# John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles



## Ethan Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

Hi everyone:

A sad article by a favorite author for so many people.

One more reason why we, authors, above all people should be so careful about what we say and how we say it with our words.

Read the article and decide for yourself:

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

Thanks,

Ethan


----------



## deedawning (Aug 31, 2013)

WOW, I'm reading & enjoying a book by him right now.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

It's stupid on its face, but the actual charges are not about occasionally seeing someone 16 as Mr. Grisham claims. The actual charges are multiple counts of trading photos of children under 12 engaged in sexual intercourse.

There is no way that Mr. Grisham did not know that and the fact he distorts the facts to make it seem less vile is twice as damning. I have three times had the sad experience of having someone I know charged with child porn possession or molesting a child and you want the details because you want it to be a mistake, you want to be told she was 17 and he didn't realize because she looked mature. You want something that proves that someone who looks like a perfectly pleasant person isn't a monster.

But that proof isn't there because the charges generally only get made when its the worst stuff possible.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

I guess now we get to see if he really is famous enough to say whatever he wants. Worst. Publicity. Ever.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

Sorry Mr. Grisham. I don't believe people get into child porn by accident.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

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


Because looking at naked 16-year-old girls is perfectly fine for drunk old men, but looking at boys would be perverted and wrong.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Kat S said:


> It's stupid on its face, but the actual charges are not about occasionally seeing someone 16 as Mr. Grisham claims. The actual charges are multiple counts of trading photos of children under 12 engaged in sexual intercourse.


Sixteen is the "legal" age in most West European countries, and, I think, in some US States as well.

I think, as writers, we should use words correctly. Only sex with prepubescent children should be called pedophilia.

Trading pictures of children under 12 would of course meet that definition. Whatever made Mr. Grisham want to defend this, is beyond me.


----------



## jesrphoto (Aug 7, 2012)

Ick. Mr. Grisham is going to anger a lot of fans with these outrageous opinions.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> Because looking at naked 16-year-old girls is perfectly fine for drunk old men, but looking at boys would be perverted and wrong.


You have hit on the entire root of the problem. Because, you know, these girls are at fault in some way. Society allows men to blame female victims of these crimes because we can't possibly expect grown men to know better but 16 year old girls should COMPLETELY be responsible for any photos taken of them.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Y'know we're all gonna think of this article the next time we see one of his books.  And then NOT buy it.  Why would he give himself bad publicity like this?  And seriously?  I agree there are wrong things happening sometimes in the justice system -- everyone in the world would probably agree with that -- but honestly, why would he pick this as the thing (prosecution of pedophiles) as something that we're being too harsh about?    I know internet outrage means nothing but I'm so...disappointed.  :-(


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

HSh said:


> Y'know we're all gonna think of this article the next time we see one of his books. And then NOT buy it. Why would he give himself bad publicity like this? And seriously? I agree there are wrong things happening sometimes in the justice system -- everyone in the world would probably agree with that -- but honestly, why would he pick this as the thing (prosecution of pedophiles) as something that we're being too harsh about?  I know internet outrage means nothing but I'm so...disappointed. :-(


And you know, there ARE real problems with the way we prosecute sex crimes. A college guy that gets drunk and urinates in public gets the same "sex offender" label as a child molester or a rapist. An 18 year old high school student has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and he gets slapped with a sex offender label. If you are going to stand up for people, let it be the kids like that who didn't actually DO anything other than be stupid.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

swolf said:


> In his defense, he did say 10-year-old boys. There's a big difference between 16 and 10, regardless of the gender.


That is true. But there is a certain bias seen sometimes in society that boys are more valuable and less responsible for their sexualization than girls. (I.e. girls are seen as inherently dangerous and sexual beings who are "asking for it" much more quickly than boys are--not good.) So sometimes people notice that and comment on it. Hopefully this won't devolve into that topic.

I think we probably ALL agree that every underage person needs to be protected, the youngest the most, but seriously, there are laws for a reason, and that's so young people are protected, right?

Anyway. On with the outrage. I should also really get off the internet now...


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

swolf said:


> I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's saying there's a difference between looking at pictures of 16-year-old girls and looking at pictures of 10-year-old boys. And there is. A 16-year-old girl could be made up to look older, or someone older than 16 could be made up to look that age. A 10-year-old boy is what he is and there's no mistaking that.


If you read his comments in full context, you'll realize this isn't what he was talking about at all.



> "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.


Whether or not the girls were made up to look 30 is not relevant. He went out LOOKING for sexually explicit images of minors. This wasn't even an accidental "OMG WHAT DID I CLICK ON" He went to the website and started downloading stuff. These were sexually exploited teen girls. Not girls posting selfies on Facebook.


----------



## DMichaelis (May 4, 2014)

Ethan Jones said:


> One more reason why we, authors, above all people should be so careful about what we say and how we say it with our words.


Oh my god, this is so true. I don't know what's worse, knowing up front that a writer has problematic views or learning that after you've purchased their books and recommended them to others. I had this conversation with someone on Twitter about how to separate a writer from their work. You want to support their work especially if it's good, but you don't necessarily want to support their bad views. Unfortunately, the two are intertwined.

As far as looking at 16 year olds. That's not cool for their pics to be online for everyone to view, but automatically assuming someone who looks at a 16 year old naked as a pedophile is also problematic. First because the definition is doesn't really apply as others have pointed out. But secondly, there is some nuance when it comes to older teens. You have 18 year old boys/girls on the sex offender list for looking at and possessing pics of their 16 and 17 year old girlfriends/boyfriends. To me, that's not pedophilia. That's a young teen couple making some bad choices. However, I do have a problem with websites that have pages upon pages of underage girls/boys and men/women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s ogling them.

And I agree. You don't just stumble onto kiddie corn on the Internet. That's some dark web stuff and most people who want to look at that know where to find it. I fully support prosecuting people who peddle in that stuff.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

> Mr Grisham, 59, argued America's judges had "gone crazy" over the past 30 years, locking up far too many people, from white collar criminals like the businesswoman Martha Stewart, to black teenagers on minor drugs charges and - he added - those who had viewed child porn online.


Good. Those judges are doing their jobs and doing a good thing. By viewing child pornography a person is adding to the demand for it. Those children are abused because of it. Thus, anyone who looks at it is at least partially responsible for that abuse.



> "We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child," he said in an exclusive interview to promote his latest novel Gray Mountain which is published next week.


Actually, Mr. Grisham, they are harming the kids by looking at the pornography, of which will haunt them for the rest of their lives. So it's both physical and psychological abuse.



> "But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn."


Hogwash. One does not "accidently" stumble upon child porn. You have to go searching for it.



> "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."


He deliberately went to a website that advertised 16 year old girls. He brought it upon himself.

Mr. Grisham is going to regret his words for sure. Never bought any of his books, and I have no intention of ever doing so.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sorry for any confusion; after careful thought and much arm wrestling in Admin, I rethought moving it and have moved it back to the Writers' Café. 



Betsy


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

It only takes once to put your foot in it when you're that famous.


----------



## rosclarke (Jul 12, 2013)

Ethan Jones said:


> Hi everyone:
> 
> A sad article by a favorite author for so many people.
> 
> One more reason why we, authors, above all people should be so careful about what we say and how we say it with our words.


I don't think the problem AT ALL is how he said it 'with his words', or that it's authors 'above all people' for whom this is an issue. The problem is that Grisham - or ANYONE - thinks that stuff. Him being an author is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

I love the notion that we have jails filled with 60 year old white men. AS IF.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Well, burn me at the stake and all, but I agree with him. 

I don't know why people are always so all-or-nothing about these issues. He's not saying that people shouldn't get in trouble for looking at pictures of 16-year-olds, but he is saying that it shouldn't be the same thing as raping a 10-year-old.

Honestly, I don't think that a man who is attracted to 16-year-old girls has a pathology. It's wrong for moral reasons, but it's not... unnatural. It's a typical biological response to stimuli. It's wrong for social reasons, of course, but being attracted to children--children who are physically too young to reproduce--is against any kind of biological directive in addition to being socially repugnant. It's just worse. The end.

We have degrees of murder. We should have degrees for sexual abuse and rape. All kinds are bad, but that doesn't mean some kinds aren't worse than others. And frankly, when being arrested for downloading pictures of naked girls is elevated to the same level as tricking, trapping, and sodomizing a prepubescent child, all we're doing is making the actual rape seem more trivial.

It's just like zero tolerance stuff at schools--the kind of laws that get passed that get kids expelled for bringing cardboard guns to school. Just because we want to be tough on something doesn't mean we all have to stop using our brains.

Anyway, good for John Grisham, I say. Some of my favorite popular figures have taken on unpopular topics and were ridiculed for it. Personally, I'm not going to spend my whole writing career trying not to say anything "wrong." Sometimes, someone has to speak up.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

Well, as Kat S said up thread:



> It's stupid on its face, but the actual charges are not about occasionally seeing someone 16 as Mr. Grisham claims. The actual charges are multiple counts of trading photos of children under 12 engaged in sexual intercourse.


----------



## Ethan Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

Valeriec80: You say "We should have degrees for sexual abuse and rape."

I disagree. As any woman or man who has been sexually abused or raped would tell you, it is all the same. There is no degree in it.

Ethan


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

> Honestly, I don't think that a man who is attracted to 16-year-old girls has a pathology. It's wrong for moral reasons, but it's not... unnatural. It's a typical biological response to stimuli. It's wrong for social reasons, of course, but being attracted to children--children who are physically too young to reproduce--is against any kind of biological directive in addition to being socially repugnant. It's just worse. The end.


You are saying that people who like looking at suggestive pictures of children aren't being driven by a biological directive? That they actively choose to be turned on by children? Because I doubt they do.

