Author John Grisham: Child *advertiser censored* sentences too harsh

[Pisces Cloud]

Thanks for that. I had a feeling that this was going to be more serious than what Grisham's tried to make out.

 

[rob]

If there was no market for child *advertiser censored*, none would be produced.
That's the problem with people looking at it. Some child was mistreated to make it.

 

[Pisces Cloud]

'I deserved my punishment', says lawyer friend of John Grisham as he contradicts the author's defence of his pedophile crimes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phic-images-girls-young-12.html#ixzz3GQHzy2E8

 

[iamnotagolem]

Michael Holleman, whose application to be reinstated as a lawyer was backed by Grisham after he was disbarred for downloading child *advertiser censored* from the internet, told the Daily Mail he fully deserved the 18 months he received in prison.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phic-images-girls-young-12.html#ixzz3GQZHDeD2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

He served 18 months not ten years, 18 months is hardly a fair sentence considering that children are being exploited.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

As I thought, ( thank you, from your link Pisces Cloud)

But compounding Grisham’s embarrassment, it emerges that he grossly understated the extent of his friend’s offences.
Far from merely looking at pictures of 16-year-olds – which wouldn’t anyway be illegal under Mississippi law - Holleman was accused of accessing sexually explicit images of children who in some cases were younger than 12.
Not only did he download them but he also sent some 13 images to an undercover police officer in Canada, resulting in a conviction for ‘sending and receiving’ child *advertiser censored*.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phic-images-girls-young-12.html#ixzz3GQZxtAAj


Grisham is either very stupid which I doubt, or a pedophile apologist. He is the hysteric, the liar, the creep! Misleading people knowingly to cause outrage and disdain for the law which protects vulnerable young children, for him it doesn't matter these abused children are 12, he deserves to be shunned and future book sales drop massively, and scurry back into the corner where he belongs. What a fool!! His friend served 18 months in prison, what a joke!!

Birds of a feather, flock together.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for that. I had a feeling that this was going to be more serious than what Grisham's tried to make out.

Good call. I should have known something was up when Grisham told how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police banged on his friend's door and shouted, "FBI!"

I think not. LOL.

I'm already on record as agreeing that 14, 12 and younger are not 16. No sympathy from me.

 

[Nova]

As I thought, ( thank you, from your link Pisces Cloud)

But compounding Grisham’s embarrassment, it emerges that he grossly understated the extent of his friend’s offences.
Far from merely looking at pictures of 16-year-olds – which wouldn’t anyway be illegal under Mississippi law - Holleman was accused of accessing sexually explicit images of children who in some cases were younger than 12.
Not only did he download them but he also sent some 13 images to an undercover police officer in Canada, resulting in a conviction for ‘sending and receiving’ child *advertiser censored*.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phic-images-girls-young-12.html#ixzz3GQZxtAAj


Grisham is either very stupid which I doubt, or a pedophile apologist. He is the hysteric, the liar, the creep! Misleading people knowingly to cause outrage and disdain for the law which protects vulnerable young children, for him it doesn't matter these abused children are 12, he deserves to be shunned and future book sales drop massively, and scurry back into the corner where he belongs. What a fool!! His friend served 18 months in prison, what a joke!!

Birds of a feather, flock together.

Methinks it may not be Grisham who is the "hysteric".

18 months in prison is quite a spell for looking at a few pictures and passing them on. I'm not saying the "friend" in question didn't deserve punishment, but let's get a grip.

Grisham apparently believed the pics in question where of 16-year-olds. That informed his opinion. He was wrong and we may agree his opinion was therefore wrong.

But your "birds of a feather flock together" is outright libel. I'm terribly sorry you were victimized as a child, but that doesn't justify wild accusations against anyone who tries to have a rational conversation on the punishment of pedophiles.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Methinks it may not be Grisham who is the "hysteric".

18 months in prison is quite a spell for looking at a few pictures and passing them on. I'm not saying the "friend" in question didn't deserve punishment, but let's get a grip.

Grisham apparently believed the pics in question where of 16-year-olds. That informed his opinion. He was wrong and we may agree his opinion was therefore wrong.

But your "birds of a feather flock together" is outright libel. I'm terribly sorry you were victimized as a child, but that doesn't justify wild accusations against anyone who tries to have a rational conversation on the punishment of pedophiles.

