Polanski's free without serving any real time for the rape of a minor.

ZoZo wrote:

How is that not rape? How is that consensual?


Frankly, I'm not really surprised Polanski's not going to be punished for his crimes. The level of rape apologism I've seen related to this case is repugnant.

For the record: She never said it was consensual. She never even said it might have been consensual. She said if it had been consensual she wouldn't have a problem with it. I think most people here agree that this was rape. (or "rape rape" if you're Whoopi Goldberg [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] )

But even on that level, I have to disagree with Lady Anne. I believe I would still have a problem with it, even if it was "consensual". The girl was 13, she's still a child. Polanski was an adult. You do the math.

A bloody powerful adult, to boot.

Cyberwulf wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Sweet Christ. The (very tiny) silver lining to this is that he's still a fucking exile. While I realize this is cold comfort to anyone with a brain, at least it's something.

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

You're right, gaijinguy. This has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of gender hierarchy which exists now or existed back when the original crime was committed. Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a newspaper to report the rape of a minor as "having sex". Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a person to declare this as "not rape rape".

We've been over this before, you putz. Considering he was never convicted of rape, the newspaper could get into trouble by calling him a rapist or saying he raped the girl. At least in America, where we at least pretend to value freedom of speech/press. Swiss probably have hate speech and libel laws coming out of their hole filled asses.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

coming out of their hole filled asses.

what does that even mean

I now have the mental image of an anal cavity with the physical properties of a cheese grater; thanks.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Sweet Christ. The (very tiny) silver lining to this is that he's still a fucking exile. While I realize this is cold comfort to anyone with a brain, at least it's something.

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

You're right, gaijinguy. This has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of gender hierarchy which exists now or existed back when the original crime was committed. Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a newspaper to report the rape of a minor as "having sex". Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a person to declare this as "not rape rape".

We've been over this before, you putz. Considering he was never convicted of rape, the newspaper could get into trouble by calling him a rapist or saying he raped the girl.

I really hate it when Mikey is right...it irks me greatly.

Cyberwulf wrote:

the asylum wrote:

Hey let's turn this topic into talking about black slavery while we're at it too.

Because it TOTALLY has everything to do with the Polanski case.

You're such a fucking moron it's unbelieveable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know you're a militant femnazi/possible troll, but seriously, "patriarchy" has as much to do with the Polanski case as slavery does: Nothing.

Well, Im sorry I brought up patriarchy again. That was Kinda my bad. I figure it would end up there anyhow. Love how this guy managed to rig every international law there is to stay out of Jail for 30 years.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Sweet Christ. The (very tiny) silver lining to this is that he's still a fucking exile. While I realize this is cold comfort to anyone with a brain, at least it's something.

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

You're right, gaijinguy. This has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of gender hierarchy which exists now or existed back when the original crime was committed. Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a newspaper to report the rape of a minor as "having sex". Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a person to declare this as "not rape rape".

We've been over this before, you putz. Considering he was never convicted of rape, the newspaper could get into trouble by calling him a rapist or saying he raped the girl.

I really hate it when Mikey is right...it irks me greatly.

If it makes you feel better, I'm only parroting what you said in the last two thread we've had about this in the most impolite manner I could muster.

An adult CAN'T 'have sex with' a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, dumbasses.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

We've been over this before, you putz. Considering he was never convicted of rape, the newspaper could get into trouble by calling him a rapist or saying he raped the girl. At least in America, where we at least pretend to value freedom of speech/press. Swiss probably have hate speech and libel laws coming out of their hole filled asses.

As far as I understand libel law (which isn't brilliantly, I admit, as I come from a country where our libel laws are completely fucked) he'd need to go over to the USA to pursue the case. Or the UK, where he'd stand a better chance of winning due to aforementioned completely fucked libel laws. I can't really see him doing either.

Cyberwulf wrote:

An adult CAN'T 'have sex with' a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, dumbasses.

No, he can't. But in the context of a newspaper article rape is a legal term, and the press CANNOT call someone a rapist if they haven't been convicted of rape. Just like they cannot call Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger rapists, or OJ Simpson a murderer. That's libel, and they can be sued for it. They do not have the fallback of "truth as a defense" because it hasn't been PROVEN true in a court of law.

According to the Swiss, they were unable to honor the extradition because the U.S. did not provide necessary court documents in the allotted time. I did notice that when the U.S. attorney was asked about this, they never denied it, just said they were really upset with the decision.

I'm not saying the Swiss were not influenced by the same damn stupid prejudices as half the world with Polanski in regards to this mess, or that they would have honored the extradition with the proper documentation. We all knew Polanski had a damn good chance of getting out, due to helluva number of factors that Cy has repeatedly stated.

I am saying though that if our damn attorneys couldn't be arsed to make sure they had every fucking inch of the needed papers and testimonies, then maybe we need to stop feeling so damn self-righteous and wonder what the fuck is wrong with our own people too.

Lapin wrote:

I am saying though that if our damn attorneys couldn't be arsed to make sure they had every fucking inch of the needed papers and testimonies, then maybe we need to stop feeling so damn self-righteous and wonder what the fuck is wrong with our own people too.

