John Grisham's twisted views

[Stressing]

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.

Thankfully Brighton, your views don't hold much truck in law.

Brighton's views aren't particularly appropriate on a parenting website either.

I also don't condone assault.

Yes you do - you think it's absolutely fine. Own it, brother.

I didn't read the whole interview so I'm not sure but I do think that looking at 16 year olds who look 30 consenting to being invovled in a photoshoot is different to looking at children who look like children being abused. I'm not too sure if i believe that they looked 30 though.

16-year-old wannabee hookers or something like that' - and it said '16-year-old girls',"

So maybe h was disappointed that they looked older...but he clicked on it hoping to find teenagers. Teenagers who can not work in "porn" and are so hideously at risk in that industry especially as if they were actual 16 year olds this would be totally unregulated

Couch, who cares if they looked 30 if they were in fact 16 and he was searching for sexual images of 16 year olds (seems US limits appearance in porn to 18 year olds and over)?

And who knows what search term the friend put in that led him to that site - I assume the FBI know.

You have to be 18+ to legally do porn. I think we should remember that 16yr old can be very vulnerable - and it is, on the whole, vulnerable girls that "choose" to go into porn.

But anyway, men that get caught for these crimes (online images of child abuse) always, always minimise their crimes. They only admit to what they were caught doing - and actually - these crimes are so prevalent now, that I think you have to be looking at some pretty heinous stuff to get the FBI knocking on your door.

xpost with yonic.

And said friend downloaded the images, unlike Brighton's "wah, he just clicked, leave the poor guy alone" angle.

From what I (unfortunately) learned from friend's "d"h being caught doing this sort of thing, you really have to go looking for this stuff. One doesn't just accidentally click on it, whilst innocently googling something else.

The police categorically told my friend not to ever look for it - even in the name of research, ie. if she ever felt she wanted to understand what her husband had been watching/doing. To do so, even in the name of research, is a crime. Quite rightly, obviously.

Most men get caught because they enter their credit card details, but my friend's "h" (now ex-h) was traced via his IP address - because they rightly suspected he was also grooming children irl. Via private chatrooms and the like.

Yes, stressing... I said on another thread that that part (about it not being boys) really f'd me off.

I don't think he was saying looking a pictures of boys was in anyway different to looking at pictures of girls - it is 50/50 and he chose one Why not '10 yr old child/children/kid" etc?

?#?ItisnotchildpornItischildabuse?

This is outrage over John Grishams views on sentencing of people who have accessed illegal images - not outrage over child abuse per se.

You do realise that children were abuse to create that material in the first place, right? I once read an article that stated those who watched film/viewed images of children being abused were as guilty as those who did it & filmed/took pictures of it.

I agree.

What's "technical" about "images of child abuse"?

How about a photo of a 16 year old Sam Fox that was deemed suitable for publication on page 3 in the 1980s but is now illegal.

If you don't believe me try to find a pic of her topless on the internet - you will find them, but not the ones when she was under 18.

I agree with OP that what he said was vile, but, yes a big fat BUT he was talking about people being imprisoned for things they (in his opinion) should not have been, or long sentences that he thought should be shorter. He also talked about Martha Stewart and young black teenagers. It was also quite clear he was talking about 1 person, someone he knew.

Please read the full article.

Get angry, but do it from the entirety of what he said, either in the original article or in the video in the link. Then read his apology.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11168234/John-Grisham-apologises-for-child-pornography-comments.html

www.jgrisham.com/a-statement-from-john-grisham-2/

It does seem odd that he chose boys when the friend n question actually looked at girls.

He would have simply said "he was looking at 16 year olds NOT 10 year olds" wouldn't he?

Not he was looking at 16 year old girls NOT 10 year old boys.

An effort was made. The way he made an effort to talk about old white gentlemen in prison. NOT the sort to actually do bad things

I think by saying that load of bile he has made his own noose, i dont believe him for a minute.

I have read the article in its entirety and disagree with your assessment of it sashh. It is very clear what he thinks and I'm shocked that you are defending him.

sashh they weren't just naked, they were being RAPED for heaven's sake!!! As were the other children in the images, some who were under 12!!! PLus he actually SHARED the images, so bollox did he 'stumble' acorss a site while drunk!!!

However unseen newspaper reports of Mr Holleman's trial in 1997 obtained by the Telegraph from the local Sun Herald newspaper paint a far more serious picture of the case than Mr Grisham

An undercover agent who asked for some of Holleman's pictures over the Internet earlier this year received 13 images, all of children under 18, some under 12. They depicted children during sexually explicit conduct, including intercourse," said the report from November 1997, quoting a US justice department lawyer, Kathy McLure."

here

Jesus! I am actually even more angry about this now. People who defend that kind of behaviour should be ashamed of themselves. If JG sees what his friend did as just a little thing, it rather casts doubt on HiS moral compass as well.

"...the lengthy sentences have raised questions in American legal circles after it emerged that people who viewed child pornography were sometimes facing harsher sentences than those who physically abused children." This may have been more along the lines of what Grisham meant, but he failed miserably and decided instead to take up the case of his (assume) white, middle class, middle-aged male friend - with an obvious misguided sense of entitlement - over and above abused children.

Why? Why use your position to speak out against this, instead of a case supporting vulnerable human beings? I don't know much about him but I bet he doesn't stir up a hornets nest about much else - apart from when his poor privileged mate gets caught with his pants down.

The thought of anyone in his social circle actually being held accountable for their actions is obviously waaaay too important. More important than child abuse.

I am really worried by all this speaking out in support of men and their pedophilic tendencies as being 'natural'. Some lord was on about it the other day as well. We are getting dangerously close to normalising it - saying 'hey it's okay, we understand what it's like to be a bit unconventional, to be liberal. You have rights too - your right to want to abuse vulnerable children for your sexual gratification. It's not your fault, it's how god made you.'

Bollocks to that.

I linked a document somewhere from the US legal system which covered the fact that child abuse viewers had high rates of recidivism and were likely to already be or go on to be perpetrators and that sentencing should reflect this if appropriate for a given case.

It made sense.

dangerously close to normalizing pedophilia

Really? In a country where a paediatrician's house was burnt down and an innocent man with special needs was killed in a vigilante attack? Where paedophiles are hiding in every bush, according to the tabloids.

The only thing I can see being normalized is the concept that there is only one degree of appalling and any attempt to differentiate appalling is equivalent to condoning it.

interesting that he describes the men that he is talking about as men like him, not only age but ethnic background to

any viewing of child abuse on these sites you are part of the network that keeps children being abused you are supporting those that rape these children the only importance is for the children to be protected not those who after a few drinks goes on line to view such images

some seem to feel more comfortable if the lines are blurred to justify their own desires. consenting ADULTS being filmed or photographed having sex/role play is that consenting adults children being involved is abuse/rape that is what you are viewing and that is why prison sentences are needed you have supported the abuse of children

Dam, have you read the further detail about this guy sharing images of 12 year olds? JG just minimised the hell out of that.