Michael Jackson - Leave Him Alone!

[averagepercy]

Say, Say Say is a pop classic

Yeah, that's true.

[Lazarus_2]

I agree with the side of not constantly referring to people as Accused Child Molestors.

[darrel]

if he was innocent why did he pay the parents to keep quiet?
if he was innocent why did he not learn his lesson and stop having other kids over for sleep overs?
just because he was found not guilty doesnt mean he didn't do it
no smoke without fire as they say

[jgkojak]

Not pass it off as a lifestyle because people that is where some on the very far left want to take it. Hence all the judges in certain states like Minnesota and Vermont who do not want to punish child molestors. Their legislatures won't pass "Jessica's Law", which is basically manditory sentences for child molestation so no liberal judges can give these freaks light sentences if any.

Whoa- Mike- that is some righteous B.S.

There is not ONE PERSON ON THE VERY FAR LEFT OR IN ANY PAR OF OUR POLITICS THAT BELIEVE THIS IS A "LIFESTYLE". That is utter bull.

There are people who do not believe in mandatory sentencing for valid Constitutional reasons. But NO ONE condones molestation.

As you know, I love having political debates, but I get pretty peaved with what amounts to utter character assassination.

In fact, last time I looked, in Vermont Howard Dean (a left Governor) established a near universal healthcare for every child born in VT which reduced child abuse rates by 70+%:

Dean proposed Success by Six, an effort to identify individual-family needs in local communities and link them to social services—such as parenting training and day-care-enrollment assistance—in the hope of reducing child abuse, sexual abuse, and crime involving children under six. By the time he left office, there had been a forty-three-per-cent decline in reports of physical abuse and a seventy-per-cent decline in reports of sexual abuse of young children.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 112fa_fact

[Mike]

Not pass it off as a lifestyle because people that is where some on the very far left want to take it. Hence all the judges in certain states like Minnesota and Vermont who do not want to punish child molestors. Their legislatures won't pass "Jessica's Law", which is basically manditory sentences for child molestation so no liberal judges can give these freaks light sentences if any.

Whoa- Mike- that is some righteous B.S.

There is not ONE PERSON ON THE VERY FAR LEFT OR IN ANY PAR OF OUR POLITICS THAT BELIEVE THIS IS A "LIFESTYLE". That is utter bull.

Then I strongly suggest you broaden where you get your news from. Righteous, well thank you for that label, I just call it being human, defending defenseless children, but righteous, if the shoe fits.

Every hear of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assocciation ? The very far left ACLU defends these freaks. Just do a google search of NAMBLA. The links speak for themselves. I see the internet provider who hosted the NAMBLA site finally grew some balls and looks like the site is offline.

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

There is some detailed info there how NAMBLA got started from the gay liberation movement where they believe it's their civil right as gays to have sex with boys, and have attempted to lower the age of consent laws. It's real, not fiction.

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization that opposes the use of age as the sole criterion for deciding whether minors can legally engage in sexual relations. NAMBLA defends what it asserts to be the right of minors to explore their sexuality on a much freer basis. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships", and calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences.

There is an annual gathering in New York City and monthly meetings around the country. In the early 1980s, NAMBLA was reported to have had over 300 members, and was supported by such noted figures as Allen Ginsberg. Since then, the organization has kept membership data private, but an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls.[4] It is the largest organization in the umbrella group IPCE[5] (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation").["

It's fairly evident (at least for me), from the numerous cases around especially some recent Vermont cases, that far left judges don't give 2 shits about the 6 year old girls getting raped repeatedly. It is very true the left media does not put priority on these kinds of stories. It's awful to see liberal judges again and again letting they acused and sometimes self-admitted molestors of children go because the judge does believe in punishment for sex offenders, or another judge giving a ridiculous 60 day sentence for destroying 2 girls lives. I'm sorry but conservative judges would not have let these guys go free. State legislatures in Vermont can't seem to side with children either. Major newspapes in the state also can't seem to tell the story on these judges.

Do you realize 98% of child molesting cases do not get reported and the 2% that do in states where liberal judges hear the case, give light sentences. Tell me why NBC and many other news organizations don't give more attention, the attention due to the child slavery, child molestation going on ? Slaping a terrorist in the face in Guantomino is protrayed as hideous behaviour and makes all the headlines, oh, right, it fits their political agenda.

