HuffingtonPost self-destructing over Polanski

[DarrinS]

There are a lot of blogs, essays, etc. on that site that are generally suppportive of Roman Polanski and critical of his recent arrest.

It's been entertaining the read the comments at the end of those blogs. It's obvious that the left is really divided on this issue.

[ChumpDumper]

So it won't exist anymore?

[Winehole23]

Like this:


Unintentionally, however, Polanski's arrest brings world attention to an issue that the Polish government deems rather straight forward: adults having sexual relations with children is not merely wrong in a way that is rather obvious to most people, but steps should be taken to prevent repeat offenses by known individuals.



If the allegations against Polanski are true, as many people -- including many of those who have awarded and lauded him over the years -- would seem to believe, then it is a sad commentary on the double standards of fame and fortune that an individual who allegedly turned his back on the basic decencies of civilized society has managed not only to evade lawful repercussions but has had apparently reputable institutions uphold him despite this.



Human nature may not be so forgiving, but human institutions have unfailingly demonstrated time and again that they are. So the question is begged: can the person be separated from the talent, and if so, should they be?



This isn't about a personality issue being associated with a revered talent -- Picasso was a well known misogynist according to many accounts, but it would have been just as strange to condemn him and his art as it would have been to condemn Wittgenstein's writings because he was rude.



What this is about is a criminal act that is cruel, inhumane and damaging to a child, because no matter what anyone says or said about the 13-year-old girl who was involved in this incident, she was a child and by definition an innocent victim of what allegedly was done to her by someone who was well into his adulthood.


This is also about evading justice.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shirin-sadeghi/poland-and-polanski-chemi_b_301212.html

[Winehole23]

Bernard-Henri Levy posted a petition in Polanski's favor.

[Winehole23]

Jennifer Lehr can't understand why Polanski didn't return to face the consequences.

[Winehole23]

Joan Shore castigates the Swiss for knuckling under to the US.

[Winehole23]

This tidbit:


Polanski's long-running legal saga gained new momentum late last year with the release of an HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which claimed misconduct by the now-deceased judge who handled 1977 case and reneged on a plea deal. With the new evidence presented in the film, Polanski sent a team of lawyers to court in Los Angeles seeking dismissal of the charges.


But despite acknowledging "substantial misconduct," a judge ruled that Polanski would have to appear in person to pursue his motion. Polanski's lawyers said he decided not to risk arrest on a fugitive warrant, and planned instead never to set foot in the United States.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-d_n_301095.html

[Winehole23]

And this:


His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement. But she has since joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over and at one point offering to come to court in Polanski's place to argue for dismissal.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-d_n_301095.html

[Winehole23]

Ostroy can't believe there's a debate.

[ChumpDumper]

Dude broke the law. Plead guilty. Fled the country.

Lock him up.

Dumbass would have been out a long time ago. He might have missed out on directing Tess, Pirates and Frantic, in which case he would have been doing himself a favor.

[Yonivore]

Dude broke the law. Plead guilty. Fled the country.

Lock him up.

Dumbass would have been out a long time ago. He might have missed out on directing Tess, Pirates and Frantic, in which case he would have been doing himself a favor.
I agree. He can rot in prison.

The guy drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year-old girl...and plead guilty.

[Yonivore]

The dead judge is accused of misconduct in the sentencing phase of the trial. I'm all for another judge sitting in for the sentencing phase.

And, the victim only wants it to be over. It's not that she's all of sudden on Polanski's team, she just doesn't want the publicity this is inevitably going to bring.

Polanski can prevent that by waiving extradition and standing before a judge for sentencing on his guilty plea 32 years ago.

[NoOptionB]

The victim joining in to dismiss the charges psshhhh

It's almost as if she got paid off.
















o wait.

[Winehole23]

An entertainment kerfuffle bubbled over into the HuffPo op-ed because it involved sex with an underage person and somebody famous. Darrin tries to turn that into a HuffPo titanomachy and characterizes the reasonable smattering of opinion found there as somehow emblematic of a dark night of the soul for leftists in general.

How overblown. How trite and sadly typical.

[Winehole23]

Michael Wolff's gloss is that this is happening just now because the LA DA felt shown up by the Polanski documentary last year, and saw a chance to cash in on the resultant publicity.

[DarkReign]

He was/is a US fugitive who has finally been caught (due only to his immense hubris).

Whats the debate?

[Oh, Gee!!]

He was/is a US fugitive who has finally been caught (due only to his immense hubris).

