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

Psy-4 wrote:

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

I am simply pointing out the legal minefield that the media would be walking into should they do what Cy and numerous others suggest.

Yes, they could add "alleged" or "accused". But then you run into other legal problems in this circumstance (mainly that you can't say someone who's pleaded guilty to one crime is alleged to have committed another crime based upon the exact same fact pattern).

Spotts1701 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]

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.

As much as I'm on your side here, I'd like to say that I've played golf religiously for eight years, and still suck at it.

ZoZo wrote:

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.

That still doesn't make it ethically ok for a newspaper to pin a crime to someone who wasn't convicted of it. Look beyond this case and think of the precedent an action like that would set for future defendants who may be written about.

Also, in b4 I get told I love rapists.

Bamshalam wrote:

Also, in b4 I get told I love rapists.

No, but you are a traitor to your gender.

Bamshalam wrote:

That still doesn't make it ethically ok for a newspaper to pin a crime to someone who wasn't convicted of it. Look beyond this case and think of the precedent an action like that would set for future defendants who may be written about.

Also, in b4 I get told I love rapists.

If I'm reading you right then you mean the following in simple people speak.
Man did bad thing, but all the papers shouldn't have said he had definitely done bad thing (only said he was accused of doing a bad thing) until it was proven legally that he had done the bad thing. That cover it?

Sounds fair enough to me.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

That still doesn't make it ethically ok for a newspaper to pin a crime to someone who wasn't convicted of it. Look beyond this case and think of the precedent an action like that would set for future defendants who may be written about.

Also, in b4 I get told I love rapists.

If I'm reading you right then you mean the following in simple people speak.
Man did bad thing, but all the papers shouldn't have said he had definitely done bad thing (only said he was accused of doing a bad thing) until it was proven legally that he had done the bad thing. That cover it?

Sounds fair enough to me.

This is a case where we *know* he did the crime. But this can set a precedent where people not convicted and with some uncertainty as to their actual guilt get labeled under the legal terms they are accused of, and that's where it becomes a problem. You know he did it? How do you know? Doesn't matter, in my eyes, he's a rapist. See the problem here? The press has enough to shit up our papers with.

Cyberwulf wrote:

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

Stay classy, Cy.