# Want some REAL reality TV?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-some-real-reality-tv/297851>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [April 5, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-some-real-reality-tv/297851 "2005-04-05T15:21:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-some-real-reality-tv/297851/21 "2005-04-05T21:24:14Z")

</div>

> [@mhendo](#):
>
> So, your continued position is that it would be illegal _if_ the father were passing money to the son, and that because of this the law makes a distinction regarding who receives the proceeds. But this conveniently ignores the fact that, as long as the father _isn’t_ handing money to the son (which we have no proof of either way), the law in fact does _not_ make any distinction.

To clear up one issue, the abovelinked report indicated:

> [@](#):
>
> But there is no evidence that the younger White is receiving money from the transactions, said Morrissey, whose office investigated the DVD sales late last year. That would have subjected the elder White to the “Son of Sam” laws, which prevent convicted felons from making money off of their crimes.

The law does not make a distinction between the father who does not share the proceeds or the media, you are correct. Which doesn’t change my position, which I’ve stated over and over that: The law recognizes a difference in who (whom?) is profiting from the actions. Granted, it does not recognize the difference between the father or the media in this particular case, but it does make a distinction between the criminal and anyone else. Feel free to continue to pick at these nits as you wish.

> [@mhendo](#):
>
> So the father is more moral reprehensible just because he happens to be a relative? Nice to know that guilt by familial relationship is alive and well.

Legally no, but morally, sure. I have no problem saying that the man responsible for the birth and raising of a convicted murderer, who has possession of the videotape by virtue of being his father of the murderer, is more morally reprehensible than your random stranger. Now, if you wish to waste more time picking a fight and arguing over the exact apportionment of moral suckitude, have at it. Just don’t expect me to partake.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-some-real-reality-tv/297851.md?page=1)