Now up to 70% less Daily!

Monday, November 13, 2017

Go to Hell, John Grisham

TW: discussion of child sex abuse



Okay, what the fuck is this?


Millionaire Author John Grisham Says Not All Men Who Watch Child Porn Are Pedophiles


https://m.popkey.co/04887f/jgOAY_f-maxage-0.gif



Like, this can't be a real thing, can it?

It can't possibly have come from a legitimate source, can it?






Ooooookay, then. . .

Let's have a look then. At the Forbes article! Did I really need to clarify that?


Crime writer John Grisham has said America is unjustly jailing too many citizens for viewing child pornography. In an interview with The Telegraph, Grisham, . . .attacked the widespread incarceration of those who watch child porn.


Ah. This sounds like someone trying to get out ahead of something. This is like if Roy Moore had come out last week and said "apropos of nothing, don't we all agree that 14-year-old girls are basically full-grown women? Right, guys? Anyone?"


"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," 

Okay. . . first of all, why are they all white guys? And middle aged? Do you think there's some quota system like you're gonna get arrested for child porn and the judge is gonna say "aw, hell we're already at our limit for 60-year-old white guys. You're free to go, Mr. Grisham!"

 Secondly, have you ever seen a prison? Ever watch an episode of Lockup? Because if you think that we have prisons full of 60-year-oldwhite guys, I'd like some of whatever you've been smoking.

Also, what percentage of the prison population do you think is behind bars for child pornography? I gotta think that's a pretty small demographic after drug traffickers, drug dealers, drug users, and guys who were walking while black.


"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. 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."

http://25.media.tumblr.com/befe49682baf40ae5c96fcf68c21cf35/tumblr_n3d24aq2xe1tw1vhco1_500.gif

 Oh my God that is NOT how things work. These guys aren't Barry Crimmins in AOL chatrooms. (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.org.eff.talk/Ms_HARTeQSM)

 No one is accidentally stumbling on to child porn. And, okay, let's say someone does. Let's say someone clicks one link too many and suddenly the next dirty movie clip they see involves a child. Anyone with an ounce of humanity is going to click the exit button so hard they'll break their mouse before thinking, "fuck, I gotta call the FBI." No one accidentally stumbles onto pictures or videos of child rape and goes "well, in for a penny, in for a pound!" and just keeps watching and then gets arrested and unjustly ends up in prison. Any halfway-decent person who stumbled onto this sick shit would be so repulsed they'd probably never dare to search for normal porn again. You'd be traumatized if you saw this shit.

By the way, because this is Forbes, the article is formatted like this:

"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."
Grisham, who is well known for legal thrillers such as A Time to Kill and The Firm, has sold more than 275 million copies since his 1989 debut. Grisham first joined Forbes' top-earning author ranking in 2000, with a $36 million annual paycheck. He has made an estimated $200 million before taxes and fees in the last 14 years.

They can't go more than one paragraph without mentioning Grisham's wealth as if it's somehow relevant. A bit off-topic, I know, but it's just weird and in the context of an article about horrifying child abuse, pretty disturbing.


"I have no sympathy for real pedophiles,” he said, speaking to The Telegraph from his office in Charlottesville, Virginia. "God, please lock those people up. But so many of these guys do not deserve harsh prison sentences, and that's what they're getting."


Okay, but do you seriously think that anyone who is NOT a pedophile is watching child pornography? Do you think that the term "pedophile" only applies to the guy doing the actual abuse, not the guys getting off watching it? And you do know that the guys who watch it are the ones financing the operation, right? If there are no customers, the operation, well I was going to say it shuts down, but that's not really true because I assume a lot of these guys make this filth because they really like making it. But there would have to be a lot less of this shit if no one was paying for it. And I don't believe anyone is seeing this without paying for it. I would guess you'd have to have a password or a secret code or something. No one's just going to take out Google ads that say "click here to watch the most horrific crime imaginable! Free trial!"


"There's so many 'sex offenders' - that's what they're called - that they put them in the same prison. Like they're a bunch of perverts... We've gone nuts with this incarceration," he added, citing an anecdote of a law-school pal who he says accidentally viewed porn that was apparently incorrectly labelled as child porn.


Okay, Thaaaat  did not happen. That might be what your friend TOLD you happened, but that is not what happened. You don't get arrested for viewing adults engaging in pornography because it somehow accidentally got the wrong label put on it. It's like a kid can't get arrested for underage drinking if the soda company left the word "root" off of the root beer label. It'a either alcohol or it isn't. It's either an adult having sex on camera or a child being raped. There isn't any middle ground here.

In a statement, Grisham apologized and said he regretted his comments, explaining: "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."


Oh, please.
Your comments in defense of sex offenders were not meant to be sympathetic towards sex offenders?

 Go to Hell, John Grisham!