Whats the debate?

not sure--but in Darrin's mind this reflects poorly on democrats and, by extension, the President himself!!

[rjv]

he belongs in jail. period.

[Winehole23]

Just to be clear, I have no problem at all with Polanski's arrest or possible extradition to the US to face the sentencing he fled 35 years ago. Both the underlying crime and being a fugitive are serious crimes.

But it does seem odd that the Swiss would arrest him just now. The Swiss authoroities can hardly have been unaware that Polanski owns a house there and has for some time. I wonder what prompted them to move against him now?

[boutons_deux]

I bet this is tied the UBS/US-tax-evasion/banking secrecy deal.

"Let us Swiss keep hidden the really big US names in our banks evading $Bs in taxes, and we'll give you Polanski"

[Winehole23]

I bet this is tied the UBS/US-tax-evasion/banking secrecy deal.

"Let us Swiss keep hidden the really big US names in our banks evading $Bs in taxes, and we'll give you Polanski"Hmm. Sounds too cheap to me. I can believe we'd demand Polanski thrown in on top, as a sweetener. But the whole enchilada? No.

[DarrinS]

not sure--but in Darrin's mind this reflects poorly on democrats and, by extension, the President himself!!


Actually, that's not the point at all.


People on the left are divided over child rape.

[Winehole23]

Bullshit, Darrin.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, that's not the point at all.


People on the left are divided over child rape.
It would seem so.

[DarrinS]

Bullshit, Darrin.




It wasn't 'rape rape'.

[LnGrrrR]

I think that anyone who tries to try and say what Polanski did wasn't bad is pretty foul.

[Winehole23]

The charge against him wasn't rape.

[Winehole23]

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minorA very serious crime, to which he pled guilty and for which he should stand.

But to paint Mr. Polanski's supporters as being pro-child rape is dishonest.

[LnGrrrR]

The charge against him wasn't rape.

Technically true. But usually rape is generally used as a means of forcing sexual contact upon a person when it's unwanted. From the (admittedly small) details I've read, Polanski gave her some sort of drug, correct? I've also read that she said "No" to him on multiple occasions. So the term "rape" would seem to be correct.

[DarrinS]

The charge against him wasn't rape.

As part of his plea bargain, he plead to a lesser charge of "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".

The original charge was "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor".

:wakeup

[DarrinS]

A very serious crime, to which he pled guilty and for which he should stand.

But to paint Mr. Polanski's supporters as being pro-child rape is dishonest.


Ok, they're pro unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor .

[Winehole23]

There was "substantial misconduct" by the judge. Surely that is a good faith basis for skepticism about the process.

OTOH, the argument that Mr. Polanski should be judged for his life in toto, including his artistic contributions, is utter horseshit and should have no bearing on his prosecution.

[Winehole23]

I think that anyone who tries to try and say what Polanski did wasn't bad is pretty foul.I don't think anyone has said that. Not on this board anyway.

Sharon Tate's sister speaks for herself; I didn't see anyone on HuffPo taking up cudgels for her, or dismissing the seriousness of what Polanski did.

This whole thread is another stupid DarrinS strawman.

[rjv]

There was "substantial misconduct" by the judge. Surely that is a good faith basis for skepticism about the process.

OTOH, the argument that Mr. Polanski should be judged for his life in toto, including his artistic contributions, is utter horseshit and should have no bearing on his prosecution.

actually i just read another post in regards to the "substantial misconduct"

JMarkJohns posted this:

It is not a violation of the ethics code. The deal is between the attorneys. Before the sentence is handed down, the Judge has the right o determine if the deal meets the standards of justice.

I've heard from the current DA that in 1977, the standard plea for a crime like this was 16 months to 3 years IN PRISON. Not 42 days in jail. It seems the lawyers negotiating the deal were far more star-struck than the judge who recognized the woefully inadequate sentence to the deal and attempted to remedy as best he could within the context of the plea deal.

Instead of 42 days in jail, Polanski was to be sentenced to 90 days in prison.

Still inadequate, but hardly a sentence to flea the country for. Sure, he could have withdrawn a guilty plea and gone to trial to contest the extended woefully inadequate sentence, but he probably would have lost and been sent to prison for a far greater period of time.

I've discussed the actions of this judge with my father, a one-time Arizona Prosecutor Of The Year. He said the judge had every right to do what he did. According to the standards of the day, Polanski was hardly even getting a slap on the wrist. The judge obviously, for whatever reasons, knew the inadequacy of the sentence and acted WELL WITHIN his rights.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135649&page=5

[Winehole23]

That is persuasive to me, but an official investigation still found "substantial misconduct".

