- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,265
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A cancer charity whose top fundraisers included a group of Reddit users donating “in honor” of Jennifer Lawrence’s hacked personal photos has announced they will return all of the money, The Washington Post reported.
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors
If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.
Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?
They should have kept the money.
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors
If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.
Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?
I don't see where anybody suggested the charity shouldn't have the choice. The questions regards whether the charity should make the choice that they did. Two completely different issues.If some donors withhold donations because of whom the charity is associated with, I see no reason why the charity can not do the same.
Their charity, their choice.
That is a good and fair point, but I still think they should have kept it. However, because of your point, I don't necessarily blame them or fault them for giving it back, either.The photos were obtained illegally and are what might be considered 'porn'. If the charity doesn't want to accept money from people supporting that, it's their choice and I can't hate on them for it. They can surely raise money from more legitimate sources.
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors
If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.
Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?
I don't know what or who Reddit is (I'm proudly social media illiterate) but seems to me that any donation that has no strings attached should be honoured and thanks given. I recall someone relatively famous doing the "ice bucket challenge" and substituting bullets for ice. I didn't hear the ALS society complaining about the donation being related to another political/social cause unrelated to the disease they fight against.
It should be celebrated any time an individual reaches into their own pocket and willingly, without conditions, gives of their own resources to any charitable cause. If the Prostate Cancer Foundation doesn't want the money, I say to hell with them, find another charity who wants the money, and let it be known loud and wide that people should avoid sending money to the Prostate Cancer Foundation and seek out more accepting and deserving causes.
They declined the money because it was raised by a group who was promoting the spreading of nude photographs (aka pornography) that were obtained illegally, and made these donations "in honor" of the people whose privacy was invaded and were victims of an illegal act. No correlation to the ice bucket challenge.
Clearly, they had the choice to decline the money - in my view, they're fools. If a charity is going to have a purity test for donators, they might just as well bolt the doors and shut down now.
I don't know what or who Reddit is, but if they are in any way a media outlet it is their business to share "news". Did the New York Times refuse to publish information illegally gained by Edward Snowden? So what if the pics are, in your view, pornographic - didn't your Supreme Court establish a first amendment right related to pornography? Who's more at fault here? - the guys who created the "pornography" and posted it on a segment of the internet thus making it susceptible to distribution or the guys who viewed the "pornography"? Only an utter idiot, after all the previous examples, posts self-"pornography" anywhere on the internet. Even teenagers are becoming savvy enough to get it.
The charity isn't the NY Times. They aren't part of the press. They don't want to associate with a group who is advancing illegally obtained nude pictures, including some of underage girls.
So if the New York Times ran a promotion to raise funds for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Foundation would decline the funds because they don't want to associate with a group that is advancing illegally obtained information?
Again, where is the purity of source line drawn?
Never mind.
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors
If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.
Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?