Dear MSNBC, Please stop calling it the "Roman Polanski sex case"

[Hello_Kitty]

It was a case of rape. He drugged a 13 year old and raped her, both vaginally and anally. It wasn't a fun sex romp that went awry. He planned it.

[leftstreet]

1. Thank you!

God I hate that!

:applause:

[Odin2005]

2. K&R

[Syntheto]

3. Exactly!

...He and Phil Spector need to be roomies; find out who's the freakier. Both little shrimps with too much fucking money.

[Neecy]

4. Why would this thread get unrec's?

[Gwendolyn]

9. Because the idea of the OP is basically abhorrent? n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

10. Possibly because some here at DU

point to specific things Roman Polanski directed as proof that such a sensitive artiste as Roman Polanski couldn't possibly have plied a 13-year-old girl with drink & drug, then raped her vaginally & anally over her cries of protest...or perhaps they admit that maybe he 'made a mistake,' but the body of his work causes the human spirit to soar, so he deserves a pass...or perhaps because the now-grown woman doesn't seek retribution - even though it's no longer her decision to make...or perhaps because too much time has passed & the sensitive artiste has suffered enough...

I've heard each of these excuses used by people on DU. Not one of them changes the facts in this case, and he deserves to do serious time for his heinous crime. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Gwendolyn]

11. Please see the OP. Your sensibilities and those of others don't amount to a hill of beans.

It would be wonderful if newspapers could refer to him as the "anal rapist" and I'm sure it would sell tons of papers/get click throughs, but the facts are that he wasn't convicted of sodomy or providing drugs to a minor. Therefore, libel laws prevent news outlets from claiming such. Those laws also protect (ostensibly) you and me from having our lives destroyed by an over zealous, salivating media should we ever be accused of a heinous crime. .

Edited to add: the ignorant villager/mob mentality in this thread is pretty disgusting. I guess some people have gotten so used to falsehoods and lies being perpetrated by propaganda masquerading as news, that people don't give a shit anymore.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Libel laws do not justify them using the term "sex case". eom

[Gwendolyn]

23. The plea agreement justifies it. It's a case about unlawful sex. n/t

[Gwendolyn]

5. It's called responsible journalism. It would be nice if we could see more of it these days.

Statutory rape is not a term that is used everywhere. Polanski pled to unlawful sex with a minor, which was accepted by the state. That's how it's officially referred to.

It would be revolting if the media decided to start convicting people in their news postings just "because." Would you like to see people you find sympathetic skewered in the media? I doubt it.

And I also believe that making false assertions in the media also opens them to lawsuits that are routinely won.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Then call it an "unlawful sex with a minor case" or just generic "legal troubles"

Describing this as a "sex case" is what's irresponsible because it perpetuates the image that it was a consensual romp that went awry.

And frankly, I don't have a problem describing it as rape because it WAS rape.

[Gwendolyn]

20. He pled to statutory rape. Not forcible rape.

So calling it a "sex case" is perfectly acceptable. Obviously the headline implies that there was a problem with the sex, ergo use of the word "case." And every story that uses this headline makes clear what the crime was in the story.

Alternatively, some news outlets DO use the term statutory rape in their headlines. Like here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-sentence4-2009dec04,0,3380394.story

IMO the media is doing their job properly.

[Rebubula]

25. LOLZ....

..."He pled to statutory rape. Not forcible rape."

He drugged a young girl and raped her (her story) as she begged him not to do so.

You can stand around and be all happy about the media doing their job properly (for once), but it does not change the fact that people plead to lesser charges all the time to save their asses. It is legal acrobatics.

[Gwendolyn]

26. Not the point and not what the OP asked.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind at all if you or a loved one was to be labeled for an entire lifetime in the media for a crime you or they haven't been charged with. Right?

[Chan790]

28. Yup...

and news outlets lose libel cases all the time because they can't call someone a "forcible rapist" if they've not been convicted of it, nor even an "alleged forcible rapist" if the plea deal takes the possibility they will ever be convicted of it off the table.

That's also legal acrobatics, I guess.

[slackmaster]

6. YES!

K&R

:kick:

[nemo137]

7. Exactly.

[tammywammy]

8. Recommended. n/t

[cmkramer]

12. False

He has been accused, but has never been found guilty or confessed to rape.

Grand Jury testimony is not evidence. All it is is one person's side of the story without anyone getting to cross-examine it. It is intended to show whether there is reasonable cause to allow a case to go forward, not to determine guilt or innocence.

[tammywammy]

13. He committed at minimum statutory rape

She was underage and couldn't consent. He raped her.

[trumad]

14. Uh---he pled guilty for unlawful sex with a minor.

A 13 year old minor who was given drugs and raped.

I guess that's OK with you?

[slackmaster]

15. The rape change has not been dismissed because he fled the country before sentencing

HTH

[Hello_Kitty]

17. He pleaded guilty! He fled the country prior to sentencing.

And besides, what is false about my describing what happened as a rape?

[SOCALS]

16. What's the latest news on this matter?

Are they going to extradite this rapist any time soon?

[Cetacea]

18. The alleged victim still wants the charges dropped. Polanski appeal dismissed.

Otherwise, nothing new.

[Mari333]

22. they are clueless. and they know what sells.

welcome to idiocracy.


I am sad to say that after all these years, some morons think rape is about sex. It isnt. Its about violent control.

makes me sick so many idiots still exist.

[Hidden Stillness]

24. The Media is an All-Male Club

This is all part of their larger attitude of telling everything, every single story, from the male perspective only. Like all the stalker cases that they tell, only, as "poor lonely guy who loved too much," when that is not at all what stalkers (or their victims, painted as "cold bitches who rejected") are; like the "nice guy/bumpy marriage" O.J. Simpson--when the media had more male sports announcers, such as Bob Costas, "analyzing" things, than they had women battering-experts; and like the current males-fretting-over-Tiger-Woods, where I have actually heard males talking on TV on how Woods can keep the bulk of the fortune from the wife who was cheated on and humiliated over and over--so this case was told only from their hateful side. (Speaking of "innocent until proved guilty," they ALL claimed the wife violently attacked Woods with a golf club (!), and many "liberals" on DU cried about it and attacked anyone who called for a little evidence--it never happened.)

The Grand Jury had evidence of drugging of the babysitter, violent rape including sodomy, threats against her, and Polanski's fleeing. There was no lack of evidence on any level, particularly forensic. These things are always treated as trivia, as distractions from "real news," and are always laughed at when told over the media by males. They identify with the male, no matter what, every time.

[Gwendolyn]

27. This is an interesting post. What forensic evidence did they have?

You're not the first person who doesn't understand what the Grand Jury does, but you're the first to claim there's forensic evidence. Do tell!!!