Grisham should know better, if he's going to make a public statement about jail terms and child *advertiser censored*, get his facts straight, he's the one open to libel. He's misrepresented the law and how it's enacted. No wonder he backed out toot sweet because he would be sued, and rightly so. We, as the public, don't know Grisham's intentions and why he made wild accusations aimed at the judicial system, he's tried to backtrack and he's tainted now because he could very well be seen to have the same inclinations of his 'buddy' who he was defending, his words speak louder than actions!

<modsnip>

I also, like Mr Grisham, retract my comment of 'the birds of a feather' and offer an apology. His opinion was obviously ill informed and as is mine. I have no idea the company he keeps and wouldn't even try to hazard a guess.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Good call. I should have known something was up when Grisham told how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police banged on his friend's door and shouted, "FBI!"

I think not. LOL.

I'm already on record as agreeing that 14, 12 and younger are not 16. No sympathy from me.

Methinks it may not be Grisham who is the "hysteric".

18 months in prison is quite a spell for looking at a few pictures and passing them on. I'm not saying the "friend" in question didn't deserve punishment, but let's get a grip.

Big contradiction there, could you give an idea what is a suitable punishment?

Like the &#8216;buddy&#8217; outlined by Grisham to illustrate his point, Holleman became a heavy drinker who downloaded child *advertiser censored* only to be arrested and jailed following a &#8216;sting&#8217; operation set up by Canadian police. Not only did he download them but he also sent some 13 images to an undercover police officer in Canada, resulting in a conviction for &#8216;sending and receiving&#8217; child *advertiser censored*.

And today he said: 'I did something wrong and deserved to be punished'

Obviously, not too drunk to pass child *advertiser censored* images on to others, very suspect imo. But he accepts his punishment, why should others be outraged by it, defies logic, imo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phic-images-girls-young-12.html#ixzz3GTarFAKQ

 

[Nova]

Who said they're offended because someone is not bothered by being a victim of abuse?

Also, would be great if you could provide some figures/stats, I'm currently searching, no such luck.

Here's your info on age of consent in North American (60% of states plus Canada put it at 16):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America


But it has since been reported that Grisham was mistaken and his friend's collection included photos of girls aged 12 and younger. So while I stand by my original assertion that 3 years is a long time for looking at naked 16-year-olds, that doesn't seem to be the issue in the case of Grisham's friend.

Even with younger children, however, 3 years in prison is a long time for looking at photos of strangers. Yes, I realize that the "marketplace" creates a demand for such pictures, but that's over one thousand days at state expense at a time when we are releasing violent perps because of overcrowding.

Does it take 3 years to make the point? I doubt it. I have no problem with criminalizing possession and distribution of child *advertiser censored*, but I think we could accomplish the same with a six months' sentence and also free up a cell for a violent offender.

***

If you are asking how many children are NOT bothered by inappropriate touching at a young age, I doubt you can find such stats, nor should you trust them if they exist. We're left with anecdotes such as mine (and I was by no means arguing it's okay to molest children because "maybe they won't mind").

 

[Nova]

Grisham should know better, if he's going to make a public statement about jail terms and child *advertiser censored*, get his facts straight, he's the one open to libel. He's misrepresented the law and how it's enacted. No wonder he backed out toot sweet because he would be sued, and rightly so. We, as the public, don't know Grisham's intentions and why he made wild accusations aimed at the judicial system, he's tried to backtrack and he's tainted now because he could very well be seen to have the same inclinations of his 'buddy' who he was defending, his words speak louder than actions!

You're making this rather personal, I'm not on a soap box here and this is far from rational conversation when you're threatening me.
You've already labeled me as a damaged victim of abuse and my words are hysterical nonsense, lol, you couldn't be further from the truth. Why should you be sorry what has happened to me and then knock me for being incapable of having a rational discussion, seems like a backhanded remark to me.

I also, like Mr Grisham, retract my comment of 'the birds of a feather' and offer an apology. His opinion was obviously ill informed and as is mine. I have no idea the company he keeps and wouldn't even try to hazard a guess.

I don't think you understand what "libel" means. It certainly does not include being wrong about the facts in your friend's case. Grisham is a lawyer, I believe; he has not misrepresented the law. He admits to being wrong about the facts in his friend's case, based on the corrections of the friend in question.

Bad example to prove what is a decent point, IMO.

<modsnip>

 

[Nova]

Big contradiction there, could you give an idea what is a suitable punishment?





