Swiss Harbor Child Rapist

[General Zod]

Financially, sure. But somehow I doubt that a creative artist of Polanski's stripe would be particularly happy knowing that he couldn't work behind the camera any more.

He still has a huge market in Europe, though. So it's not like it would be any kind of automatic financial death sentence, he'd just have to get funding from non-American film companies. The only people that'd really be hurt would be his American financial backers, as it is.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

And then, this one dared touch someone younger than 16-18... Making them more akin to satan on earth...

Yeah, I mean, what did Polanski do wrong? He only gave a 13 year old champagne and a quaalude, then forcibly had sex in spite of her saying "no" repeatedly! It's not like it was actually rape or something!

Seriously, what he did would have been rape regardless of the age of the person he did it to. Drugging someone and having sex while they actively deny consent to sex cannot be considered anything other than rape, I'm pretty certain.

I don't believe I denied he raped her. Just that the tough guy stance gets bigger because the victim was under aged. That's rather the thrust of those first two paragraphs, which were replying to someone trying to get someone else to stand up on the "Banning his movies" comment.

It's sexual assault, and I imagine he most likely would have done it again if the slap on the wrist had gone through. It was clearly poorly handled in the first place. Ontop of it being a clear example of double standards.


But it's pretty much all academic at this point. I see the guy did come back. And I agree, as a fugitive he shouldn't be gaining financial aid from the folks he's a fugitive from... I'd almost say that it should be force-ably made public domain in America, if we really wanted to be spiteful... Though, it would never happen, if only because of American Copyright holders worrying about the precedent.

Barring a vigilante, (Hilariously unlikely, and would most likely end in far more tragedy...) Polanski has effectively gotten away with it.

[loomer]

I'd still like to hear why we should ban his films, myself. That's a real WTF sort of reaction.

Because he's continuing to make money (and a great deal of it), within the industry (and position) that allowed him to commite the crime in question.

Also, it would put economic preasure on him, and his backers, for him to return to the United States to face punishment.
That is, after all, a huge market.

Finally, if someone commits serious crimes with their car, we take away their car and liscence, do we not? If someone commits serious crimes using a computer, they are banned from owning or using a personal computer. He used his position and reputation to get a young victim delivered to him, so why not ban anything produced by his position and reputation until such a time as he's returned to the country.

Once he's returned, and served his 90 days, he can make all the movies he wants. He just shouldn't be supported (even indirectly) while 'on the lam'.

Except, you know, a car is not a culturally significant work like, say, The Pianist. These films weren't used in the commission of a felony, either - his reputation? Sure, that did, but he probably would have found a kid to rape without it. We also don't confiscate the car twenty or thirty years later - which is what you're proposing now, years after all the money has already been made. Banning his films at this point wouldn't put any pressure on him (and very little on anyone else involved) in a financial sense.

You basically want to surgically excise cultural works because they are associated with someone bad rather than as part of justice, which to my mind fits the definition of censorship perfectly.

[Akhlut]

And then, this one dared touch someone younger than 16-18... Making them more akin to satan on earth...

Yeah, I mean, what did Polanski do wrong? He only gave a 13 year old champagne and a quaalude, then forcibly had sex in spite of her saying "no" repeatedly! It's not like it was actually rape or something!

Seriously, what he did would have been rape regardless of the age of the person he did it to. Drugging someone and having sex while they actively deny consent to sex cannot be considered anything other than rape, I'm pretty certain.

I don't believe I denied he raped her. Just that the tough guy stance gets bigger because the victim was under aged. That's rather the thrust of those first two paragraphs, which were replying to someone trying to get someone else to stand up on the "Banning his movies" comment.

It just seemed to me that when you said "this one dared touch someone younger than 16-18... Making them more akin to satan on earth..." I thought it implied that he hadn't really done wrong. My apologies for being too hasty, then.

[NecronLord]

Before any Americans climb up on their high horses about the Swiss, keep in mind that they at least jailed Polanski long enough to decide what they were going to do with him. Compare that to the blanket immunity given to kidnappers and torturers who forcibly inflicted their perverted desires on adolescents in Guantanamo, Bagram and the various "black sites" and have never spent a minute behind bars or in the dock, and the Swiss look like an Old West posse complete with hanging judge.