NAMBLA even made it to South Park, I saw that episode.
South Park: Cartman Joins NAMBLA - TV.com
http://www.tv.com/south-park/cartman-jo ... mmary.html

[jgkojak]

The very far left ACLU defends these freaks

The ACLU defends a variety (on the left and the right) of cases regarding the 1st amendment right to free speech.

Sounds to me like youre listening to a little too much Bill O'Reilly.


You have to admit its a rather broad statement to throw the entire "far left" as being sympathetic to child molesters when you really mean the ACLU.

You know who is in the forefront of fighting to maintain a free and open internet??? The ACLU.

The ACLU's vision of an uncensored Internet was clearly shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law that outlawed "indecent" communications online. Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.

The importance of the Internet as the "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," requires that the courts perpetually uphold the freedom of speech.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/index.html

As the operator of a major website- I would guess you'd be supportive of this. Guess what? This means that some groups that we aren't always supportive of will have websites as well-- and law enforcement will have to get search warrants and follow procedure in order to convict unlawful activity. Speech which we find disgusting or horrible is protected under the 1st Amendment. Period.

When I have time I will look at O'Reilly's site and educate myself on the specific VT cases you seem to be referring and see what is up with that. FOX News has a tendency to not report ALL the facts (witness their recent misstatements about Obama).

[Mike]

First off I didn't say the "entire" far left my words were "very far left. The ACLU defending the rights of NAMBLA to exist and operate ? Hmmm, last I check sex with 5, 6, 7 or 10 year olds was illegal. Nothing to defend, the ACLU have a self admitted liberal and and in some cases some very far left agenda.

As per other media, hats off to O'Rielly for bringing so much attention to children's rights. O'Rielly can take the criticism, he doesn't care about that. He feels using his platform to make like minded people worldwide aware of the plight of victims like children, and point out judges and local politicians for their deeds and should suffer the consequences. Why isn't Chris Mathews or Wolf Blitzer or the anchors on the network TV covering this issue ?

Initially I didn't like the camera chasing down the corrupt politician or liberal judge at the grocery store or putting out their garbage at home. I thought it was intrution of their privacy, but then I thought, if the public can accept the media doing that to movie, music and tv celebrities, and watch that night after night. Then to use the same tactics against elected and appointed officials who grossly abuse their positions is fair game. Like the Nifong prosecutor in the Duke rape case or the judge who let child rapist go scott free or suspended sentences. They should be embarrassed, they should be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunatley it's very difficult to remove a judge in some states.

You seem to like to refer to the populas and various polls reflecting anti this or that. One poll is very clear is the O'Rielly has been the #1 rated cable show for some time. I don't watch it because it's highly rated, I watch it because it deals with and presents sides of issues other news organizations simply won't touch. The mass satellite/cable views must also agree.

As per free speech on the internet. One should be held accountable to what one says and does. If someone slanders with outright lies, knowingly publishing deceiving information, they should be prosecuted the same way they would if they put that anywhere else. The internet should not be a safe haven for hate speech hidding under the rock of free speech.

Here is another example AGAIN, only O'Rielly seems to care about. The new movie depicting 12 year old Dakota Fanning in her underwear most of the movie and being raped. Laws of many states prohibit even the activity of sex, rape and even just the description of a child engaged in sexual activity let alone allowing the filming of such a scene in a movie. Hollywood feels it has a get out of jail card, in the name of art. It's child pornography. Pedophiles will be flocking to watch that 12 year old in her underwear. I guess Hollywood needs to cater to that demographic too.

[jgkojak]

The ACLU defending the rights of NAMBLA to exist and operate ? Hmmm, last I check sex with 5, 6, 7 or 10 year olds was illegal.

Yes, it is illegal. But it is NOT illegal to write about it-- ever read HIGH TIMES? Pretty much a whole magazine dedicated to an illegal activity. Now... there is a HUGE difference between NAMBLA and pot, but you can't make thinking and talking about things you deem distasteful illegal. The actions people take ARE illegal. If they are talking about actual events, that should be investigated. I'd keep watch on anyone who is a part of that NAMBLA group. But you can't declare the website itself illegal unless it depicts illegal acts.

