> I disagree. All the words in the sentences you cite > following the word > "knowingly" are either verbs or adjectives with some sort of > additional > implied bias behind them. "Insult", "Worship" and "Deadly" > are descriptive > terms that carry more meaning behind them than, say, the > word "produce".
Sorry, I failed the whole "predicate noun" part of English in 8th grade. > The original sentence: > The adult entertainment industry in the US does not > > > produce child pornography. > > Add the word "knowingly" as follows: > > The adult entertainment industry in the US does not knowingly > produce child > pornography. > > This changes the meaning of the sentence without disparaging the porn > industry, but at the same adds a bit of ambiguity to whether > the industry > has, in fact, ever produced child porn. It has, as I pointed out. Hardly. It clearly adds ambiguity and *question* to the statement and unessecarily clouds the issue. > To explain further: the statement was made that the US porn > industry does > not make child porn. However, that statement is inaccurate > as stated. No, it is a true statement. If they did produce child porn, then they would be shut down. > The > US porn industry has made child porn, although they were > unaware they were > doing so. By adding the word "knowingly" we are therefore clarifying > things. The legal definition of child pornography carries no small amount of language that shields from uknowingly producing it, hence making Ms Lords' ..uhm.. screen credits more or less legal - or, alternatively, makes them certainly not a source of prosecution. > The word is not meant to imply anything other than > what is being > blatantly stated. If you prefer, we can rephrase the > sentence as follows: > "The US porn industry does not, to its knowledge, make child > porn, but has > unknowingly done so in the past." > > And that's more accurate, not less. :-) You can quibble over minor points of grammar, but my opinion is that adding extra statements like you ask for betrays (and adds) bias to the statement which prejudices further the reader against the adult industry. I don't, of course, deny that they could have at some point unknowingly produce child porn - I'm just pointing out what I believe are the practical effects of adding ambiguity and "wiggle room" to a statement. -j-
