going to the movies.
Should Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson Reunite in 'Fifty Shades of Grey'?

We've already decided that Amanda Seyfried should play Ana in "Fifty Shades of Grey." But what if they spiced up the Kristen Stewart bid?

Music

Justin Timberlake Is Returning to Music: Fantastic or Forget It?

After a lengthy acting stint, Justin Timberlake is heading back to the music business. But he still may have an opportunity to chase that Oscar.
WATCH > Dirty Heads' New Single: Do You Ever Feel 'Spread Too Thin'?

If you listen to the right stations, there's a good chance you've heard a catchy reggae-rock song that makes you bob your head to the beat and dream of the summer sun. Well that's the Dirty Heads.

TV

Whitney Houston's Family Is Getting a Reality Show: Will You Watch?

It's only been three months since pop singer Whitney Houston's untimely death, and her family is already getting a reality show out of it.
Which D-List Celeb Is the Dumbest Pick on 'The Choice'?

Fox just revealed some of its contestants for the first season of "The Choice," a dating game for celebs, and it looks a bit like a "Dancing With the Stars" roster: D-listers galore!

Child Abuse Organization Urges NFL to Drop The Who From Super Bowl Halftime Show. Are They Being Fair?

Top Opinion