Obviously, not too drunk to pass child *advertiser censored* images on to others, very suspect imo. But he accepts his punishment, why should others be outraged by it, defies logic, imo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...phic-images-girls-young-12.html#ixzz3GTarFAKQ

I haven't said a word about whether Grisham's friend was drunk. It's a non-issue to me. I suspect Grisham's point was that one might look at anything out of curiosity, which doesn't mean doing so should be a felony.

As for the appropriate punishment for possessing and even distributing a handful of images? I think any time would deter those who will be deterred, so why devote badly needed prison space beyond the minimal time required to deter?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I don't think you understand what "libel" means. It certainly does not include being wrong about the facts in your friend's case. Grisham is a lawyer, I believe; he has not misrepresented the law. He admits to being wrong about the facts in his friend's case, based on the corrections of the friend in question.

Bad example to prove what is a decent point, IMO.

[modsnip]

LOL, English is my first language.

Grisham has had libel suits against him before, but they've been dismissed or overturned and rightly so. Why do you think I don't understand what libel means?

Bill Peterson, the former district attorney of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, and two investigators who were involved with Peterson in the trial and conviction of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz, didn't like the way they were portrayed in John Grisham's book, "The Innocent Man." Williamson and Fritz were convicted of murdering cocktail waitress Debbie Sue Carter. Twelve years later, DNA evidence exonerated them.

Peterson and the investigators sued Grisham for libel. They also sued "Barry Scheck, founder of the New York-based Innocence Project and an attorney for one of the men falsely accused in the murder." U.S. District Judge Ronald White has wisely dismissed the lawsuit.

In his ruling, the judge wrote that it was important to be able to analyze and criticize the judicial system "so that past mistakes do not become future ones." "The wrongful convictions of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz must be discussed openly and with great vigor," White wrote.

Absolutely true, as is Scheck's comment: "This is a victory for free speech and for holding officials publicly accountable for their role in wrongful convictions."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/...ncecases/Libel-Suit-Against-Grisham-Dismissed

I think it was very prudent of Grisham to retract his statement, how can he criticize the LE and the judicial system, when no error was made. He should know better, he practices free speech and has fought libel cases before but there is a thin line he's aware of he should not step over, yet he made a rash decision in public to make a claim that was incorrect.
Would he like the LE who conducted the sting that caught his 'buddy',punished or publicly shamed, for in his opinion, breaking the law themselves, 16 yrs old is the age of consent in that jurisdiction? Or should the judge who sentenced his 'buddy' to jail also be held responsible for a mistake that wasn't made? He's a hypocrite then, and he definitely owed an apology and a retraction.

 

[Athena12]

What a chilling glimpse inside the mind of John Grisham. Seems like a sociopath, with his absolute lack of concern or empathy for the child victims.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Here's your info on age of consent in North American (60% of states plus Canada put it at 16):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America


But it has since been reported that Grisham was mistaken and his friend's collection included photos of girls aged 12 and younger. So while I stand by my original assertion that 3 years is a long time for looking at naked 16-year-olds, that doesn't seem to be the issue in the case of Grisham's friend.

Even with younger children, however, 3 years in prison is a long time for looking at photos of strangers. Yes, I realize that the "marketplace" creates a demand for such pictures, but that's over one thousand days at state expense at a time when we are releasing violent perps because of overcrowding.

Does it take 3 years to make the point? I doubt it. I have no problem with criminalizing possession and distribution of child *advertiser censored*, but I think we could accomplish the same with a six months' sentence and also free up a cell for a violent offender.

***

If you are asking how many children are NOT bothered by inappropriate touching at a young age, I doubt you can find such stats, nor should you trust them if they exist. We're left with anecdotes such as mine (and I was by no means arguing it's okay to molest children because "maybe they won't mind").

There must be a huge misunderstanding about the first reply I posted in this thread. I wasn't offended by the poster being okay with what happened to them, I'm the last one to criticize anyone's state of mind. I took exception when blanket statements are made about something a person cannot know, like 'most' children recover from [blank] 'quite easily'.
Also, stating your own sexual abuse is worse than another persons, that's a tall claim to make and personally, I think quite unnecessary. And grading a child's exposure to abuse which takes many forms. Of course, the law takes this into consideration, like if there is penetration etc. BUT that is the law, not a child's response to the traumatic event/s. Two entirely different things.

Thanks for your link. The stats and figures I asked about was to do with John Grisham's claim, which has now been debunked, so not matter.

 

[Nova]

LOL, English is my first language.