[hater]

I love his movies. but this Polanski guy is a pussy. All this fuss for just a few weeks in jail??? what a fag

[Winehole23]

The very light sentence Polanski faced suggests the DA was pro-child rape, or at least not strongly anti, wouldn't you say, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

The very light sentence Polanski faced suggests the DA was pro-child rape, or at least not strongly anti, wouldn't you say, Darrin?


No, it means Polanski is a wealthy man.

[Winehole23]

Polanski didn't reduce the charges. The DA did.

[DarrinS]

Polanski didn't reduce the charges. The DA did.


He represented himself?

[Winehole23]

Of course not.

[Cry Havoc]

He needs to spend a long time in jail.

[Winehole23]

Sure. I have no problem with that.

[Winehole23]

What I do have a problem with is DarrinS suggesting that one whole side of the political spectrum -- the side he disagrees with -- is pro-child rape. Not only is that outrageous, it's demonstrably false, per DarrinS own source. A number of HuffPo posters came out solidly against pleas for lenience, but he still paints them all with the same brush.

It's intellectually dishonest. And for darrin, sadly typical.

[Cry Havoc]

What I do have a problem with is DarrinS suggesting that one whole side of the political spectrum -- the side he disagrees with -- is pro-child rape. Not only is that outrageous, it's demonstrably false, per DarrinS own source. A number of HuffPo posters came out solidly against pleas for lenience, but he still paints them all with the same brush.

It's intellectually dishonest. And for darrin, sadly typical.

Which is why I don't understand why you're bothering to humor him/respond to him at this point.

[Winehole23]

Which is why I don't understand why you're bothering to humor him/respond to him at this point.I don't know. I think it's worth pointing out, even if Darrin doesn't get it.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think anyone has said that. Not on this board anyway.


I was mainly responding to what Darrin posted about what Whoopie Goldberg said.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/AnOpenSecret/status/1080191354012160001

[ElNono]

:lmao more conspiracy theories... somebody add the ‘I want to believe’ image

[Winehole23]

I read crazydaysandnights for entertainment from time to time. It's "Hollywood" focused, with major emphasis on the broader pop culture; anonymous gossip offered in blinded form. When politicians appear, it's usually connected somehow to the entertainment world.

Men having sex with underage teens is essentially tabooed now, but the teenybop theme has been a mass culture staple for ages and seemed frankly normative in the 1970s-- me and KISS wanted the same sixteen year old babysitter, the main difference was I was ten years old when "Christine Sixteen" came out, the guys n KISS were pushing thirty.

Then and now, unashamed participation in socially forbidden activities signifies privilege. What are money and power for, if you can't break the rules with impunity?

[Chris]

Lusting for sixteen year old babysitters is pretty disgusting.

[Winehole23]

Lusting for sixteen year old babysitters is pretty disgusting.I agree. It's not my thing now and was more aspirational than serious when I was ten,

When I was sixteen, totally different story.

[Winehole23]

the teenybop motif in pop culture is skeevy and prevalent.

[DMC]

I read crazydaysandnights for entertainment from time to time. It's "Hollywood" focused, with major emphasis on the broader pop culture; anonymous gossip offered in blinded form. When politicians appear, it's usually connected somehow to the entertainment world.

Men having sex with underage teens is essentially tabooed now, but the teenybop theme has been a mass culture staple for ages and seemed frankly normative in the 1970s-- me and KISS wanted the same sixteen year old babysitter, the main difference was I was ten years old when "Christine Sixteen" came out, the guys n KISS were pushing thirty.

Then and now, unashamed participation in socially forbidden activities signifies privilege. What are money and power for, if you can't break the rules with impunity?
She'd been around by then, but was still young and clean. Wonder if she was Filipino.

[DMC]

I agree. It's not my thing now and was more aspirational than serious when I was ten,

When I was sixteen, totally different story.

Yet pop culture, movies and music were centered around that very idea. Tom Cruise's character "Joel" was a HS kid when he made out with Rebecca in Risky Business. "Hot Child in the City" was about a very young girl, no one knows how young, but somehow the younger they could make her image the hotter the listener thought her to be. Rod Stewart's "Tonight's the Night" mentions his "virgin child". Blue Lagoon was a study in Hollywood fascination with child sex.

It's amusing how they pretend to shy away from it now.

[rmt]

Haven't generations of people gotten married at 16? Or much younger than now? It's the more later generations that are taking longer to assume adulthood responsibilities and leaving their parents.