But we expect those "wrong" people to curb and control their desires. But not the people who want to look at young girls, because that's "natural"?

The whole thing is about social norms. Modern society still sees girls as acceptable sexual objects, so teenage cheerleader porn is "normal". But little boys? Reprehensible! Pervents!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> Well, burn me at the stake and all, but I agree with him.
> 
> I don't know why people are always so all-or-nothing about these issues. He's not saying that people shouldn't get in trouble for looking at pictures of 16-year-olds, but he is saying that it shouldn't be the same thing as raping a 10-year-old.
> 
> ...


Grisham lied. The girls in the photos (which his friend PAID for) were under 12 and were having intercourse. Hence, he was paying for those prepubescent girls to be raped. Paying for them to be tricked and trapped and whether they are raped vaginally or anally, it is the purchaser who is sponsoring it.

How is that different than the friend committing the rape himself?

ETA: If I pay for someone to be murdered, I am guilty of murder. The same should be true of rape, so I think the 18 month sentence the friend received was a light one.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

And... the damage control begins.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/john-grisham-child-pornography/



> After the uproar began, Grisham issued an apology.
> 
> "Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography -- online or otherwise -- should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," the author said in a statement. "My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable. I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all."
> That may not be enough for some of his former followers.
> ...


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

His argument doesn't make much sense. For one, if there's not much physical difference between 16 and 18, then why go looking for stuff that advertises an age you know to be illegal instead of going for the barely legal stuff? Seems like a certain thrill-seeking element to doing something you know you're not supposed to do. And as others pointed out, the problem wasn't that his friend was looking at 16 y/o girls who looked 30.

Second, 60-year-old men who would never harm a child? As someone else said, when you feed the demand for child porn, that's going to effect the supply. Those children _are_ harmed.

Sentencing laws may indeed be harsher for those who view and possess these images and if so, that's a debate that should be had. And there are some sex offender laws that are ridiculous-such as the examples Julie noted. But he's going about this argument in a way that is just completely stupid.

There are serious problems with America's judicial system and incarceration rate. But it's not because our jails are filled with sexagenarian perverts.

If nothing else, Grisham might find some new supporters in some of the more despicable sections of Reddit and 4chan.


----------



## EthanRussellErway (Nov 17, 2011)

If everything he said was accurate, I could sympathize with what he was _trying_ to say, though he failed to do it eloquently. But I don't think that even much of what he had to say is accurate. He vastly overstated the problem, and made it sound as if the prisons are teeming with semi-innocent people who just happened to stumble onto something. While this might be possible in an extremely rare case, it's by far not the standard.


----------



## EthanRussellErway (Nov 17, 2011)

By the way, it's pretty amazing what society will put up with from celebrities.  Cases in point- Roman Polanski,  Woody Allen, Bryan Singer.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

If you watch the video, watch him actually saying these things, he just oozes entitlement and righteous outrage that "all these 60-year-old white guys like me" are sitting in prison for watching naked teenagers. It makes me want to actively protest his books.

_It's OK because I do it, I just haven't been caught by the FBI and I think they shouldn't be coming down so hard on us old white guys_ seems to be the subtext of the discussion.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Perry Constantine said:


> His argument doesn't make much sense. For one, if there's not much physical difference between 16 and 18, then why go looking for stuff that advertises an age you know to be illegal instead of going for the barely legal stuff? Seems like a certain thrill-seeking element to doing something you know you're not supposed to do. And as others pointed out, the problem wasn't that his friend was looking at 16 y/o girls who looked 30.


Again, 16 is perfectly legal in my country and most West European states. They're even discussing lowering the age of consent to 15.

And there is no such thing in a legal sense as "barely legal." Something is legal, or it isn't.


----------



## DMichaelis (May 4, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Again, 16 is perfectly legal in my country and most West European states. They're even discussing lowering the age of consent to 15.
> 
> And there is no such thing in a legal sense as "barely legal." Something is legal, or it isn't.


"Barely legal" is a term invented by the porn industry to indicate the actor/actress just barely turned 18 and hence the viewer just skirted under the wire. It's semantics for thrill seekers. The age of consent for sex between two people is 16 in a lot of states in the US. However, for filming pornography/taking dirty pictures the minimum age is 18 and even 21 in a few states. That's across the board. It doesn't matter if you're both 16 looking at naked pictures of each other. You will get in trouble. I think there was even a story about a girl who got in trouble for having naked pictures of her underage self. I'll have to find it again.


----------



## DanaG (Feb 13, 2011)

"We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child," he said in an exclusive interview to promote his latest novel Gray Mountain which is published next week.

"But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn." 

Oh, gosh, I hate it when I accidentally "push the wrong buttons" and get into child porn.  I mean, it's like all my fingers had a seizure at the same time, but somehow, they all typed in words that made child porn sites come up! And then the seizure kept happening and clicked on the links to those sites! And then they kept clicking on pictures! For hours! And I couldn't get up from my chair and escape! 

Except THAT NEVER HAPPENS.  

And the children in those pictures are being victimized, and the people who visit those websites are the ones who encourage child pornographers to keep victimizing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

Where I grew up, the question wasn't whether the kid was pubescent or prepubescent. Some kids can be pubescent at age 11.
There was a legal line that said the kid was, or was not, old enough to give CONSENT to sexual activity. This implied thinking and emotional maturity, not physical maturity
Similar laws determined if a kid was old enough (mature enough) to drive a car. Or drink. Or vote.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

> Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child


Really, John? How about we let them babysit your grandkids? That would be okay, right?


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Sixteen is the "legal" age in most West European countries


In some. Certainly not in "most". It's 15 in many Western European countries, 14 in several (Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal) and 13 in Spain.


----------



## Ravenandblack (Jan 27, 2014)

Grisham has children. Were it pictures of his own underage abused son or daughter his 'friend' was drunkenly jerking off to, would he still feel the same? You don't stumble upon this content. The people who pay to see this perpetuate the abuse. No excuses.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> His argument doesn't make much sense. For one, if there's not much physical difference between 16 and 18, then why go looking for stuff that advertises an age you know to be illegal instead of going for the barely legal stuff? Seems like a certain thrill-seeking element to doing something you know you're not supposed to do. And as others pointed out, the problem wasn't that his friend was looking at 16 y/o girls who looked 30.
> 
> Second, 60-year-old men who would never harm a child? As someone else said, when you feed the demand for child porn, that's going to effect the supply. Those children _are_ harmed.
> 
> ...


Exactly. There are extremes I would certainly argue against, but he chose at best a ridiculous example. If he can't see how viewing child porn harms children, I can only say that he has a problem as well.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

It used to be really easy to stumble onto porn. Back when I first got a computer and got online, in the good old days of the mid-90s, the most innocuous searches could land you on a site that required copious amounts of bleach to clean your brain. _I saw things I ain't never seen before, I don't want to see no more_, as the old song says.

My sister was over to the house once, and we were looking around the AOL boards, trying to figure out what this new Internet thing was. We found one place that had lots of younger folks on it. Sister typed in some comment about her age (she was a grown woman), asking if there was anybody else that age there, and the suddenly older people crawled out of the woodwork. It was a flood! Men were trolling these areas that were mostly populated by tweens and teens. It was disgusting.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> Well, burn me at the stake and all, but I agree with him.
> 
> I don't know why people are always so all-or-nothing about these issues. He's not saying that people shouldn't get in trouble for looking at pictures of 16-year-olds, but he is saying that it shouldn't be the same thing as raping a 10-year-old.
> 
> ...


I would guess that you do not have children.

I've had 16-year-olds. (Boys.) One of them had a mentor, a person in a position of authority, who was sexually abusing some of the boys with whose welfare he was charged. He went to prison.

Those boys were 16. They weren't adults. Their trust was violated, their vulnerability was exploited. Their childhood was ended.

One of the most fervent prayers of my life is that my own son was not in fact a victim. Even though he was all the same. He found that the person he trusted so much was a predator.

I venture to guess that the 16-year-olds (the hypothetical ones, as there were apparently no 16-year-old girls in this actual case) whose videos and photos engaged in sex are being sold online are also being violated and exploited, and that any childhood they had ended long, long ago.

It is not the same thing as an 18-year-old having consensual sex with a 17-year old or even a 16-year-old girlfriend. Anyone who can't see that--well, I wonder what kind of novels they are writing. None that I'd buy.

This is certainly the end of any purchases I will ever make from Mr. Grisham. He didn't "misspeak." He wasn't "not careful enough." He revealed himself as what he is. And what he is, is a person without decency, a person without empathy, a man without honor, and a husband (I assume) whose wife should be having serious--SERIOUS--second thoughts. I have a husband. I have adult male sons. Their reaction to these crimes is not Mr. Grisham's. Thank God. Because they are decent and honorable men.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

I admit that I did purchase a John Grisham novel about ten years ago, but I can happily add that it was for the express purpose of using its pages to fuel a fire.

Truth be told, it wasn't even particularly good at that.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Countries with ages of consent lower than 18 have these policies in place so the courts don't have to deal with these problems, not because kids are mature enough for sex at 13. Seriously, wtf Spain?



valeriec80 said:


> Honestly, I don't think that a man who is attracted to 16-year-old girls has a pathology. It's wrong for moral reasons, but it's not... unnatural. It's a typical biological response to stimuli. It's wrong for social reasons, of course, but being attracted to children--children who are physically too young to reproduce--is against any kind of biological directive in addition to being socially repugnant. It's just worse. The end.


Not really. The youngest mother was five years old. Ten year old mothers are common in some parts of the world. Now, a lot of them of them die, sure. But hey, the guys were just following a biological directive, right?

