John Grisham: men who watch child porn are not all paedophiles...

[DiO'Bolic]

Just for spelling his name wrong you get a no, but even if you hadn't it would still be . Rule #1 of being a personal assistant, confidentiality. If he wants it to go public, that's entirely up to him but you won't hear it from me otherwise.

Don't you know to never respond to my posts for at least five minutes. Fixed the spelling of his name right off. I have a cousin who spells it "Steven" at it gets confusing for me at times as I'm often too fast with the posting trigger finger.

And I get it about the personal assistant thing, but sometimes we only get to hear things when we ask. No foul in asking, right?

 

[skimom2]

Just for spelling his name wrong you get a no, but even if you hadn't it would still be . Rule #1 of being a personal assistant, confidentiality. If he wants it to go public, that's entirely up to him but you won't hear it from me otherwise.

 

[Moderator]

Don't you know to never respond to my posts for at least five minutes. Fixed the spelling of his name right off. I have a cousin who spells it "Steven" at it gets confusing for me at times as I'm often too fast with the posting trigger finger.

Still no.

 

[Moderator]

I think he was trying to say that we are getting carried away with tagging people sex offenders and I would agree with him there. We had a case here where some kid mooned some girls at school and they were trying to hang that sex offender tag on him which is really ridiculous. But I think he got carried away trying to defend his friend who obviously did more than just accidentally land on the wrong webpage.

That's how I took it as well.

 

[DiO'Bolic]

Still no.

Well okay. Guess I’ll just have to live with visions of Mr King (won't screw that one up ) doing one of these...

 

[~Ally~]

Thanks for those articles Sigmund.

And Marsha I understand and respect completely what you're saying about Uncle Steve wishing he could take some things back once they've been said. Of course it's going to be difficult when somebody is so prolific and their words overly analysed when in the public domain. But I still think Mr Grisham screwed up here by citing his friend as a reference point in his argument. Even more so after reading Sigmund's article that shows this guy actually had a lot worse images of under-age children in his possession.

Now if a reporter can easily find that information I find it difficult to comprehend that a respected author and lawyer--who is undoubtedly skilled at research--could not, or did not, discover that information prior to giving his old buddy a reference to ensure he can still practice law. And now Grisham has basically brought this guys past back to haunt him since he has now been named, and the area he practices in revealed.

Sheesh...with friends like that who really does need enemies??

 

[Moderator]

Thanks for those articles Sigmund.

And Marsha I understand and respect completely what you're saying about Uncle Steve wishing he could take some things back once they've been said. Of course it's going to be difficult when somebody is so prolific and their words overly analysed when in the public domain. But I still think Mr Grisham screwed up here by citing his friend as a reference point in his argument. Even more so after reading Sigmund's article that shows this guy actually had a lot worse images of under-age children in his possession.

Now if a reporter can easily find that information I find it difficult to comprehend that a respected author and lawyer--who is undoubtedly skilled at research--could not, or did not, discover that information prior to giving his old buddy a reference to ensure he can still practice law. And now Grisham has basically brought this guys past back to haunt him since he has now been named, and the area he practices in revealed.

Sheesh...with friends like that who really does need enemies??

But that's my point--when he said that I have absolutely no doubt that he got caught up in the idea of some people being overly zealous in prosecuting people who really and truly have made a mistake by clicking on a link by accident and got prosecuted for it. His bringing up his friend as an example of how that might happen was most definitely an error in judgment and something he'd probably very much like to take back. When you're sitting in front of cameras, no matter how famous you are, you don't get the luxury of doing a takeback in real time.

 

[Dana Jean]

Okay, I'm just throwing this out there. I am NOT okaying child pornography in anyway! NONE. But I have to tell you, I am the worst googler on the face of this planet. I have innocently put in search words and have gotten lost in Porno hell. It was worse in the days when those windows would pop up over and over and over again rapid fire and you couldn't get them to stop!

My absolute worst google search result was when I went searching for an actress that appeared many times in Night Gallery episodes. I wondered what happened to her. My kids and husband laughed their azzes off when I got stuck in porno hell because they said you had to watch what you put in the search box as google would break it down into individual words. I did NOT find it funny. The actress I was looking for?

Joanna Pettet

 

[~Ally~]

Joanna Pettet

Yeh I'm kinda tempted to google that now...but a wee bit scared also! And again, I understand where you're coming from, adult pornography can appear very easily in general google search links when looking for something else...it's happened to me before. I've never had a link show up that appears to be child pornography though, maybe I'm naive but I'd like to believe these perverts would have to dig a little harder to find that stuff.

 

[Dana Jean]

Yeh I'm kinda tempted to google that now...but a wee bit scared also! And again, I understand where you're coming from, adult pornography can appear very easily in general google search links when looking for something else...it's happened to me before. I've never had a link show up that appears to be child pornography though, maybe I'm naive but I'd like to believe these perverts would have to dig a little harder to find that stuff.

Yes, I have never come across child pornography. And not sticking up at all for this particular person. I do think you have to do a few clicks to view this sort of thing. I'm just saying I have been directed to sites I DID NOT ASK FOR. YIKES!

 

[Lily Sawyer]

But that's my point--when he said that I have absolutely no doubt that he got caught up in the idea of some people being overly zealous in prosecuting people who really and truly have made a mistake by clicking on a link by accident and got prosecuted for it. His bringing up his friend as an example of how that might happen was most definitely an error in judgment and something he'd probably very much like to take back. When you're sitting in front of cameras, no matter how famous you are, you don't get the luxury of doing a takeback in real time.

