So fuming about John Grisham airing his twisted views on child porn. /www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/10624453/John-Grisham-child-porn-argument-wrong
Especially this part, whilst referring to his friend who had the book thrown at him apparently: "So he went there (to the site), downloaded some stuff - it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.
"He shouldn't have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys."
WTF? So it's okay apparently to get pissed and wank off over images of young teenagers who may or may not be around the age of consent, so long as they look 30. And, more importantly, it's okay to do this so long as they are not male.
The fact that we live in a world where there is any kind of grey area surrounding child porn depresses me. How the male need to be sexually gratified is SOOOO important that it presides over the innocence and well-being of a child makes me utterly sick to my stomach.
JG has the arrogance and self importance to put the US justice system on trial due to his version of what he thinks is acceptable and not acceptable - of who is worthy of law enforcement based on age and gender.
You can bet your life that his mate didn't just view a site depicting consenting age females. He went there because he was drawn to the borderline element of the site, obviously, and probably went elsewhere - which is why he had the FBI knocking on his door.
But, according to JG, the fact he wasn't looking at boys means he wasn't really doing anything wrong.
It incenses me.