Some health facts: In low- and middle-income countries, babies born to mothers under 20 years of age face a 50% higher risk of being still born or dying in the first few weeks versus those born to mothers aged 20-29. The younger the mother, the greater the risk to the baby. Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die. Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19.

So yes, it is a problem when a grown man is attracted to teen girls. Biologically, not just socially.

Obviously Grisham is just in denial about who his friend is, because he was actually charged with something a lot more serious than accidentally stumbling upon an inappropriate selfie of a teenager. The kids were apparently 12. 12 year old _victims_.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2014)

I have an easy solution to reduce the sexagenarian population of pedos in prison for viewing the child porn. It's the same solution for dealing with the people who make it. Execute them all. A bullet is cheap and quick, which is more than they deserve--particularly the makers of child porn with little children. I have a two and eight-year-old, and I would kill anyone who touched them. The justice system would be involved, I'm sure, to try me for murder, but they wouldn't get the chance to try those f'ers for child rape. 

Ironic that Grisham's best novel is about a man who murders the two SOBs who raped and nearly killed his eleven-year-old daughter, and then gets acquitted for the "crime."


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

I was wondering where the under 12 was coming from in some of the comments, so for anyone else wondering, here is one source

http://www.teleread.com/writing/john-grisham-testified-friend-downloaded-kiddie-porn-reports/


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

zoe tate said:


> In some. Certainly not in "most". It's 15 in many Western European countries, 14 in several (Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal) and 13 in Spain.


I find that absolutely horrifying. It's one thing for say, a 19 year to date, maybe even shag, someone who's 15. They're still fairly mentally close together.

But how about a 30 year old with a 15 year old. How about 13, like in Spain? I side eye anyone who's willing, or even interested in wanting to date someone so much younger than themselves, especially if the younger of the two hasn't even reached their 20's.

Now if it was between a 25 year old with a 40 year old, then it's not as big of a deal though I personally still find that a bit skeevy, but we shouldn't base laws on what we may or may not kind skeevy.

Edit: After someone elses post and some quick research I've learned that even in countries where the age of consent is fairly young, the older partner must also be under a certain age. That defiantly is reassuring.

Still looks really bad for Grisham friend, who was past that age threshold.

Still going to side-eye Spain for their very low age of consent though.



Christa Wick said:


> I was wondering where the under 12 was coming from in some of the comments, so for anyone else wondering, here is one source
> 
> http://www.teleread.com/writing/john-grisham-testified-friend-downloaded-kiddie-porn-reports


Wow...



> US justice department lawyer Kathy McLure stated during the trial that Holleman had swapped child porn images involving sex acts and intercourse involving children under 18, and even under 12.





> It appears very likely, unless the Telegraph reports are completely wrong, that Grisham also did this knowing that Holleman had done far worse than just foolishly browse a website involving supposed 16-year-olds, but had in fact actively traded porn clearly involving seriously underage participants.


=|



StraightNoChaser said:


> Countries with ages of consent lower than 18 have these policies in place so the courts don't have to deal with these problems, not because kids are mature enough for sex at 13. Seriously, wtf Spain?


I looked it up, and it really is 13 in Spain. Wow. =|



> Some health facts: In low- and middle-income countries, babies born to mothers under 20 years of age face a 50% higher risk of being still born or dying in the first few weeks versus those born to mothers aged 20-29. The younger the mother, the greater the risk to the baby. Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die. Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19.
> 
> So yes, it is a problem when a grown man is attracted to teen girls. Biologically, not just socially.
> 
> Obviously Grisham is just in denial about who his friend is, because he was actually charged with something a lot more serious than accidentally stumbling upon an inappropriate selfie of a teenager. The kids were apparently 12. 12 year old _victims_.


^This.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

StraightNoChaser said:


> Countries with ages of consent lower than 18 have these policies in place so the courts don't have to deal with these problems, not because kids are mature enough for sex at 13. Seriously, wtf Spain?


The idea is usually to bring laws more in line with reality where teens' first sexual encounters usually take place before 18. 13 is way too young, though, the European average is somewhere between 15 and 17.

Plus, a lot of European countries where the age of consent is under 16 have stipulations that the other partner must be under 18 or 21 as well to protect teens in the heat of the moment from sex offender charges, while not giving adult pedophiles a free pass. For example, in Germany the age of consent is 14 only if the other partner is under 18, otherwise it's 16. There was an initiative to blanket lower the age of consent to 14 a couple of years ago, but it failed and the party who pushed it is now feeling the backlash.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DanaG said:


> "We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody, would never touch a child," he said in an exclusive interview to promote his latest novel Gray Mountain which is published next week.
> 
> "But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn."
> 
> ...


You left out the part about clicking your credit card information in order to access the site and download the photos. Poor fingers must have been having a seizure with all the 'accidental clicking'.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

Kit Tunstall said:


> I have a two and eight-year-old, and I would kill anyone who touched them. The justice system would be involved, I'm sure, to try me for murder, but they wouldn't get the chance to try those f'ers for child rape.


I'm with you. My wife and I are thinking about having a kid, and I'd do the same as you.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> The idea is usually to bring laws more in line with reality where teens' first sexual encounters usually take place before 18. 13 is way too young, though, the European average is somewhere between 15 and 17.


But they typically experiment with other teens their own age, not adults.



> Plus, a lot of European countries where the age of consent is under 16 have stipulations that the other partner must be under 18 or 21 as well to protect teens in the heat of the moment from sex offender charges, while not giving adult pedophiles a free pass.


Ah. Good to know, had no idea.



> For example, in Germany the age of consent is 14 only if the other partner is under 18, otherwise it's 16. There was an initiative to blanket lower the age of consent to 14 a couple of years ago, but it failed and the party who pushed it is now feeling the backlash.


That makes sense. I'm fine with the age of consent being that low so long as the older partner is also under a certain age.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

T


CoraBuhlert said:


> The idea is usually to bring laws more in line with reality where teens' first sexual encounters usually take place before 18. 13 is way too young, though, the European average is somewhere between 15 and 17.
> 
> Plus, a lot of European countries where the age of consent is under 16 have stipulations that the other partner must be under 18 or 21 as well to protect teens in the heat of the moment from sex offender charges, while not giving adult pedophiles a free pass. For example, in Germany the age of consent is 14 only if the other partner is under 18, otherwise it's 16. There was an initiative to blanket lower the age of consent to 14 a couple of years ago, but it failed and the party who pushed it is now feeling the backlash.


That makes a lot of sense and is a situation where US laws should be looked at. There have been cases where an 18 or 19 year old was charged for having sex with a girl only a couple of years younger which is an entirely different situation. I don't think anyone here is saying US laws are even close to perfect, but Gresham's comments were simply ridiculous. We don't exactly have jails full of elderly white guys who 'accidentally' clicked on child porn. Now if he was protesting the huge number of people in jail for victimless drug crimes, but those are people he isn't interested in since they aren't "just like me".


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Well, if they're not pedophiles, then they should find it fairly easy to refrain from looking at underaged porn.

I mean, they should, shouldn't they? It's not like the stuff is popping up in Google ads or anything. I've never tried to find it, but given that every aspect of it involves committing a felony, I would suspect that it's fairly difficult to find without some focused expenditure of effort.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Well... "Grisham was discussing how the American prison system has run amuck by jailing too many people on meaningless charges. He talked about Martha Stewart and young black males with only small drug charges who get far too much prison time for their offence." He's also on the board of Project Innocence. I'm not defending his views on the child porn issue, but credit where credit is due.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

If he had complained that the jails were full of 18-year-olds and their 16-year-old girlfriends, I would agree that's ridiculous. (And a gross exaggeration.  But cases do pop up where an angry dad has a boyfriend arrested.) 

But it's the guys like him and his only-searches-for-porn-accidentally-when-drunk buddy that make up the biggest market for paid child porn.  It's not "no big deal" or an "accident" when money changes hands and abusers profit from exploiting kids. Even if they don't buy the porn outright, they pay subscription fees or the site makes money of ads it shows.  Just wandering over to teenage-girls-who-want-to-be-hookers makes that site a profit in ad views.  Profits means more content, always more content is needed.

It is a very, very big deal. 

To complain that the men caught were not actually touching any children is disgusting.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Please go back and look at the facts. Mr. Grisham is saying these were 16 year olds in a state of undress. That is not a fact. That is a lie. These were pre-pubescent children under the age of 12 engaging in sexual acts.

The fact that Mr. Grisham misrepresented that is unfathomable.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> Well... "Grisham was discussing how the American prison system has run amuck by jailing too many people on meaningless charges. He talked about Martha Stewart and young black males with only small drug charges who get far too much prison time for their offence." He's also on the board of Project Innocence. I'm not defending his views on the child porn issue, but credit where credit is due.


And I personally agree with this last point. But looking at the numbers, the issue of black men being churned through the prisons in minor drug offenses so far outweighs the "Oops! I looked at underage porn" issue that he should have stopped while he was ahead.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> Well... "Grisham was discussing how the American prison system has run amuck by jailing too many people on meaningless charges. He talked about Martha Stewart and young black males with only small drug charges who get far too much prison time for their offence." He's also on the board of Project Innocence. I'm not defending his views on the child porn issue, but credit where credit is due.


And that somehow absolves him from being a rape culture apologist?


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Again, I have no wish to invalidate the corruption in our judicial system, but the perp in this case traded pictures of children under the age of 12 involved in intercourse. This is an open and shut guilty as sin case. There is no grey here.


