To feel completely gutted that one of my favourite authors said this (warning: child abuse) [titled edited by MNHQ]

[lougle]

Daily Mail

I've bought practically all his books. I love his writing. Yet I can't quite believe that I have read this. John Grisham has claimed that 'white guys his age' are being punished too harshly for downloading child pornography and it doesn't make them paedophiles.

Lougle, I was shocked and angered by his comments. So difficult to comprehend this man is actually a child porn apologist! I have enjoyed reading his books previously but will not be buying anything written by him in the future.

Yanbu - he is a fool to think that one accidental visit to "16 yo wannabe hookers" would end in conviction - more likely they discovered many many more - in the cases that go to prison the reports normally state hundreds of images of the worst classes of child pornography/abuse/rape -once could be an accident sure but not hundreds or even say 10.

'images of child abuse'

It's not child porn. It's images of child abuse.

Do you think he really said that? Why would anyone think it and if you did why say it in public? Getting off on photographic evidence of child abuse is not feeding that 'industry'? It is not harming the child to be contributing to making a market for abuse?? Really?? Is he actually stupid? I would not usually post on this type of thread but how disgusting.

Sorry, but I really disagree with the term 'child pornography', these are images of child abuse. These children can't possibly consent to taking part in 'porn', they are being abused while someone's taking images of them, which isn't the same.

It is shocking how anyone can say this, and they are paedophiles.

lougle please could you report your post and ask HQ to at least amend the title

"child porn" is a misnomer...these are images of the sexual abuse of children

"pornography" implies at least some measure of consent in the participation and underage people not give that

can not

Once enough, it is wrong, wrong, wrong! Really make me sad to hear this kind of c@&p. That is the last of his books I will be reading.

Gosh, that's very disappointing. His characters wrestle with difficult moral dilemmas but there is a strong streak of Right through his books, which you would have thought was his personal default stance. Sad that it appears not.

I saw his interview on the Telegraph page, I'm astounded at his comments and that he really thinks men drink too much and then 'press the wrong buttons'.

What an arse.

I didn't use that term, globalphenomenon, because it isn't the term used by Grisham or the press. Nor am I discussing images of specific child abuse. I agree completely, though, that child pornography is actually recorded child abuse.

I'm sad on two levels. Sad that he'd day that. Sad that he seems to think being white and in your 60's should lift you out of the zone of depravity.

I suppose I could only hope that the Mail have conflated his arguments and that when we get the full article from the Telegraph it turns out that he's talking about accidental clicking where the page is shut down three seconds after it was opened because the 'viewer' realises what it is. Having said that, I don't think it's going to happen.

The press are wrong (and I work in the press). There was a petition a while back to ask one of the newspapers to use the correct term, not this, but nothing has been done. While the press downplay this, the public aren't going to bat an eyelid.

The Daily Fail are notorious for making articles from one word taken out of context. He's probably said one comment and they have run with it.

He shouldn't have done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys

^^ THAT has fucking enraged me! It is OK to look at abuse images of 'wannabe hookers' because it wasn't boys!!!

Or am I just taking it out of context because I am so annoyed!!!! [grr]

Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11165656/John-Grisham-men-who-watch-child-porn-are-not-all-paedophiles.html

What is his point about "downloading pictures of 16 year olds who look 30"? They aren't being looked at because they look 30, his friend who did that wanted to look at 16 year olds

Or presumably he'd've gone to a site featuring 30 year olds.

I can ask to amend the title, AnyFucker. I was worried that it might upset people more to read child abuse in the title, but maybe that's the whole point? It shouldn't be easy to read.

Different, I don't know why people say shit like that. What they are effectively saying is "yes, he committed crime 1 but he should be let off because he didn't xommit crime 2"

Does Grisham also think no one should be in jail for assault because at least they didn't commit attempted murder??

"the issue of sex-offender sentencing has sparked some debate in the US legal community after it emerged that in some cases those who viewed child porn online were at risk of receiving harsher sentences than those who committed physical acts against children."

Perhaps it was in relation to this?

Well, that's upside down anyway. The sentencing for the latter is too low, not the that the former is too harsh.

I do wonder if they are comparing like with like there.

Not sure of the full context in which he was making these comments but certainly white guys his age dont just push the wrong buttons. Paedophiles seek out children. End of.

Not the point at all of the thread, he's an idiot and a dangerous one at that because if his power, but it must be strange living in a country where:
There are currently some 2.2m people in jail in the US – or more than 750 per 100,000 population – which makes the US by far the heaviest user of prison sentences in the world. By contrast, Britain imprisons just 154 per 100,000 population.

But not only is JG minimising women and children's experiences it's perverse to wring his hands over a few white collar white men when black men are so massively over represented.

Shocking absolutely shocking.

YANBU
I was going to say exactly the same.
Awful, just awful.