First let's establish if they knew the clock was running. I can't be the only person who's been sucker-punched by some bureaucratic time limit.

Even when sex with a minor is consentual, it is still classed as rape - statutory rape.

gaijinguy wrote:

Lapin wrote:

I am saying though that if our damn attorneys couldn't be arsed to make sure they had every fucking inch of the needed papers and testimonies, then maybe we need to stop feeling so damn self-righteous and wonder what the fuck is wrong with our own people too.

First let's establish if they knew the clock was running. I can't be the only person who's been sucker-punched by some bureaucratic time limit.

The Swiss lawyer quoted was going on about they kept telling the U.S. attorney's office that they needed it and kept getting a "We'll get it to you", only it never did. Obviously.

Despite all of this, even with proper documentation, I have to say that I don't think the Swiss were ever going to hand the bastard over.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

An adult CAN'T 'have sex with' a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, dumbasses.

No, he can't. But in the context of a newspaper article rape is a legal term, and the press CANNOT call someone a rapist if they haven't been convicted of rape. Just like they cannot call Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger rapists, or OJ Simpson a murderer. That's libel, and they can be sued for it. They do not have the fallback of "truth as a defense" because it hasn't been PROVEN true in a court of law.

Wikipedia wrote:

On 8 August 1977[65], Polanski entered a plea of guilty to Charge III of the indictment, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, in violation of California Penal Code § 261.5, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape.

[...]

the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that more jail time and possible deportation were in order.[66][70] Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[62]

But was he actually convicted of rape?

No?

Well then.

the asylum wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

An adult CAN'T 'have sex with' a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, dumbasses.

No, he can't. But in the context of a newspaper article rape is a legal term, and the press CANNOT call someone a rapist if they haven't been convicted of rape. Just like they cannot call Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger rapists, or OJ Simpson a murderer. That's libel, and they can be sued for it. They do not have the fallback of "truth as a defense" because it hasn't been PROVEN true in a court of law.

Wikipedia wrote:

On 8 August 1977[65], Polanski entered a plea of guilty to Charge III of the indictment, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, in violation of California Penal Code § 261.5, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape.

[...]

the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that more jail time and possible deportation were in order.[66][70] Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[62]

But was he actually convicted of rape?

No?

Well then.

Don't be a douche. If he entered a guilty plea, then he is admitting guilt, thus... he's admitting he raped her.

Maximilia wrote:

the asylum wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

An adult CAN'T 'have sex with' a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, dumbasses.

No, he can't. But in the context of a newspaper article rape is a legal term, and the press CANNOT call someone a rapist if they haven't been convicted of rape. Just like they cannot call Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger rapists, or OJ Simpson a murderer. That's libel, and they can be sued for it. They do not have the fallback of "truth as a defense" because it hasn't been PROVEN true in a court of law.

Wikipedia wrote:

On 8 August 1977[65], Polanski entered a plea of guilty to Charge III of the indictment, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, in violation of California Penal Code § 261.5, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape.

[...]

the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that more jail time and possible deportation were in order.[66][70] Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[62]

But was he actually convicted of rape?

No?

Well then.

Don't be a douche. If he entered a guilty plea, then he is admitting guilt, thus... he's admitting he raped her.

That still doesn't change the fact that if a newspaper calls him a rapist outright, it's libel. I'm not saying he isn't a rapist (he is), but regardless of what he admitted, he was, in fact, never formally convicted.

Don't bother, Max, asylum just loves rapists.

Wouldn't "allegedly raped" avoid libel and be more accurate anyway?

Miss Prince wrote:

Wouldn't "allegedly raped" avoid libel and be more accurate anyway?

Yes, since it doesn't actually label him a rapist. Just as OJ "allegedly" murdered his wife and Goldman while the case was still open- now it's "formerly charged of."

Cyberwulf wrote:

Don't bother, Max, asylum just loves rapists.

It seems I'm having more words put into my mouth than a can of alphagetti.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

An adult CAN'T 'have sex with' a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, dumbasses.

No, he can't. But in the context of a newspaper article rape is a legal term, and the press CANNOT call someone a rapist if they haven't been convicted of rape. Just like they cannot call Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger rapists, or OJ Simpson a murderer. That's libel, and they can be sued for it. They do not have the fallback of "truth as a defense" because it hasn't been PROVEN true in a court of law.

Wikipedia wrote:

On 8 August 1977[65], Polanski entered a plea of guilty to Charge III of the indictment, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, in violation of California Penal Code § 261.5, a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape.

[...]

the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that more jail time and possible deportation were in order.[66][70] Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[62]

He pleaded guilty of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. It may be synonymous with statutory rape in a lay sense, but in the legal world the terms are not fully interchangeable.

But what do I know, I've only spent the last eight years of my life studying the law...it's not like I don't know what I'm taking about.

It's as Prince said--they could put in "alleged" and avoid a libel suit.

Are you high-fiving a rapist right now, Spotts? Because I think you are high-fiving a rapist.