----------



## pagegirl (Feb 3, 2014)

> But it's the guys like him and his only-searches-for-porn-accidentally-when-drunk buddy that make up the biggest market for paid child porn. It's not "no big deal" or an "accident" when money changes hands and abusers profit from exploiting kids. Even if they don't buy the porn outright, they pay subscription fees or the site makes money of ads it shows. Just wandering over to teenage-girls-who-want-to-be-hookers makes that site a profit in ad views. Profits means more content, always more content is needed.
> 
> It is a very, very big deal.
> 
> To complain that the men caught were not actually touching any children is disgusting.


This. He is vile. All my Grisham booms will be a nice addition to my next bonfire.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> Well... "Grisham was discussing how the American prison system has run amuck by jailing too many people on meaningless charges. He talked about Martha Stewart and young black males with only small drug charges who get far too much prison time for their offence."


Poor Martha got 5 months for insider trading which she profited from. Is he going to champion all the entitled people who get caught breaking the law?


----------



## pagegirl (Feb 3, 2014)

Lol thanks auto correct. For the record I don't own any of his booms just his books.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

I stand by my earlier comments about the motivation of these laws. But, I am prone to conspiracy theories. 



Kat S said:


> Again, I have no wish to invalidate the corruption in our judicial system, but the perp in this case traded pictures of children under the age of 12 involved in intercourse. This is an open and shut guilty as sin case. There is no grey here.


+1


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

SBright said:


> And that somehow absolves him from being a rape culture apologist?


I didn't suggest that it did. I was addressing the earlier comment that his only concern was about keeping 60-something white males like himself out of jail. I'm not defending his views on the pedophile issue, but the thinly veiled accusation that he's some kind of elitist racist is without merit. I think most of us agree that he deserves to be crucified for his pedophilia comments, but let's not start making stuff up about the guy.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I don't see where anyone called him a racist.  An entitled, rich white guy worried about his own?  Yes.  But saying that makes him racist is a straw man argument.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> I didn't suggest that it did. I was addressing the earlier comment that his only concern was about keeping 60-something white males like himself out of jail. I'm not defending his views on the pedophile issue, but the thinly veiled accusation that he's some kind of elitist racist is without merit. I think most of us agree that he deserves to be crucified for his pedophilia comments, but let's not start making stuff up about the guy.


Why make stuff up when he gives you so much to work with in the first place?



> We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who've never harmed anybody


I'd like to see these multiple prisons filled with persecuted old white guys too.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> I didn't suggest that it did. I was addressing the earlier comment that his only concern was about keeping 60-something white males like himself out of jail. I'm not defending his views on the pedophile issue, but the thinly veiled accusation that he's some kind of elitist racist is without merit. I think most of us agree that he deserves to be crucified for his pedophilia comments, but let's not start making stuff up about the guy.


There's a difference of speaking from an elitist viewpoint and a privileged viewpoint. He falls in the latter. And no, it doesn't refer to his income.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

OK I am gonna probably get bashed for this BUT here goes:
He points out that his friend had a serious drinking problem and was totally loaded when he did what he did. Had his friend been SOBER then it would not have happened.

He points out that people are being arrested and prosecuted for looking at videos of teen girls who are WILLINGLY making these videos (assumingly) and the girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER then they are.

Part of his point is that when these girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER thent hey are how is someone viewing a video supposed to know?Not every video has that label warning that it IS indeed child porn. 

He ALSO points out that people who WATCH a video are given harsher punishments then the people who actually DO THE CRIME. That THAt is one of our big issues today

What I THINK he is saying and because a LOT has been left out of this article is that, there are people who in this world would NEVER knowingly or willingly touch a child. BUT there are also in this world people who are not as technologically knowledgeable (or in some cases incapacitated to understanding what their seeing) as a younger person and may end up accidentally downloading things they never would in a million years knowingly. the example of his friend was to show the friend, in a rather well inebriated state, THOUGHT he was downloading a video of adult girls who were playing a ROLE of a 16 year old wanting to be older but who in reality, really were 16 years old. 

he is basically saying that yes pedophiles, true pedophiles who KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY harm a child should go to prison but people who may download a video thinking the girl is a 20something PLAYING A ROLE of a minor teenager who is trying to pretend to be older should not be considered a pedophile because they in honestly DIDNT KNOW that the girl was really a minor. It is sort of also including the guy who is dating someone who lies about their age. (dont even tell me teens dont or cant even get fake ID's we know they do and can) Also if a guy and girl are dating and he turns 18 and she is still 16 or 17 and their making out in a car on a date and a cop knocks on the window guess what? That kid is going to get a pedophile label even though he would NEVER harm a child or do anything to a child.

I can see the points he is making but I can also see where this article left out a good bit to make it SOUND worse then what he is actually saying.  You have to read between the lines sometimes to see what is missing to get to the truth especially in interviews. I would love to see the entire verbatim interview before I would start crying for anyone's head on a stick.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Aside from the massive rape culture excuses all contained in that post, the person in question wasn't tricked by the lure of alcohol into watching some vampy 16 year olds. He downloaded and watched 12 year olds get raped for his sexual pleasure. 

Yeah. There's no way to excuse that.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

You can watch it here. I found it worse coming out of his mouth than written in text. It's not out of context.

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

Here's a really good overview with what's wrong with his statement.

http://moonlightreader.booklikes.com/post/1015776/pedophiles-pornography-and-prison-a-not-so-brief-response-to-john-grisham

The whole olde-enough-to-be-legal thing is a non-issue when it comes to filling up our prisons with sex offenders.



> I've been doing this a long time. I can count on zero hands the number of prosecuted offenders who just a few images of individuals in their late teens on their computers. Zero hands, as in zeee-f-ing-ro. This is for a couple of reasons: 1) establishing that the offender "knew" that victim was under 18 is an element of the offense; and 2) establishing that the victim actually was under 18 is an element of the offense. So, if you believe that you are viewing pornography of a 16 year old, but it turns out she is actually 24, that's not a crime. And if you believe that you are viewing pornography of a 24 year old, but she is actually 16, that's not actually a crime either. It is only when the offender is "aware" that he is viewing pornography of someone who is underage AND she is actually underage that it is a crime.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Anne Victory said:


> No, but both situations will land you with a FELONY charge on your record and your name in the database of sex offenders for the rest of your life, just as if you actually HAD committed rape or sexual abuse. That was my point.


Which really doesn't have anything to do with publicly defending old guys who watch child porn as being "not so bad."

Author Ilona Edwards has a good post on the subject as well. Or read the moonlightreader post linked above. It will break your heart.



> I have had the misfortune, because of my job, to view a damned lot of child pornography. It is terrible stuff, especially the videos. Sometimes they have audio, and one is confronted with the visceral reality that these children are crying, and begging not to have to do it. It will burn into your brain and it will not let go. Sometimes they are drugged, and are barely conscious. Sometimes they are hit and beaten. Often the children in them have the empty eyes of the emotionally broken and dead, and the bruised, skinny bodies of the neglected and hungry. The normal human response to those videos is horror, and pain, and a deep sadness and empathy for the children in them.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Rae Scott Studio said:


> Had his friend been SOBER then it would not have happened.


We don't know that.



> He points out that people are being arrested and prosecuted for looking at videos of teen girls who are WILLINGLY making these videos (assumingly)


Doesn't matter. As an adult, they shouldn't go out looking for it. They should know better.



> and the girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER then they are.


We don't know how "much" older.



> He ALSO points out that people who WATCH a video are given harsher punishments then the people who actually DO THE CRIME. That THAt is one of our big issues today


As I pointed out in an earlier post, it's because the person who watches the videos is supplying the demand.



> What I THINK he is saying and because a LOT has been left out of this article is that, there are people who in this world would NEVER knowingly or willingly touch a child. BUT there are also in this world people who are not as technologically knowledgeable (or in some cases incapacitated to understanding what their seeing) as a younger person and may end up accidentally downloading things they never would in a million years knowingly.


Not really. It's actually pretty hard to find kiddie-porn, and for good reason.



> the example of his friend was to show the friend, in a rather well inebriated state, THOUGHT he was downloading a video of adult girls who were playing a ROLE of a 16 year old wanting to be older but who in reality, really were 16 years old.


Sounds like he he has a thing for 16 year olds, which raises red flag for me. He wanted to watch a video of a 16 year. That's what he got.



> he is basically saying that yes pedophiles, true pedophiles who KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY harm a child should go to prison but people who may download a video thinking the girl is a 20something PLAYING A ROLE of a minor teenager who is trying to pretend to be older should not be considered a pedophile


And here I disagree. Girls shouldn't be role playing such a role, and adults shouldn't go be seeking it out. Why take that risk?



> because they in honestly DIDNT KNOW that the girl was really a minor. It is sort of also including the guy who is dating someone who lies about their age. (dont even tell me teens dont or cant even get fake ID's we know they do and can) Also if a guy and girl are dating and he turns 18 and she is still 16 or 17 and their making out in a car on a date and a cop knocks on the window guess what? That kid is going to get a pedophile label


That's not as common as you're making it out to be. My boyfriend that I slept with was 18 when I was 17. We had no issues, no one cared, not even all the adults that knew.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Being drunk is not a valid defense. 

"Oh, sorry, officer. I was drunk. I didn't mean to shoot my neighbor. Had I been sober this wouldn't have happened."


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

If he's lying about the age of the girls his friend was downloading, he's probably lying about him being drunk too.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> He points out that his friend had a serious drinking problem and was totally loaded when he did what he did. Had his friend been SOBER then it would not have happened.
> 
> He points out that people are being arrested and prosecuted for looking at videos of teen girls who are WILLINGLY making these videos (assumingly) and the girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER then they are.
> 
> Part of his point is that when these girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER thent hey are how is someone viewing a video supposed to know?Not every video has that label warning that it IS indeed child porn.