As far as the Dakota Fannning movie-- I haven't seen it so I won't comment-- as I very well would find it distasteful (in fact I don't plan to see it). But I have a hard time banning any type of "art" that was produced LEGALLY (i.e. Dakota was not harmed). In fact, that kind of movie likely raises awareness about the issue a great deal.

How many Beatles songs were banned? (also... you do know that "meeting a man from the motor trade" in 'She's Leaving Home' is British slang for "she had an abortion"?)

One should be held accountable to what one says and does. If someone slanders with outright lies, knowingly publishing deceiving information, they should be prosecuted the same way they would if they put that anywhere else.

Absolutely-- and that is what the Supreme Court has held. There no HIGHER standard or lower standard. Likewise, unlike books, where to ban 'em you have to burn 'em and make a big deal about it-- its possible to shut down a server, etc. and its a valid concern that in protecting free speech one should not just be able to flip a switch. People SHOULD BE accountable for what is said on the internet same as in the print media-- which I believe is the ACLU's position.

[jgkojak]

I looked into the controversy over mandatory sentences for child molestation.

There are always two sides to a story. In this case:

Many victims' and their families and prosecutors OPPOSE mandatory minimums for these crimes:

The Vermont House of Representatives previously had passed legislation that "approved a mandatory life maximum and set advisory minimum sentences, but declined to affix a mandatory minimum out of concerns they would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes," according to the April 13 Free Press article. The Free Press reported on April 5 that "many prosecutors and victims' advocates" oppose mandatory sentencing laws "out of concern that the mandate would force more defendants to take their cases to trial, forcing more victims to testify and creating the possibility of more acquittals because sex crimes can be difficult to prove."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605030001

So its nice that O'Reilly can be a blowhard about this issue... but the REALITY is that by upping the ante you cause MORE PAIN to the victim by forcing them to testify, and make it possible that SOME offenders get off with no sentence or mistrial. This is especially true in cases where victims are young children whose testimony may be credible but inconsistent.

And like a lot of the reactionary right's ideas... life isn't as simple as they want to make it out.

Before you put mandatory sentences in place you better:
1) Have provisions to protect child testimony and personnel trained to work with children in these circumstances (many states do not)
2) Ensure clear definitions exist of which sexual abuse meets mandatory sentencing critieria (i.e. traditional statutory rape, an 18 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend should not be included in this category of crime)
3) Be willing to provide family and individual therapy to the child at state expense if the new law leads to prolonging such trauma through a lengthy trial process

No one is against throwing the book at molesters. But as John Lennon once famously said about Paul... "even you know we just can't sign a piece of paper..."

[Mike]

I looked into the controversy over mandatory sentences for child molestation.

There are always two sides to a story. In this case:

Many victims' and their families and prosecutors OPPOSE mandatory minimums for these crimes:

For adults an adult can choose on their own if they wish to testify or not. However there is more and more evidence supporting the facts that children not testifying and seeing their tormentor punished has done much more damage. Child care professionals, at least the ones who care to learn are now advocating children to testify and it's the prosecutors that are reluctant to let them testify. So it's the old farts set in their ways saying testifying will hurt the child. Yes of course but that is just short term. The rape or whatever is still in their mind, they go through it often in nightmares, testifying would be another nightmare. The trial can actually help bring closure especially if they see the perpetrator get the due punishment. Someone does something bad to you, they get punished. When they don't, what message does that send ? Maybe this is a contributing fact to why people who abuse were abued themselves as children. I don't know.

The hell victims go through when the evil person isn't charged, they get away with it. How would you feel as you grow up and realize that this person got away with doing all kinds of unspeakable acts to you. As an adult you can process things much differently than a child.

Oh, by the way, I don't think anyone is advocating forcing a child to testify, what I'm gathering is if the child is capable of testifying and wants to, the judge or prosecutor should not let the case fall apart because they decided on their own that they didn't want the child hurt by testifying.

As per mandatory minimum sentences, most of the versions of Jessica's Law has all those features you brought up in place, a child 11 and under raped, 25 years MINIMUM. Rape or sodomy, abuse of that kind. Of course you have to have measure to protect the phsyco vengeful mother wrongly acusing her husband just to get more money or get back at him for cheating on her.