Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

159 replies

lougle · 16/10/2014 06:52

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.

OP posts:
ouryve · 16/10/2014 09:57

It's odd that I spend a lot of time on the Internet, occasionally late at night, while drunk, and don't manage to accidentally download images of child abuse, yet so many white middle aged men apparently do. How on earth does that happen?Hmm

trulybadlydeeply · 16/10/2014 10:03

I really can't believe this:

"The 59-year-old then called for lighter sentences for those caught downloading images and videos of children being sexually abused."

This is not a "real paedophile"??? This is not someone who had accidently clicked briefly on an inappropriate site, this is someone who has clicked on the site, and decided to download material from it. That is a crime. These people are criminals.

HelpMeGetOutOfHere · 16/10/2014 10:04

I have little knowledge of the criminal system here, but surely those who have inadvertently happened across child abuse online and then reported it or clicked close and never looked again, even if it somehow flagged up on some big police computer somewhere and they came to your door, you wouldn't be charged? I imagine you'd be given a stern chat and told the appropriate action should it happen again. But those that have been prosecuted have had 10's/100's/1000's of images and videos? Or am I being naïve.

I admit that I have looked for porn in the past, I went to a 'hub' which I believe is well known, and was shocked at how many titles featured teen. I actually closed the site and have never returned to any site, told h that it wasn't something that interested me (porn of any nature that I), its not a search term that should be used, im assuming it meant 18 and above but obviously there must be people searching that are looking for 13/14yr olds and that isn't right at all.

I had JG books for teens down for ds2's Christmas list but have now removed them from his amazon wish list.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 16/10/2014 10:07

His "friend" didn't just go to the site he downloaded stuff from it according to the Grisham interview in the Telegraph. If someone had accidentally clicked on the site and shut it down again quickly then I suspect there would have been no police action.

His friend had too much to drink and accidentally went on to a site that expressly stated that the images were of underage people and then in his drunken haze downloaded material from the site? Mr Grisham that's some of the best fiction you've ever come up with.

There may be an issue around sentencing policy in the US but this case doesn't sound like a good example of the problem.

trulybadlydeeply · 16/10/2014 10:08

skylark2 As a high profile writer he can have access to and can talk to police, lawyers, and any other professionals working in this field to get all the information he needs if he wants to make this a topic for his book. he doesn't need to go searching for it himself.

ItIsSmallerOnTheOutside · 16/10/2014 10:09

I have to confess I am not a white man and maybe when you're a white man the internet behaves differently... But I've never downloaded images of child abuse when drunk, or when sober, accidentally or purposefully for that matter.

I have to call into question the motives of anyone seeking leniency for this crime.

Timcook · 16/10/2014 10:10

We won't be buying his books anymore. I think a thorough investigation needs to take place of this man. How could he possibly think what he was saying was correct...

lougle · 16/10/2014 10:15

" He has effectively ruined his career I hope."

As he has a net worth of $200 million, I suspect that isn't too much of a worry for him.

OP posts:
Deathraystare · 16/10/2014 10:15

If you were a decent person then whatever sex or race you where - why would you even want to look at images like that??!! Please don't say curiosity! WRONG WRONG WRONG. By his words he is damning all white men!!!!!

MorrisZapp · 16/10/2014 10:15

To me, the word paedophile means a person who has sexual urges towards pre pubescent children. I understand why the age of consent is needed here (ie in production of sexual images) but it's a careless use of the word paedophile surely.

People who look at images of women who are possibly not 18 yet may well be sickening, but I dont see that they're paedophiles.

bodhranbae · 16/10/2014 10:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ClapHandsIfYouBelieveInFatties · 16/10/2014 10:16

Lougle maybe not. I hope the police are interested in looking at HIS browsing history though. And if not I want to know WHY. I think I will follow this up.

FloraFox · 16/10/2014 10:18

His views are typical of a powerful middle aged man who believes the legal system is set up to serve people like him. If he is comfortable saying these things in an interview with the Telegraph, it is likely that he discusses these things with his peer / social group and generally they agree. It's an expression of hubris that comes with his power and privilege as a rich middle aged man and there are lots of examples of similar behaviour, that laws are made to protect him and people like him, not to restrict them.