Wrong. Mr. Grisham is lying through his teeth. *These kids were under 12. *They had not entered puberty. This was not a case of nudism pictures or a Tracy Lords video before she turned 18 or two teenagers one of whom turned 18. I would be the first person to defend it if it was.

Grisham's friend was a predatory pedophile. He collected photos of children under the age of 12 having sexual intercourse and he traded 13 of those pictures (out of god only knows how many he had) to an undercover police officer. There is evidence that if he had not pled guilty to those charges that there was a large volume of others the police had evidence enough to charge him with.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

What Kat S said. Grisham seriously misrepresented what actually happened.

The worst part is that the guy only served 15 months of a piddly 18 month sentence - for owning and trading pictures of children under the age of 12 being raped - and then they reinstated him to the bar. Because her had "rehabilitated himself and possesses the requisite moral character to entitle him to conditional reinstatement." I think that speaks more to the moral character required to be a lawyer than it does to his rehabilitation.


----------



## Ceinwen (Feb 25, 2014)

I would say a man who served less than an already too-short sentence for participating in child rape (if you're watching it, you're providing demand and participating in the circumstances that led to that child being raped) blatantly proves his already hazy point very wrong. 'Innocent' old men are not filling America's prison systems. They're neatly avoiding them.


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> I would guess that you do not have children.
> 
> I've had 16-year-olds. (Boys.) One of them had a mentor, a person in a position of authority, who was sexually abusing some of the boys with whose welfare he was charged. He went to prison.
> 
> ...


Rosalind: I  you. Just sayin'.

Not only will I no longer read/buy Grisham's books, I have found at least 2 authors in this thread I will never read.

It isn't a victimless crime.* CHILDREN *were raped to bring "the old white guy" his wanking material. Being drunk doesn't give you a pass on stupidity. Kiddie porn is not easy to find. As someone else, said, for a reason. To even get into the site, they would have to enter in their credit card information. You don't do that when you "accidentally" surf to a website. You do that when you are actively searching for child pornography. It's more than that though. It is child sexual abuse. Grisham knew all of this when he made his comment. He intentionally misled many, apparent thinking we aren't smart enough to know how to find the actual facts of the court case. His "apology" is nothing more that damage control. He loses.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Rae Scott Studio said:


> OK I am gonna probably get bashed for this BUT here goes:
> He points out that his friend had a serious drinking problem and was totally loaded when he did what he did. Had his friend been SOBER then it would not have happened.
> 
> He points out that people are being arrested and prosecuted for looking at videos of teen girls who are WILLINGLY making these videos (assumingly) and the girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER then they are.
> ...


Do you SERIOUSLY buy that 'made up to look much older than they are' nonsense? Sure, old guys go out looking for older women on porn sites. NOT!

If anything, the ones who are actually teens are often shaved of their body hair, etc to make them look even younger than they are because that is what sells. (The ones this perv was looking at weren't even teens) The guy knew he was looking at child porn. He was looking for child porn because he had to pay to get into such a site. They are all for-pay sites because it is all about making money. He supported raping children. That was knowingly and deliberating harming those children. It is NOT a victimless crime and as far as I'm concerned he got off too lightly.

No, I don't think someone 18 should be charged with a sex crime for having sex with a 16 year old girl friend but those cases are few and far between. No one is saying the laws are perfect but Grisham was off the deep end in his comments. Moreover I am exceedingly unimpressed by his apology.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

It sounds to me like the travesty of justice is this friend still being allowed to work in the law.  Why?  

Also, isn't Grisham a lawyer?  How did he manage to come across sounding so naive and ignorant about this?


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

Anne Victory said:


> Here's a thought that just occurred to me. And I have no idea how long ago this incident with his friend happened. The interview, obviously, was recent. But if the thing with his friend was, too--maybe his friend lied to Mr. Grisham about what happened? "I swear, John, I didn't know they were underage. I thought they were adults made up to look like kids! If only I'd known!" Not that I have any sympathy for the friend, because I'm pretty sure that the FBI isn't going to arrest someone who clicked on the wrong link on Google. But maybe the friend lied to John Grisham. Of course, maybe he didn't. I don't know.
> 
> Myra, thanks for the excerpt for the article. I really do wish they could wipe out the sex slave stuff. I have a feeling that it's way more prevalent than most of us would think :-(


The problem with that thought is, He did know. He even wrote a letter to help get his friend reinstated into the bar following only 15 months in jail. Not 3 years. They weren't 16, they were 12. It wasn't just pics of them, it was 12 year old girls being RAPED that his friend was wanking to. He didn't just download it, he was TRADING pics with others. Uploading his own.
*
ETA*: He was first caught by the RCMP, (Canadian Police) who turned all evidence over to the FBI who then raided the home and found the crap on his computer. There was no accidental surfing to the site. It was a deliberate act, and Grisham was fully aware of it.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Anne Victory said:


> But if the thing with his friend was, too--maybe his friend lied to Mr. Grisham about what happened? "I swear, John, I didn't know they were underage. I thought they were adults made up to look like kids! If only I'd known!" Not that I have any sympathy for the friend, because I'm pretty sure that the FBI isn't going to arrest someone who clicked on the wrong link on Google. But maybe the friend lied to John Grisham. Of course, maybe he didn't. I don't know.


But why did he automatically believe this person over the legal system that doesn't just throw old white guys (who are lawyers) behind bars for a grueling few months without some actual evidence?


> Myra, thanks for the excerpt for the article. I really do wish they could wipe out the sex slave stuff. I have a feeling that it's way more prevalent than most of us would think :-(


http://www.thea21campaign.org/index.php

(Not aimed specifically at the child "market," but sexual slavery in general. I support these people when I can. I believe it's important work.)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

As someone, again, who most unfortunately was involved in a case of child sexual abuse--it's not that darn hard to find out what somebody was convicted of doing. It's kind of big news. Especially not hard for somebody who was a practicing criminal attorney. Pretty clear to me that Mr. Grisham simply doesn't think that a little viewing of child pornography among friends is a big deal. Since you aren't, you know, actually physically touching the child. 

I would point out that he presumably also knows that someone involved in a criminal act in the course of which somebody dies--even if that somebody was a fellow criminal--can be prosecuted for murder, since the death would not have happened were it not for the act. This would seem to me a much more germane parallel than the straw man of 18-year-olds being jailed for having sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends. (And if there's a whole prison full of those guys somewhere too--yeah, well, slap me silly. I don't believe it.)


----------



## angel_graham (Mar 16, 2011)

Anne Victory said:


> See, that's just disgusting. That (a) the guy was doing it to begin with (b) that John Grisham didn't immediately cut ties with the guy, but no, he went a step further and tried to get him reinstated... and just... ugh. I agree that his sentence was way too light. And honestly, I think anyone who tolerates that crap in their "friends" is part of the problem.


He didn't just try to get him reinstated, the man WAS reinstated. More than 60 lawyers wrote to ask for his reinstatement. He is working in Mississippi even now. BTW, some of the lawyers who pled on his behalf were from Louisiana. The good ole' boys club at work, again.

Yes, it says a lot about Grishim, the company which he keeps.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> As someone, again, who most unfortunately was involved in a case of child sexual abuse--it's not that darn hard to find out what somebody was convicted of doing. It's kind of big news. Especially not hard for somebody who was a practicing criminal attorney. Pretty clear to me that Mr. Grisham simply doesn't think that a little viewing of child pornography among friends is a big deal. Since you aren't, you know, actually physically touching the child.
> 
> I would point out that he presumably also knows that someone involved in a criminal act in the course of which somebody dies--even if that somebody was a fellow criminal--can be prosecuted for murder, since the death would not have happened were it not for the act. This would seem to me a much more germane parallel than the straw man of 18-year-olds being jailed for having sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends. (And if there's a whole prison full of those guys somewhere too--yeah, well, slap me silly. I don't believe it.)


^This.

That there are faults in the sex offender laws is irrelevant to Grisham's defense of his good buddy who was only paying someone to rape children for his pleasure and not doing it himself.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

K.B. said:


> A twenty year old who has consensual sex with a sixteen year old should not be treated the same way an actual rapist is.


They are a rapist. They deserve the label of a sexual predator because that is what they are. They can't get any from women their own age, so they prey on the young and naive.

I had a sixteen year old cousin in foster care. She was A CHILD. She did not have the mental or emotional capacity to consent, and I doubt it would be that much different if she was in Germany. These poor twenty year olds that you're all so worried about PREYED on her vulnerability. And they will continue to prey on the young and naive until they suffer real consequences.

But let's keep worrying about them, not her. Cuz she was a flirt, and therefore obviously deserved it.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

The article I read that talked about the case even said that they DO NOT know how much he knows about the details of the case.  To ASSUME that someone knows all the details of something is not doing anyone any favors. Maybe He asked the guy and he believes what the guy told him. How many of us have believed things people have told us and never questioned it?  Also I guess I have a different view of things then a lot of people. I like to give benefit of the doubt. I think Mr. Grisham meant well and I can see where he is coming from with what he is saying He just didnt say it the right way. It happens to everyone.

And for the record Rape is NOT always rape.  A pedophile is not always a pedophile either. Just because one set of parents dont care if their 16 year old daughter is banging 18 and 20 yr olds doesnt mean the next set dont. BUT if a cop stops ANYONE over the age of 18 and their with a minor having some fun guess what? its a pedophile and child rapist title. Its automatic. Also girls as young as 12 are in puberty I know this for a FACT. Thank you very much.

