Further Clarification on "Is AANR Overstepping Its Bounds?"

This is a follow-up to my previous post, which has been misunderstood by some.

I am not criticizing AANR for being cognizant of current events. To the contrary, I praise them for their diligence.

What I am saying is that when the Executive Director of AANR comments on stories about which the organization has no official stance, he is inadvertently injecting AANR into the story.

For example, anyone can pull quotes from Schuttauf's post to make comments like these:

AANR Executive Director Eric Schuttauf speculated in an editorial today that Eric Williamson, the man arrested for indecent exposure in Virginia, could have been standing "spread eagle in open doorways" in a "purposeful display" of his genitals, prompting his arrest.

~or~

Eric Schuttauf, Executive Director of The American Association of Nude Recreation, concluded today that the parents arrested in Arizona for taking nude photos of their children were "probably not pornographers", but also said that reports about the images "reveal aspects of the photos that legitimately would have triggered alarm bells for the Wal-Mart clerk and the police."

By making both of these comments. Schuttauf has made AANR part of the story, and in the latter example, perhaps into the lawsuit as well. He also goes on to say if the parents in Arizona had followed AANR guidelines on nude photography, the "case may not have gone as far as it did."

These are pretty powerful comments from someone who stated emphatically just a few paragraphs earlier that "Responding too quickly, without knowing all the facts for certain, brings peril if initial reports and assumptions turn out untrue."

This is why I say Schuttauf's post, and Carlyn Hawkins' comments to the Washington Examiner, are simply unwise, and a simple "no comment" would have been far more appropriate.