ClapHandsIfYouBelieveInFatties · 16/10/2014 10:18

And I also think Lougle that any artist...no matter how rich...WOULD care if their book sales shrank. Otherwise why would they keep on writing them? They do care....they do it for the "art".

bodhranbae · 16/10/2014 10:24

an expression of hubris that comes with his power and privilege as a rich middle aged man

You are right Flora. I remember overhearing a conversation in a London pub when lots of middle aged suits were prattling on about how rape is "just a bit of slap and tickle".

Do not underestimate what utter shite large groups of unreconstructed white men can come up with. (i.e. UKIP)

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 16/10/2014 10:25

I think its possible to condemn Grisham's comments without taking the extra step of suggesting that he has something to hide. None of us have any proof of that.

I wouldn't be surprised if his thinking is actually a backwards rationalisation i.e.:-

My friend doesn't fit my definition of a criminal so what he did shouldn't be labelled as a crime because there must be another explanation for why he did what he did because he isn't a criminal. ad infinitum.

Everyotherfreckle · 16/10/2014 10:25

Are we talking about images of 16 year olds here? Because technically that makes one an 'ephebophile' rather than a 'paedophile' (which apparently is under 11s).

NanFucker · 16/10/2014 10:26

Does 'downloaded' mean you actually have to click and choose to download something or does it mean you opened a page and that therefore 'downloaded' not particularly a big point, just wondered. I doubt anyone who downloaded a page by accident and then clicked close would have the police round anyway. I have actually done this. I am white, but female and 38 and not drunk at time so obv not who he is talking about Hmm. I put an email address into yahoo was trying to see who had sent an email and up came a photo album with pictures of naked children. Not in abuse settings but pretty clearly not family snaps either Sad. Reported it to ceops I think they are. Never heard anymore

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 16/10/2014 10:32

Nan
You came across some possibly dodgy material by accident and then reported it to CEOPS. That is normal behaviour. The site this man was looking at was actually a police sting so I suspect they knew exactly how long he was on there.

This is from the Telegraph article
"His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled 'sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that'. And it said '16-year-old girls'. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff - it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.

"He shouldn't a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys. He didn't touch anything. And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: FBI! and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people - sex offenders - and he went to prison for three years."

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

NanFucker · 16/10/2014 10:43

Chaz completely agree with you, he's a total twat, nothing accidental about it

puds11isNAUGHTYnotNAICE · 16/10/2014 10:52

I simply do not believe that people stumble across child porn! And if they do, why aren't they reporting it instead of looking at it???

Fucking idiot! I hope he is eaten alive for this.

skylark2 · 16/10/2014 11:13

"As a high profile writer he can have access to and can talk to police, lawyers, and any other professionals working in this field to get all the information he needs if he wants to make this a topic for his book. he doesn't need to go searching for it himself."

What about low profile writers? How do they research the topics they're writing about?

FWIW I have never researched child porn and don't want to write about it in any way - but, like I said upthread, I've certainly researched and written about people doing other illegal things (or even legal things, such as military personnel dealing with bombs).

I'm not John Grisham, who if he wants to write about a pilot can ring up the Air Force and ask to come have a look round and a discussion with some experts. If I want to write about a pilot, I go lurk on a flying forum and see what they talk about and how they word it.

So if I wanted to write about a fictional legal case concerning, say, taking down a child porn internet ring...where and how would I research acceptably online? Or are only famous writers allowed to write novels about contentious subjects?

I'm not excusing what he's said. I'm just saying that there are reasons for people to research unpleasant topics beyond personal enjoyment of whatever the topic is. And it does make me uncomfortable that people might judge me based on my browsing history on the assumption that if I've Googled it I must want to do it.

momnipotent · 16/10/2014 11:28

Totally not the point AT ALL but we don't have the FBI in Canada, and the FBI don't set up stings here that lead to arrests by the RCMP so I don't know WTAF he is talking about there.

I would really expect that a lawyer would know that FFS.

When I see something so glaringly wrong it makes me wonder about the truthfulness of the remainder of the article.

momnipotent · 16/10/2014 11:30

Actually I take that back, I think I misunderstood. It was a sting set up by the RCMP leading to an arrest by the FBI I think.

Sorry. As you were.

merrymouse · 16/10/2014 11:39

"So if I wanted to write about a fictional legal case concerning, say, taking down a child porn internet ring...where and how would I research acceptably online?"

Um no where.

Just like you can't take illegal drugs or commit a robbery or commit GBH and say it was because you were writing a novel.

Apparently other research methods are available. I have it on good authority that people managed to write books before 1992.