Also dont jump on me about "rape victims will feel differently about xyz" because I can tell you EXACTLY how at least a few rape victims will feel. Now lets talk the difference between what I will term a true child porn video and one where a 16 or 17 yr old with a fake ID is in. the abuse and stuff in the true child porn video isnt present in the case of the fake id one. Now because it is actually illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor but it is something that some people (stereo type of it being men) do fantasize about getting busy with the hot young thing next door. this is not because they are attracted to CHILDREN but because they think the GIRL is attractive and desirable. Thats where the whole adult female PLAYING the role of a minor comes in. the viewer knows its not real, the actors and production people know its not real but its a fantasy that they are playing out and the viewer is watching. 

We can all sit here and debate this till the cows come home and I can guarantee you ONE thing. We are all never going to agree on this. We all have different view points and perspectives. We can argue the right and wrong and the whole supply/demand thing all day long, truly we can. Can we all agree that child rape/sexual abuse is wrong? I think we can. Now can we all agree at which point its a teenager acting older with fake ids or whatever and an innocent child? No we cant.

Its would be wonderful we we could live in a world where things wer they way they should be at all times and people always thought appropriately but the truth is we dont and people dont. I have idealistic hope but I live realistically and know that sometimes there is so many angles to one thing that there never ends up being a crystal clear right and wrong to it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Wow. I can't even.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Rae Scott Studio said:


> The article I read that talked about the case even said that they DO NOT know how much he knows about the details of the case. To ASSUME that someone knows all the details of something is not doing anyone any favors. Maybe He asked the guy and he believes what the guy told him. How many of us have believed things people have told us and never questioned it? Also I guess I have a different view of things then a lot of people. I like to give benefit of the doubt. I think Mr. Grisham meant well and I can see where he is coming from with what he is saying He just didnt say it the right way. It happens to everyone.
> 
> And for the record Rape is NOT always rape. A pedophile is not always a pedophile either. Just because one set of parents dont care if their 16 year old daughter is banging 18 and 20 yr olds doesnt mean the next set dont. BUT if a cop stops ANYONE over the age of 18 and their with a minor having some fun guess what? its a pedophile and child rapist title. Its automatic. Also girls as young as 12 are in puberty I know this for a FACT. Thank you very much.
> 
> ...


There is such a thing as facts, listed in court records. By the time his friend was done serving his sentence and Grisham was calling for his reinstatement, he was probably aware of the HARD evidence where his friend traded pictures of raped kids to undercover police. It doesn't matter if his friend said this isn't what happened, because it was and this was verifiable. Shame on him.

I was well into puberty by age twelve. Hell, by age ten. Apparently I was fair game.

The things you are talking about, where the SWAT team shows up at a guy's house because he saw a naked 17 year old on the Internet. It just doesn't happen.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Wow. I can't even.


I know. I...just. Yeah. I can't think of a polite thing to say because I'm actually offended.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Before anyone wants to tear my head off, I am speaking from MY life experience, the laws where I live and how I know things are. My day job is NOT in a good neighborhood. I see the WORST of people, I see their reality day in and day out. Do I always agree with it and what their doing? NO But I do get that is the reality of life for SOME PEOPLE.. Its why I give benefit of the doubt, its why i look at every single angle and issue of a topic. Its not because I agree or disagree but its so I can understand every angle and argument for and against and the ins and outs of it.

I never said ANYTHING about a swat team. I was using the forced child versus willful teenager with a fake ID. and Probably and should have dont always mean do or did. If the things that YOU guys are saying are true and what I read in the one article is not then you would _hope_ that Mr. Grisham would be aware of it, whether or not he was is the real issue. I cant answer that one. Only he can and until that question is answered (to my knowledge it HASNT) then I am giving benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

The news story broke yesterday and all information about his friend is now widely available through a few minutes of Googling. Much of the information people are referring to has been linked to on this thread. Being able to do your research and applying critical thinking skills is a necessary skill for writing.


----------



## ecg52 (Apr 29, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And you know, there ARE real problems with the way we prosecute sex crimes. A college guy that gets drunk and urinates in public gets the same "sex offender" label as a child molester or a rapist. An 18 year old high school student has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and he gets slapped with a sex offender label. If you are going to stand up for people, let it be the kids like that who didn't actually DO anything other than be stupid.


This. And also the people who are simply accused by angry children or students just because they're not getting what they want. Even if you're not charged, or found guilty - once accused, you'll never hold a decent job again.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

ecg52 said:


> This. And also the people who are simply accused by angry children or students just because they're not getting what they want. Even if you're not charged, or found guilty - once accused, you'll never hold a decent job again.


There are studies debunking the frequency of false accusations. It's in the single digits percentage wise.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Look I dont even know WHAT category you guys THINK your putting me in. Maybe I am saying something wrong here. Do I think Child sex abuse is right? HELL NO. I never would. Do I think that rape is always rape? No not given the legal definition. I say that AS A RAPE VICTIM. DO I make a distinction between a innocent child and a willful out of control teen who lies about their age? Yes I do. DO I have a very frank way of saying things that may come across wrong? yep I do. DO I think a 20 yr old deserves to go to jail because he was having sex with his 16 or 17 yr old girlfriend? NO, i also dont think he deserves to be labeled a pedophile or child rapist or sex offender... all of which he would get where I live. DO I think there are some women/men out there that have fantasies about things we would rather not discuss? yes I do.  

As far as Mr. Grisham goes, until I know for a fact he knew all the details about his friends case I am willing to give benefit of the doubt. Do I think he meant one thing and it came out completely wrong? yep I do. I at least hope that is the case. Am i going to be buying his books and reading them? Nope, I never did to begin with. 

SO before you go lumping me into a category or whatever make sure you know EXACTLY where I do and dont stand on something.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

I am so sick of this reddit-ly correct narrative where men are prosecuted in droves for sexual crimes they didn't commit. There are way more rapists walking free than there are wrongly accused in prison.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Now THAT^^^ is something I can totally agree with.

I just object to every sexual act between two people being termed "rape" here even if the child is of the age of consent but still under 18 the person gets nailed with statutory rape. There was no rape in that case. nobody was forced.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

exkitteh said:


> This^


I agree.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Except no one is discussing an incident remotely resembling these tangents, and every derailment toward it sounds like making excuses for John Grisham and his friend's behavior because obviously in Straw Man Land, there could be a rational reason a 60 year old guy has child porn on his computer.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Rae Scott Studio said:


> Look I dont even know WHAT category you guys THINK your putting me in. Maybe I am saying something wrong here. Do I think Child sex abuse is right? HELL NO. I never would. Do I think that rape is always rape? No not given the legal definition. I say that AS A RAPE VICTIM. DO I make a distinction between a innocent child and a willful out of control teen who lies about their age? Yes I do. DO I have a very frank way of saying things that may come across wrong? yep I do. DO I think a 20 yr old deserves to go to jail because he was having sex with his 16 or 17 yr old girlfriend? NO, i also dont think he deserves to be labeled a pedophile or child rapist or sex offender... all of which he would get where I live. DO I think there are some women/men out there that have fantasies about things we would rather not discuss? yes I do.
> 
> As far as Mr. Grisham goes, until I know for a fact he knew all the details about his friends case I am willing to give benefit of the doubt. Do I think he meant one thing and it came out completely wrong? yep I do. I at least hope that is the case. Am i going to be buying his books and reading them? Nope, I never did to begin with.
> 
> SO before you go lumping me into a category or whatever make sure you know EXACTLY where I do and dont stand on something.


It would be helpful for all to acknowledge that there are countries where the Age of Consent is as low as 14. Or 16. Or that in such states a 16 year old teen can become the partner of someone much older, live with them, decide where they want to live (against parental wishes by the way) and whom to have sex with. That's all possible where I live. I want it to stay that way. The current infantilisation of teens isn't doing anyone any good, least of all those teens.


----------



## Navigator (Jul 9, 2014)

Nic said:


> It would be helpful for all to acknowledge that there are countries where the Age of Consent is as low as 14. Or 16. Or that in such states a 16 year old teen can become the partner of someone much older, live with them, decide where they want to live (against parental wishes by the way) and whom to have sex with. That's all possible where I live. I want it to stay that way. The current infantilisation of teens isn't doing anyone any good, least of all those teens.


Do you at least acknowledge that there's a HUGE psychological difference between a 16 year old and someone who's 23+? (I say 23 because that's typically when a persons frontal lobe has finished developing). Because there is.

I fail to see how wanting to protect teens from older adults who really should know better is the same as "infantilization". Seriously, that's a giant red flag. I can't hep but wonder if there's something wrong with an older adult taking a sexual interest in someone who hasn't even reached their second decade of life. There are also biological reasons as to why procreation between the two (if the younger one is female) is a bad idea, as someone else has already pointed out.



Rosalind James said:


> Wow. I can't even.


No kidding. This thread is infuriating. I need to stop reading.

I've got a young niece. The thought of an adult touching her while she's a teen, still figuring things out, infuriates me. And to see other members here defend that sickens me.

I'm out of this thread.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

SBright said:


> There are studies debunking the frequency of false accusations. It's in the single digits percentage wise.


Yeah, I think those occurrences fall somewhere between the frequency of malicious Amazon reviews and voter fraud.

Speaking of [malicious] reviews, you know how complaining about your reviews on a public forum is a terrible idea? I'd say trying to coax nuance, ambiguity, or benefit of the doubt out of John Grisham is probably much, much worse. I don't think it's even a good idea to play devil's advocate in the case of young folks getting freaky with other young folks-particularly because it's not at issue here.

