Name ‘em and shame ‘em: More than 100 filmmakers sign petition defending child rapist

posted at 8:16 pm on September 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

Most are European and unfamiliar, but among the people whose movies I’ll never watch again: Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Michael Mann, Martin Scorsese, and, bless his heart, Woody Allen, who I guess was forced to sign lest the press seize on the idea of a guy who married his almost-stepdaughter passing judgment on Polanski. Open question to any of these rape-defending turds: How far would you have let Polanski go before deciding that, hey, he probably should serve some time after all? What if he punched the kid in the face when he was raping her? Beat her with a tire iron? Seriously, how far?

Lest you think that this is about anything other than some perverse droit de seigneur for talented artists, here’s how the petition phrases the signatories’ deep moral objection to arresting this guy:

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

They’re explicitly calling for film festivals to be treated as de facto international waters, above the laws of any sovereign land and beyond the reach of any cop, even if that cop is in the area looking for … a fugitive who raped a kid. And the beat goes on: Polish filmmakers are calling his arrest a “judicial lynching” and a separate petition organized by a French philosopher objects to this degenerate being pinched like, and I quote, “a common terrorist.” This entire story comes back to that word “common,” doesn’t it?

Even HuffPo’s commenters can’t believe there are people on the site defending Polanski. Keep punching yourself in the eye, Hollywood; the blacker and more bruised it is, the better. Exit fun fact: Which poor, persecuted, misunderstood genius once said this?

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Update: A Jesuit priest wonders, what if it were Father Polanski who’d raped a kid? “Entertainment, not religion, is the new opiate of the people and we don’t want our supply disturbed.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Thirty two years is a long time to hold a grudge. How can you prosecute a man for rape when the victim is a full grown woman? Polanski has produced masterpieces of cinema since then.

Oh, by the way, did you know that two years ago, Michael Vick killed dogs? Why is he out of jail already?

Mr. Grump on October 1, 2009 at 8:21 AM

At Dennis Miller’s suggestion, I sought out and read the court transcript of the Polanski case. Read them. What this man did to this little girl is nothing more than boiler plate pedophiliac seduction and was absolutely disgusting by any measure.

That these entertainment moguls would offer their support and call for amnesty for Polanski is beyond the pale. I know everything I need to know about the vast majority of movies coming out of the pit of h*ll we call Hollywood. These perverts are devoid of decency and appropriately placed compassion and deserve no hearing in our society.

Linnea on October 1, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Thirty two years is a long time to hold a grudge.

Hey, nobody asked him to live so long.

How can you prosecute a man for rape when the victim is a full grown woman?

I THINK you meant “child-rape”, and the victim was not then a woman, and he’s not being prosecuted, having already plead guilty.

Polanski has produced masterpieces of cinema since then.

My Kenyan roommate saw Chinatown in 2001, and declared “That man must be brought back in chains, to make that movie over RIGHT”

Oh, by the way, did you know that two years ago, Michael Vick killed dogs? Why is he out of jail already?

Why not?

Chris_Balsz on October 1, 2009 at 11:03 AM

How can you prosecute a man for rape when the victim is a full grown woman? Polanski has produced masterpieces of cinema since then.

Oh, by the way, did you know that two years ago, Michael Vick killed dogs? Why is he out of jail already?

Mr. Grump on October 1, 2009 at 8:21 AM

I’ll say this slowly and clearly: the victim was THIRTEEN years old. The fact that you consider that a “grown woman” is sick.

BlueStateBilly on October 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Child-rape, sodomy, giving alcohol to a minor…..he pled guilty. I just wonder how many more children he did this to and did not get caught?

How can anyone sign any petition for this kind of human action. Now, I know why I quit going to the movies…..

whatzit2u on October 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I’ll say this slowly and clearly: the victim was THIRTEEN years old. The fact that you consider that a “grown woman” is sick.

BlueStateBilly on October 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Those, in case you haven’t been paying attention, are some of the arguements put forth in favor of letting Roman off the hook. Some of you people Billy, are either unbelievably stupid or you just like to see your name in print. I vote for stupid. Here’s what my post should have meant to you. The elites venerate (that means idolize) Polanski, even though he did what he did. They want to eviscerate (that means cut his insides out) Vick for killing dogs. Now, try to figure out which one is more serious.

Mr. Grump on October 1, 2009 at 11:52 AM

So, Mr. Grump, you are just playing devil’s advocate?

