Dear Hollywood folks

[topaz]

Dear Hollywood folks:

I like you.  I really, really like you.  Lots of you are really my kind of people: funny, engaging, passionate about making great movies, earnest about progressive change (if a bit shallow in your politics, but lots of us are guilty of that mistake sometimes).  I confess: I am more susceptible to show biz gossip than I like to let on, and am liable to click through on the latest celebrity news quickly when no one's looking.  I care, guys.

So it is only with the deepest sincerity and concern that I ask you today to shut the fuck up about Roman Polanski already.

Seriously!  I don't know what you think you're doing, but it's not helping.  It's not helping anyone.  It's not helping him, it's not helping the situation and it's really not helping you.

Look, I know there are complexities at play here.  I know that the victim has, for most of the last 30 years, wanted to put the case behind her, and since January has wanted the case dismissed.  I know that Polanski was on the verge of locking in a plea bargain when the judge fucked him like.... well, like a 44-year-old director fucks a 13-year-old girl, I guess.  No one, as far as I can tell, believes that he poses a threat to anyone at this point.  I get it.

But please let us return to first principles: this is a man who pleaded guilty to raping a thirteen-year-old girl.  That is not usually classified as a victimless crime, Hollywood folks!  While the judge's apparent decision to reneg on accepting a plea bargain was a rotten thing to do, it does not reduce or lessen his guilt and it arguably does not justify fleeing justice for 30 years.

So if you want to lobby for his freedom by urging that the judge dismiss the charges, or sentence him to time already served: that is a fine argument!  Go for it.

But in the meantime, kindly do not:

• tell us that he should be excused because "he's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago"
• refer to raping a thirteen-year-old girl as a "so-called" crime
• attempt to excuse it on the basis that "it wasn't rape rape"
• dismiss the gravity of the issue because Polanski "is not responsible for killing anyone"
  

And above all, whatever you do, DO NOT allow Woody Allen within a HUNDRED MILES of commenting on this case.  I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a camera dolly.

Or, as muckefuck put it so eloquently: I ❤ Luc Besson.

I love you, guys.  I really do.  Now stop fucking up.

Comments

[opadit.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure any crime is worth pushing through the criminal justice system thirty years after it was committed

Roman Polanski's 2 crimes are raping a child and absconding before his sentencing. What's the minimum number of years that have to go by for the courts to let a child rapist and jail skipper not have to worry about serving his time?

if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison.

You know, a good way to avoid jail time is to not rape children. In fact, maybe someone who has an "Auschwitz experience" should have been even more averse than your average Joe to committing acts that could increase his odds of having to go to prison.

I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood.

I don't even know what this statement means. Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side? Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?

[qnetter]

Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side?

No, it's an argument like I faced in Florida when I was the less-contributory party to an accident and was still required to pay the full bill for the other drunk driver's injured passenger because I was insured and he was not. Specifically, it means that being sure the person in question is treated differently as a child than they would be as an adult is the responsibility of the parent.

Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?

No. i'm saying that a rapist is a rapist. The "child" part is irrelevant to me other than as an indictment of criminal parenting on the part of the mother.

[opadit.livejournal.com]

when I was the less-contributory party to an accident and was still required to pay the full bill for the other drunk driver's injured passenger because I was insured and he was not.

How does that analogize to the Polanski case?

The "child" part is irrelevant to me other than as an indictment of criminal parenting on the part of the mother.

I don't think anyone is saying that the victim's mother was the best mom in the world. The D.A. never went after her for negligent parenting, and that appears to be a problem for you.

[qnetter]

The D.A. never went after her for negligent parenting, and that appears to be a problem for you.

Yes, and a big one. A parent who drops a child unattended at a park is as guilty of a crime as a kidnapper. A parent who leaves a child knowingly in the care of an adult stranger, especially one with a reputation for kinky sex, is as guilty of a crime as a rapist.

[opadit.livejournal.com]

Are you a parent?

[qnetter]

No. Which is why I don't acquit parents from the responsibility of their choices.

[ceo]

Well, I am a parent. Which is why, if something like this should happen to my child, irrespective of what blame, prosecution etc. I might deserve for any negligence or stupidity on my part that might have made it more likely to happen, I am opposed to any such negligence or stupidity being used as an excuse for what the perpetrator did.

(well, OK, it's not specifically because I'm a parent; it's because I have some shred of common sense.)

[qnetter]

I agree. It's not an excuse for what the perpetrator did.

But it makes you a perpetrator too. "Negligence or stupidity" is language that trivializes the paren't's crime.

[ceo]

See my prior comment re: the First Rule Of Holes.

[qnetter]

It's not a hole here - I never in any way claimed that Polanski was not culpable.

[cos]

"never in any way"? Actually, you kind of did, whether you intended to or not:

What I am getting at is this: the person responsible for protecting her childhood, legally and morally, is the stupid mother

"the" person responsible.

Whether you intended it to come off that way or not, what you were saying in that comment surely appeared to a lot of us as an attempt to shift at least some of the blame off Polanski, onto "the" person who was actually responsible for protecting the girl in your opinion (the girl who, at the time of the rape, was most decidedly in his power).

Not only that, but you did it in the context of a post that's specifically about... people attempting to minimize Polanski's culpability.

Please don't bother arguing with this comment. Either take it and learn something about why you stirred up such a storm and made a lot of people think you're an asshole, or dismiss it and learn nothing. I don't have enough invested here to argue the point, and I don't know you, so I'll probably go back to not commenting on this thread now. I just happened to notice that nobody pointed this bit out yet.

[qnetter]

Yes, "the" person responsible FOR PROTECTING THEIR CHILDHOOD, for treating them extra-special because they are children, rather than simply acting legally toward them and not endangering them simply because they are other human beings.

I understand that it appeared that way to a lot of you, but that is because so many of you believe in this "takes a village" thing of treating other people's children like precious resources we are all charged to look after in a way we do not have to look after other adults. (Some of you on this thread literally so, in the "co-housing" neo-kibbutznik model.)

I simply don't subscribe to that. I think that I need to look out for your kids in the same ways I need to look out for you -- keep you from stepping in front of a bus, not injuring you, and so on -- and any special looking-after as to their discipline, where to take them and not take them, and so on, is entirely your responsibility and not mine -- I shouldn't be taking them anywhere, and your responsibility extends to keeping them safe from everyone else (which does not in any way reduce the culpability of the offender if you fail to do so) and also keeping me safe from them.

[cos]

Your comment quite misses the point, and your suggested explanation ("that is because ...") is ridiculous (and therefore the rest of your comment is inapplicable).

That's fine, like I said, I'm not going to argue this further. Stick to your rationalizations and remain blind to the meaning of what you actually wrote.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

(Some of you on this thread literally so, in the "co-housing" neo-kibbutznik model.)

Cool! You've moved on to Ad Hominem attacks now. Are you going to go through the entire list? Here's (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) a link to a comprehensive list of logical fallacies. Go ahead, have fun. We'll keep score.