This isn't a story about two consenting teenagers. This is a story about how John Grisham and the company he keeps are despicable. Even if you earnestly disagree with that or are reserving judgment, you're not going to score any points that the lawyers can't score for themselves, and the perception is that you're taking their side. Even if you say "what about..." or "it's complicated..." you are creating the perception that you're taking their side. It's not a good look. Prefacing your comments with "I'm not excusing their behavior, but..." isn't going to inoculate you, and it shouldn't. All too often, that's followed up with an attack on the victim, or an attempt to excuse said behavior.

Let the old white men fight their own battles-they're more than capable of it. Don't throw your internet life away by getting sidetracked in derailments, or half-heartedly white knighting scum. Condemn them, full stop. It's not a nuanced case.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

I have a personal policy. It goes like this. I have no idea what my butcher thinks about race issues, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, or gun control, and I don't wish to. However if he puts a sign on his door barring gays or demanding that only English speakers shop there or calling the President a Kenyan Muslim who should go back to Africa, he loses my business forever. 

A few years ago, Robert Downey had some bad times. He revived himself and got his act together and tried for a come-back, but the damage he'd done was mostly just to himself, so we forgave him. Then Mel Gibson went on an abusive anti-Jew, anti-woman scree and his career hit a toilet. A few months later Robert Downey reminded us that we'd forgiven him, and asked if we couldn't please extend the same courtesy to Mel. But here's the thing, Mel didn't just injure himself with his behavior; he exposed himself. He showed us his true character, and it was ugly and disgusting. So, no, Robert, he doesn't get the same get-out-of-shameville card we gave you. He gets to sit in the same time-out chair as Shia LaBeouf until he proves to us that he's learned the error of his ways.

Mr. Grisham, I know Shia looks like he's still 12, but he's a grown man now. Ask him how his empty apologies have gone over while you, he and Mel share the group W bench.


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

To avoid further derailing this thread, I will no longer comment on this issue, even if I've been quoted. 

I wish you all the best.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Puzzle said:


> Do you at least acknowledge that there's a HUGE psychological difference between a 16 year old and someone who's 23+? (I say 23 because that's typically when a persons frontal lobe has finished developing). Because there is.


I don't agree with frontal lobes or recent objective-driven (as in: we want to get this result, now lets look for ways to prove it) biological research having any value, whether intended for homophobic, or for gendering purposes, or to help restrictive legislation.

I agree with that a 16 year old who isn't allowed to achieve personal growth or given appropriate responsibilities may be less mature than one who is allowed to mature. That is the extent to which I agree with any of that.



> I fail to see how wanting to protect teens from older adults who really should know better is the same as "infantilization". Seriously, that's a giant red flag. I can't hep but wonder if there's something wrong with an older adult taking a sexual interest in someone who hasn't even reached their second decade of life. There are also biological reasons as to why procreation between the two (if the younger one is female) is a bad idea, as someone else has already pointed out.


I don't agree with much of that. See above. That people in a position of power ought not engage with teens or other people within their sphere of influence, that's something I agree with. Like teacher/pupil, doctor/patient, warden/prisoner couples, to make this perfectly clear.



> I've got a young niece. The thought of an adult touching her while she's a teen, still figuring things out, infuriates me. And to see other members here defend that sickens me.


I have a lot of close and less close relatives where there was or is a large age difference. Not just of the man being the older either. My grandparents married in the 1930s, my grandmother was 16 years older than my grandfather and he was underage at the time. The marriage was exceedingly happy. I have an uncle who married a 17-year-old when he was 30+. No, he is no perverted swine. The two of them simply fell in love, and they still are in love, three children and some 40 years later.

None of this is sickening. It does make a difference though that these people were allowed to shoulder responsibilities from an early age onwards and not placed in an artificial kind of 'Lord of the Flies'-scenario without much parental contact or call to mature. It is but slightly amusing that this inexperience then is exploited by sending the same 'children' off into combat.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Diane Patterson said:


> I love the notion that we have jails filled with 60 year old white men. AS IF.


John Grisham's opinions are sickening.

I was quite surprised though how many people didn't pick up on the racist element in this piece when I first saw it being discussed. Maybe I'm reading more into it than I should, but I got the impression that he thinks that prisons full of white men is somehow wrong or shocking, where if they were full of black and Asian men, that would be fine and normal.

Did anyone else get that, or is it just me?


----------



## CelinaGrace (Nov 20, 2013)

Mark, that leapt out at me too. It's as if  his principal outrage is that rich middle-aged white men (i.e. people like him) are being locked up, whereas as long as American's prisons are filled with poor, black teenagers, then that's just dandy. 

I've skipped a page or two of debate so not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but the term 'child pornography' is utterly wrong. Pornography implies some kind of consent from the individuals taking part. What Mr Grisham is talking about are images of child abuse.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Know what else ruins someone's life after one time? Being assaulted.  Guess which is more likely to occur, an assault or a false accusation? 

For every false accusation, there are thousands of assaults (Low estimate of the number of women, according to the Department of Justice, raped every year: 300,000).  Estimate of how many reported rapes are false accusations? Less than 2%.  That number is further skewed because a number of actual assaults are later declared false reports by the victims due to fear/intimidation and other victim blaming tactics.

I'd rather focus on and think about how to fix the larger problem than the tiny problem, personally.

Which all has nothing to do with Grisham defending a friend who clearly engaged in owning, downloading, and distributing child rape pictures. There's zero excuse for that and it is a shame that man only served 15 months and got his law license back. There's no excuse for that crud and stuff like that takes away from legitimate discussions of how to reform the justice system.


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

You can accidentally get on to a child porn site. I am an avid gardener and did a web search for the name of a rose I wanted to buy. Now I am wary of searching for any rose on line. The site I opened was about how to seduce a girl under the age of ten. It does not make me evil that I accidentally opened that site.

Also. John Grisham has apologized for those comments. He has said he regrets them and has made it clear that he considers pedophilia a serious crime. I don't even like dub-con erotica or erom involving adults so there is no way I condone watching child porn but I do accept John Grisham's apology that he should not have said what he said. It is so easy to have things misconstrued. He is a great writer and if you read his work you will detect clear humanitarian values within it.


----------



## antares (Feb 13, 2011)

MyraScott said:


> Poor Martha got 5 months for insider trading which she profited from. Is he going to champion all the entitled people who get caught breaking the law?


That is not correct. She was found guilty of lying to a federal investigator. At the time she made the statement, she was not under oath. And the act the investigator accused her of was not a crime. She had no counsel present.

The lesson to be learned from Martha Stewart is do not speak with a law officer without your legal counsel present.


----------



## antares (Feb 13, 2011)

StraightNoChaser said:


> I am so sick of this reddit-ly correct narrative where men are prosecuted in droves for sexual crimes they didn't commit. There are way more rapists walking free than there are wrongly accused in prison.


But that is the choice we made. By "we" I mean our forefathers and legal minds.

Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 
Benjamin Franklin's amplification: "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."


----------



## J.L. Dickinson (Jul 12, 2014)

As I read through this thread I see a lot of agreement, not disagreement. I don't see anyone agreeing with Mr. Grisham's opinion that his friend was mistreated by the justice system (In fact, I see agreement that the punishment wasn't severe enough). I don't see anyone agreeing with the actions of his friend. I don't see anyone agreeing that the exploitation of a 12 year-old is acceptable or should be by any means punished lightly. 

So: Maybe just take a step back for a moment. Take a deep breath... There have been a lot of tangents that have been brought up. There are a lot of personal experiences that have been brought up. There have been different lives lived that have led to different perspectives that have been brought up. Please, try to take a moment and try to understand where other people are coming from with their perspectives on the tangents that have been brought up.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Again, 16 is perfectly legal in my country and most West European states. They're even discussing lowering the age of consent to 15.
> 
> And there is no such thing in a legal sense as "barely legal." Something is legal, or it isn't.


Uhh okay, good for those European states if you're into that sort of thing. Now please explain what that has to do with this situation when Grisham was talking about something that happened in America, not Europe? And just because 16 is A-OK in Europe doesn't change the fact that the guy Grisham is referencing is an American who knowingly visited a site that advertised 16 y/o girls, something any adult in America knows is illegal.

And you completely missed my point about the "barely legal" line. As someone else said, it's a term in the porn industry for girls who have just turned 18. So back to my original point, which was if there's not much of a physical difference between 16 and 18, as Grisham and his supporters seem to think, then why bother going to a site explicitly labeled as having photos of 16 y/o girls when you know you could get in serious trouble for it?



Rae Scott Studio said:


> OK I am gonna probably get bashed for this BUT here goes:
> He points out that his friend had a serious drinking problem and was totally loaded when he did what he did. Had his friend been SOBER then it would not have happened.
> 
> He points out that people are being arrested and prosecuted for looking at videos of teen girls who are WILLINGLY making these videos (assumingly) and the girls are made up to look MUCH OLDER then they are.
> ...


Okay, two things here.

First off, "I really didn't mean to do it, but I was just so trashed. If I had been sober, I never would have done it" is _not_ an acceptable defense for a crime. If you don't believe me, go get drunk and then rob a store. When you get caught, try using the "I'm sorry, I wouldn't have done it if I were sober" excuse. See how well it works.

Second, "how is someone viewing a video supposed to know?" Did you read the article, particularly this line: "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."


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

SBright said:


> Except no one is discussing an incident remotely resembling these tangents, and every derailment toward it sounds like making excuses for John Grisham and his friend's behavior because obviously in Straw Man Land, there could be a rational reason a 60 year old guy has child porn on his computer.