For what it’s worth, age of consent in the United States has never been 13 years old for any state.

However, Justice Ginsburg, when she was a law professor at Columbia, helped create a report for the US Commission on Civil Rights advocating that having sex with a child who is 12 years old or older should not be considered rape. The report was released in 1977 and may have had other versions released as early as 1974.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_18-2005_09_24.shtml#1127335040

“18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.”

Also notice the wording about drugging or using intoxicants to commit rape. In Polanski’s case, if this were actually law, aside from the age of consent help getting him off, the fact that the 13 year old girl knowingly took alcohol and even knew that she was taking a quaalude apparently would have also given him a defense.

So, I wonder, again, if Polanski was right. Everyone, even Ginsburg, wants to have the opportunity to boff young girls/children and that is reason for his vast defense here and elswhere.

TexasDude on October 1, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Ironically, The Volokh Conspiracy is saying that the recommendation may have a editing/drafting error and the real intent of Ginsburg never mind the other free sex recommendation that she gave in conjunction with this one.

TexasDude on October 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Two words – Michael Jackson

RobCon on October 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM

How can you prosecute a man for rape when the victim is a full grown woman? Polanski has produced masterpieces of cinema since then.

Polanski has already pled guilty but has not served one day of prison time. It’s time for him to be sentenced and serve that sentence. I don’t care what he’s done. It. Does. Not. Matter.

Oh, by the way, did you know that two years ago, Michael Vick killed dogs? Why is he out of jail already?

Another lefty with ADD. Can’t stick to the subject at hand but has to play diversionary games. What? No “But Bush sucks”? Michael Vick is not the subject here. A convicted child rapist is. Deal with the subject at hand.

pdigaudio on October 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM

Just a list of Nobody’s and Has-beens. Most of these puppets are just sucking-up to their Masters, hoping for some scraps. I think it’s time for America to show these @$$holes just how un-important they really are.

ronnyraygun on October 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM

He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. The fact that now she is in her 40s does not absolve him of committing a crime. He pled guilty and has admitted to more child-sex.

A criminal who has yet to serve his time and an admitted offender. He should be locked away for 20 years.

If he is such a great director why do I not remember seeing a single movie of his? And if he is such a great director, wouldn’t some time in the slammer give him some material?

Its a win for society and a win for him, well except the part where the inmates take turns packing his fudge. But you get the point.

Holger on October 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Oh, by the way, did you know that two years ago, Michael Vick killed dogs? Why is he out of jail already?

Mr. Grump on October 1, 2009 at 8:21 AM

Because he served the sentence given him by the judge, something polanski avoided by fleeing the country.

Not to equate the two, but this is the follow on to “same sex” marriage. All that is accomplished with that is changing the definition of marriage. Soon, people like the ones defending this child rapist, will seek to change the definition of the words “consenting” and “adult.”

You can call me names for that opinion, but it is coming sooner than you think. The people that shape opinion in what is called the mainstream are the ones supporting the child rapist.

TugboatPhil on October 1, 2009 at 10:07 PM

If you read the transcript of the case as to what exactly happened, you would realize that Roman Polanski is a pervert, he committed a crime, and he must pay. Hey, if he had taken his medicine thirty years ago, he would probably be out by now. Now, he should die in prison.

theaddora on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM

How can you prosecute a man for rape when the victim is a full grown woman? Polanski has produced masterpieces of cinema since then.

Polanski has already pled guilty but has not served one day of prison time. It’s time for him to be sentenced and serve that sentence. I don’t care what he’s done. It. Does. Not. Matter.

Oh, by the way, did you know that two years ago, Michael Vick killed dogs? Why is he out of jail already?

Another lefty with ADD. Can’t stick to the subject at hand but has to play diversionary games. What? No “But Bush sucks”? Michael Vick is not the subject here. A convicted child rapist is. Deal with the subject at hand.

pdigaudio on October 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM

I’m just going to pretend you didn’t write that crap. I don’t believe that you can’t understand that the elites (read leftists and certainly not me) EXCUSE POLANSKI and want to CRUCIFY VICK. What’s a worse crime, raping a thirteen year old or killing a dog? Are you so effing brain dead that you can’t understand that they are making a huge issue out of something that by comparison is almost nothing at all? Don’t waste my time with your ADD crap. You can’t even understand plain english.

Mr. Grump on October 2, 2009 at 12:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4