Elfdart, please provide an apology to American posters who has expressed displeasure at this verdict unless you can defend the assertion that each individual stands in favour of immunity for such persons.

NecronLord, I'm comparing the governments of Switzerland and the US, the public in general and the media in particular.

The public in general my arse. That wasn't what you said. "Before any Americans" obviously refers to Americans here, in this thread. Don't try and wriggle out of it, your comments are obviously aimed at people here, which is bullshit. You can have an interest in (your perception of?) justice that wants Polanski sent down without any nationalist bollocks attached.

[FSTargetDrone]

Banning Polanski's films is silly. On the other hand, individuals can put their money where their mouths are and simply not patronize his film releases, and/or rent or purchase his existing films. I have never seen a Polanski film, nor do I ever plan to. I'm not telling anyone else to follow my example and I'm not insisting on mass boycotts. I certainly don't want some governing body making these kinds of decisions. It just a position I am comfortable with on a personal level in this particular case.

It's an interesting question, the distinction between supporting the artist's work while decrying his or her personal life for some reason. Are we to stop seeing Mel Gibson films because he is an apparent racist and misogynist who may have beaten his girlfriend? Do we avoid Tom Cruise films because he gives money to the Church of Scientology? If a singer if a real jackass, but we like his or her music, do we continue to buy it or attend the concerts? If an author has or had some objectionable social views, do we avoid purchasing his or her books? How far do we take it?

[NecronLord]

I saw The Pianist without knowing of him. It's fucking excellent. Most of that is probably due to being a superb true-life story though.

[Elfdart]

Banning Polanski's films is silly. On the other hand, individuals can put their money where their mouths are and simply not patronize his film releases, and/or rent or purchase his existing films. I have never seen a Polanski film, nor do I ever plan to. I'm not telling anyone else to follow my example and I'm not insisting on mass boycotts. I certainly don't want some governing body making these kinds of decisions. It just a position I am comfortable with on a personal level in this particular case.

It's an interesting question, the distinction between supporting the artist's work while decrying his or her personal life for some reason. Are we to stop seeing Mel Gibson films because he is an apparent racist and misogynist who may have beaten his girlfriend? Do we avoid Tom Cruise films because he gives money to the Church of Scientology? If a singer if a real jackass, but we like his or her music, do we continue to buy it or attend the concerts? If an author has or had some objectionable social views, do we avoid purchasing his or her books? How far do we take it?

I think rape is a hell of a lot worse than just being a racist, bigoted drunk and all-around asshole, so I can see people making it a point not to watch one of Polanski's films while being willing to hold their nose and watch a Mel Gibson or Mickey Rourke film. Strangely though, I have no problem watching those Naked Gun movies with O.J. Simpson. If anything, that whole freak show around his trial makes the movies that much funnier. I can't explain it rationally except that maybe I have a sick sense of humor. After all, I also found this funny [3:40]:

The public in general my arse. That wasn't what you said. "Before any Americans" obviously refers to Americans here, in this thread. Don't try and wriggle out of it, your comments are obviously aimed at people here, which is bullshit. You can have an interest in (your perception of?) justice that wants Polanski sent down without any nationalist bollocks attached.

Is English a second language for you? "any Americans" refers to "any Americans", meaning SDN posters (if any), media hacks (if any) and any other Americans who want to take shots at how bad the Swiss justice system sucks.

[NecronLord]

Language

If I walk into a bank and shout "DOWN ON THE FLOOR OR I BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT" while brandishing a gun, am I talking to the people in the bank, or am I in fact directing my anger at the cops across town?

The former of course. Similarly, Elfdart, when you parade into a thread and say "Before any X do this" without any codifiers whatsoever, you are obviously talking about any X who can hear you. That is who you were talking to, and you know it.

Your actual point

Americans, along with everyone else in the world, have a perfect right to complain about the Swiss Justice System if they see something that displeases them. North Koreans have a right to castigate it. It is hypocritical if and only if they have expressed support for or been involved in similar misjustice in the past.