Grisham has had libel suits against him before, but they've been dismissed or overturned and rightly so. Why do you think I don't understand what libel means?

I was kidding about English not being your first language. Obviously, you write very well.

But it is not libelous to criticize the government or the judicial system, which you seemed to imply in your post:

Grisham should know better, if he's going to make a public statement about jail terms and child *advertiser censored*, get his facts straight, he's the one open to libel. He's misrepresented the law and how it's enacted. No wonder he backed out toot sweet because he would be sued, and rightly so.

Again, I don't believe Grisham misrepresented the law; he misunderstood the facts in his friend's case. But criticizing the government or legal system is an (often exercised) American right. Unless he knowingly and wrongly accused an individual official of corruption, there is no ground for a charge of libel. And the more famous the official, the more difficult it is to make a libel charge stick.

P.S. It's "tout de suite", but I don't think French is a first language for either of us (or for Grisham, for that matter).

 

[Nova]

What a chilling glimpse inside the mind of John Grisham. Seems like a sociopath, with his absolute lack of concern or empathy for the child victims.

This is like the phony, wasteful and often lethal "drug war", where people become unhinged at the very mention of the subject (and where hemp rope is still illegal despite its value).

Anyone who tries to have a reasoned discussion on the subject is immediately deemed a "witch". What about the "absolute lack of concern" and "empathy" for John Grisham, who is diagnosed as a sociopath just because he questions the severity of our child *advertiser censored* sentencing?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I was kidding about English not being your first language. Obviously, you write very well.

But it is not libelous to criticize the government or the judicial system, which you seemed to imply in your post:



Again, I don't believe Grisham misrepresented the law; he misunderstood the facts in his friend's case. But criticizing the government or legal system is an (often exercised) American right. Unless he knowingly and wrongly accused an individual official of corruption, there is no ground for a charge of libel. And the more famous the official, the more difficult it is to make a libel charge stick.

P.S. It's "tout de suite", but I don't think French is a first language for either of us (or for Grisham, for that matter).

It's pretty redundant going over it because Grisham retracted his comment and apologized. If I remember rightly, lol, you brought up libel, so much for free speech and open conversation.

Haha, and the 'toot sweet' is in reference to 'Kath & Kim', my own private joke.

 

[Simply Caustic]

I am glad he regrets his comments. But I can't unring the bell. I will never know if he regrets the comments or simply regrets the backlash that came of them.

This. This. A thousand times, this. Someone posted up thread that it's a moot point now, because he retracted his comments. I disagree - WS is the ideal forum to discuss controversial comments made by celebrities, or noteworthy people. And to me, Grisham was precisely that - he's an adept writer and I've read many of his books as I lay on the beach (because let's be honest, it's not like he writes thought-provoking novels that require serious contemplation. He's a paperback throwaway type author), in my opinion of couuuuurse.

But then he had to go and make this inane comment (imo, before I'm jumped on.) his buddy was roped into a child *advertiser censored* investigation, eh? Sounds like a drunk telling his wife "But I only had three beers and I got a DUI!"

Too bad, too sad, suck it up and pay the piper. If that sounds harsh, good, because it's mean to be. Child *advertiser censored* shouldn't and will NOT be minimized by anyone with the ability to think rationally. Of course his buddy claims it's a barely illegal 16 year old - much too embarrassing to admit to yearning after tots. At least I hope so. So he minimizes it to his buddy the author who spouts off about it.

Don't care either way. Child *advertiser censored* is disgusting and I hope he enjoyed his stay in the joint. Ya never come out the same, always have that haunted look. Kinda like victims of child *advertiser censored*, so maybe karma IS a b1tch. I hope so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iamnotagolem]

The age of consent is not relevant. As it is illegal to photograph children under the age of 18.




In 11 states, the age of consent is 18. In nine others, the age of consent is 17. In the rest, it’s 16. Which means that in many states, it would have been perfectly legal for John Grisham’s friend to have had sex with the women he viewed online. The federal law (and several state laws that mirror it) making it a felony to photograph women under 18 was passed in 1984. The previous law had put the minimum age at 16. So in much of the country, it is perfectly legal for an adult man to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old woman, but it’s a federal felony if he records or photographs her the act, or her, in a sexually suggestive way. In fact, men have been prosecuted and imprisoned for recording sex with women under 18 but over 16, even though the sex itself was legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/16/in-defense-of-john-grisham/