This. To take the issue and derail it into teens and almost-teens having consensual sex and how that's OK or not OK trivializes the fact that this popular, intelligent, highly visible lawyer/author condones his friend trading 12-year-old rape photos and even obcsures it by saying looking for 16-year-old wannabe hookers online is just a normal thing drunk old men should be allowed to do without going to jail where the REAL pedophiles are.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

MyraScott said:


> This. To take the issue and derail it into teens and almost-teens having consensual sex and how that's OK or not OK trivializes the fact that this popular, intelligent, highly visible lawyer/author condones his friend trading 12-year-old rape photos and even obcsures it by saying looking for 16-year-old wannabe hookers online is just a normal thing drunk old men should be allowed to do without going to jail where the REAL pedophiles are.


What she said.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2014)

Rae Scott Studio said:


> Now THAT^^^ is something I can totally agree with.
> 
> I just object to every sexual act between two people being termed "rape" here even if the child is of the age of consent but still under 18 the person gets nailed with statutory rape. There was no rape in that case. nobody was forced.


If you actually read the thread, NOBODY ABSOLUTELY NOBODY was claiming "every sexual act" was rape.

This has NOTHING to do with the age of consent. A minor CANNOT CONSENT to perform in a porno.

This has NOTHING to do with two teenagers having sex and one of them getting arrested.

This has NOTHING to do with a girl with a fake ID.

It has EVERYTHING to do with an old white man claiming his old white man buddy "accidentally" stumbled onto a site with children having sex and that this was OK and somehow ACCIDENTALLY downloaded a bunch of kiddie porn.


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

Just sharing John Grisham's public apology. 


October 17
A Statement from John Grisham:

Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography--online or otherwise--should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper "The Telegraph" were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable.

I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Ryn Shell said:


> Just sharing John Grisham's public apology.
> 
> October 17
> A Statement from John Grisham:
> ...


Well, of course he's sorry he said it.

Now.

Not buyin' it.


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Well, of course he's sorry he said it.
> 
> Now.
> 
> Not buyin' it.


Do you trust the Telegraph to report accurately and to not put their own slant on someone's words in order to sensationalize and sell newspapers? I don't. I may be naive, but I believe it when Grisham says he never meant it to sound as if he was showing sympathy...


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Ryn Shell said:


> Do you trust the Telegraph to report accurately and to not put their own slant on someone's words in order to sensationalize and sell newspapers? I don't. I may be naive, but I believe it when Grisham says he never meant it to sound as if he was showing sympathy...


Feel free to view him here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11165656/John-Grisham-men-who-watch-child-porn-are-not-all-paedophiles.html You can tell he is ABSOLUTELY sympathetic to his friend in particular and also other men who view child porn. He not only said it, he expounded on it.

IT IS SICKENING.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Well, I just did a bit of research: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=all

My thought on all of this was generally something like this:
-I sometimes read erotic literature about gangbangs
-I personally do not want to actually ever do that. (In real life, ick, in fantasy, hot.)
-Seems likely that lots of people looking at child porn are the same way--it's just a fantasy.

Apparently, that's not really the case. (I'll also admit there's a big difference between actual photographic pornography and erotic literature that is either written or drawn and lives in a purely fantasy world. I believe that pornography should be legal if consenting adults make it, but I morally find it a bit squicky, as I think about the people participating as probably being mentally disturbed, down on their luck, and generally exploited--not to mention possibly getting AIDs--and anyway, I don't really look at it myself. Yes, this is a tangent. It has nothing to do with child pornography. Those photos are obviously criminal. No bones about it. Taking them is wrong. The end.)

According to this study of men who were imprisoned for collecting child porn, 85% of them had actually touched a child.

Since most predators abuse accessible children, not strangers, often children they are related to, many of them are never prosecuted. (Not to get personal here, but there are people in my life that I love who were molested as children, both by trusted figures in their lives, and neither of those perpetrators have been prosecuted for their actions, although one is admittedly dead now from old age.) If you find out when your daughter is seventeen that your own father was fondling her when she was seven, what do you do? It's a nasty, nasty situation, and most of these things are never reported.

If there's a clear correlation between downloading the pictures and doing the act, however, it could be a way that we could get these perpetrators off the streets and away from children. So, I've changed my mind about it. I'm now much more okay with people in jail for looking at child porn.

I still think there's another separate issue about teenagers, and I don't think it's same thing to find a teenager attractive. I can think it's a separate issue and still not be defending it, you know?

I could be wrong, because I don't think there's enough study into this particular mental issue, but I think that people who are attracted to small children sexually are fundamentally wired differently than people who are attracted to teenagers. And I think that making a distinction is important, if only because we want to treat these various disorders. If people with these problems thought they might be able to get help for them, maybe they'd seek it out voluntarily instead of downloading pictures or hurting people. Of course, maybe they wouldn't either. I really don't know. It's all hypothetical.

I do know that I have experienced an all-encompassing rage towards molesters who've hurt people that I care about, have stolen from them, have taken pieces of my loved ones that they'll never get back. If there was any way on earth to stop that from happening, that's what I'd want.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> Well, I just did a bit of research: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> My thought on all of this was generally something like this:
> -I sometimes read erotic literature about gangbangs
> ...


Whether they ever touch a child or would do so themselves is irrelevant.

For a paedophile to watch child pornography a child has to be sexually abused. They pay for that child to be abused. If I pay for someone to be murdered, I am as guilty as the person who pulls the trigger. If someone pays for a child to be sexually abused, they are as guilty as the person who does the abuse.

Simples.


----------



## OneIam (Oct 6, 2014)

I think there is a big difference between someone sitting at home with a cup of coffee looking at others in a murder video online and someone personally committing a murder in a video.  Adults should be able to look at anything that's available to see.  To me, looking at something is not supporting it.  I look at police brutality video's all the time and share them.  I don't support police brutality.

In the case of child pornography, running across it on the internet and watching it in shock is not grounds for arrest and a prison sentence if you ask me.  With that said, if one is purchasing child pornography that person has entered another arena, that arena being the financial support of child pornography.  Financially supporting child pornography should come with charges and convictions.

It just appears to me that certain appetites are allowed to be fed while others are not.  I mean if one has a blood lust, he or she can watch and download horror movies and actual recorded carnage all day long without a problem.  You can be an adult pornography addict, watch download and purchase adult pornography all day long, everyday, that appetite is allowable and over fed.  I guess there's an opinion that feeding certain appetites lead to more of what's being consumed.  Then there's an opinion that visually feeding certain appetites relieves the tension that would drive one out to satisfy his or her craving.  The law has chosen to side with not feeding the appetite for child pornography and I fully support the law in that position of keeping a lid on it with prosecution and convictions. I believe allowing a legal market of child pornography to satisfy that particular lust would just lead to the expansion child pornography.  I mean watching beautiful women bang just makes you want to bang beautiful women, right?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

OneIam said:


> I think there is a big difference between someone sitting at home with a cup of coffee looking at others in a murder video online and someone personally committing a murder in a video. Adults should be able to look at anything that's available to see. To me, looking at something is not supporting it. I look at police brutality video's all the time and share them. I don't support police brutality.
> 
> In the case of child pornography, running across it on the internet and watching it in shock is not grounds for arrest and a prison sentence if you ask me. With that said, if one is purchasing child pornography that person has entered another arena, that arena being the financial support of child pornography. Financially supporting child pornography should come with charges and convictions.
> 
> It just appears to me that certain appetites are allowed to be fed while others are not. I mean if one has a blood lust, he or she can watch and download horror movies and actual recorded carnage all day long without a problem. You can be an adult pornography addict, watch download and purchase adult pornography all day long, everyday, that appetite is allowable and over fed. I guess there's an opinion that feeding certain appetites lead to more of what's being consumed. Then there's an opinion that visually feeding certain appetites relieves the tension that would drive one out to satisfy his or her craving. The law has chosen to side with not feeding the appetite for child pornography and I fully support the law in that position of keeping a lid on it with prosecution and convictions. I believe allowing a legal market of child pornography to satisfy that particular lust would just lead to the expansion child pornography. I mean watching beautiful women bang just makes you want to bang beautiful women, right?


So you are all right with children being raped to feed this appetite then as long as the viewer doesn't pay.

I see.

That said, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, there is no chance of 'running across it on the internet and watching'. People who want it go looking for it because, since it is illegal in a myriad of ways, it is not easy to find, and they PAY for the privilege of viewing it so that is a red herring anyway.

ETA: This thread just reached the 'creeping me out' stage and I'm out.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

valeriec80 said:


> -Seems likely that lots of people looking at child porn are the same way--it's just a fantasy.


If these people were reading books or watching anime or some other fictional abuse and getting off on it, that is fantasy. But their fantasy comes with actual children, crying, begging, drugged, beaten and worse. And they _get off on it. _ The cries of the helpless fuel their "fantasy."

The repeated attempts to find some way to make this seem fine and reasonable in this thread have pushed me over the creep factor as well. I find the derailings and unrelated comparisons misguided and naive at best. Child pornography is child torture. Calling it porn, like "food porn" makes it sound like some guilty pleasure. I am out of this thread.


----------



## OneIam (Oct 6, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> So you are all right with children being raped to feed this appetite then as the viewer doesn't pay.
> 
> I see.
> 
> ...


JRTomlin, I'm not alright with children being raped at all. I imagine that there is some child pornography online that people can accidently run into and doing so shouldn't come with a prison sentence. Now if one has a lust for child pornography and he or she runs across some it on the internet, hey, they didn't put it there, they shouldn't be charged for running into it or even enjoying looking at it. I look at that as crumbs off the table, go after the producers and the financial supporters, not the desires of people.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Again, participating in this publicly viewable thread for any reason except to condemn John Grisham, et al., is a terrible idea. You should be convinced to absent yourself even if you aren't convinced of the need to condemn.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

We've had a few reports and I think it's time we locked this thread. If there are significant new developments in the Grisham story, a new thread can be started. Thanks all.


----------