I'm totally in Marsha's camp on this. I've had clients in the past who've said stupid stuff in an interview and then regretted it, especially since most of it was taken out of context by unethical journalists looking for some juicy dirt or gossip to bring up numbers. I don't condone child porn in the least - everyone here feels the same - but I can understand how Grisham screwed up the point he was trying to make. It can happen to anyone.

 

[~Ally~]

Ok, somebody mentioned earlier about checking the search history on Grisham's computer (which I don't agree with, the guy having an opinion does not imply he is a paedophile). Then they reflected that he is a writer so basically who knows what could appear, and was all looked up in the name of research.

Now hypothetically, if Mr King was researching a topic that may be considered illegal--for example paedophilia/child pornography--it could be expected that he may stumble across some things that no decent law abiding citizen would ever want to witness or willingly search for. This may seem like a stupid question, but Moderator do you guys have some way of handling that...for example would the authorities be notified prior to the research being conducted?

I'm really curious because going by Mr Grisham's reasoning somebody like himself, or Mr King, could also be charged with an offence even if they mistakenly came across the material purely in the name of research.

 

[fljoe0]

Yes, I have never come across child pornography. And not sticking up at all for this particular person. I do think you have to do a few clicks to view this sort of thing. I'm just saying I have been directed to sites I DID NOT ASK FOR. YIKES!

Ok, somebody mentioned earlier about checking the search history on Grisham's computer (which I don't agree with, the guy having an opinion does not imply he is a paedophile). Then they reflected that he is a writer so basically who knows what could appear, and was all looked up in the name of research.

Now hypothetically, if Mr King was researching a topic that may be considered illegal--for example paedophilia/child pornography--it could be expected that he may stumble across some things that no decent law abiding citizen would ever want to witness or willingly search for. This may seem like a stupid question, but Moderator do you guys have some way of handling that...for example would the authorities be notified prior to the research being conducted?

I'm really curious because going by Mr Grisham's reasoning somebody like himself, or Mr King, could also be charged with an offence even if they mistakenly came across the material purely in the name of research.

I think if you were going to research something and your research could be illegal, you should inform your attorney what you are planning on doing and let the attorney contact the police or whoever and let them know what you are planning to do. Or something like that. I think you should tell the authorities before you start down that road.

Interesting question.

 

[Moderator]

Ok, somebody mentioned earlier about checking the search history on Grisham's computer (which I don't agree with, the guy having an opinion does not imply he is a paedophile). Then they reflected that he is a writer so basically who knows what could appear, and was all looked up in the name of research.

Now hypothetically, if Mr King was researching a topic that may be considered illegal--for example paedophilia/child pornography--it could be expected that he may stumble across some things that no decent law abiding citizen would ever want to witness or willingly search for. This may seem like a stupid question, but Moderator do you guys have some way of handling that...for example would the authorities be notified prior to the research being conducted?

I'm really curious because going by Mr Grisham's reasoning somebody like himself, or Mr King, could also be charged with an offence even if they mistakenly came across the material purely in the name of research.

That came up when he was doing Mr. Mercedes. He didn't want any of us doing research about bombs, explosives, etc. and that extends down to ordering books, going to the library, etc. It didn't occur to us to notify any authorities but then, which authorities do you go to? It would have been easy enough to defend but we really didn't want any of them knocking on our doors and confiscating computers and then having to go through the legal hoops to get them back after proving it was research for a book. I'm trying to remember but it's not coming to me who he went to for advice.

 

[doowopgirl]

Okay, I should have read the entire article before weighing in as the title of it does take it out of context with what I believe he was saying. My interpretation is that he feels people who in error have child porn on their computer because they were surfing the internet and clicked on links they shouldn't have and didn't realize it was child pornography have been jailed because of it. It was not that they do this on a regular basis but get caught up in the system as a result of an innocent mistake. I can see his argument in those cases. I'd equate it with the same sympathy given to those who are placed on the sex offender registry (but probably shouldn't be) even though they had had consensual intercourse but one of the parties was considered underage. This usually is a case when it's a boyfriend/girlfriend. We had a case here with that and if I recall the guy was 19 at the time and his girlfriend may have been 16. Both consented but her parents pressed charges and he was convicted and did his time and was placed on the sex offender registry. Years later a mentally unstable person found the registry (online, I believe) and managed to kill 3 people on the list including this young man because he equated all sex offenders as having molested children.

Your post puts a very different spin on things. While any involvement in child pornograhy is wrong, you have a very valid point. I think people are quick to put up a headline. I was disturbed by the headline until I read the article.

 

[jacobtlong]

Not gonna lie, as big a anime fan as I am, I have Googled certain titles or keywords that I thought I knew the spelling of only to discover that I couldn't remember the spelling and went into some place very different. I almost always use Google Images for this kind of thing because I am an active blogger and like using pics, but some of the things I've stumbled upon I couldn't very well use on my blog or would want to. And since I use a laptop I've sometimes been caught unawares in some rather public places. Sometimes I can't really tell what I'm seeing so I'll hover for a moment... and then recognition sets in. If I'm in a public setting this is where things get interesting.

Someone will say "Whatcha lookin' at?" and this will be my response: "Something more screwed up than highlights from that Jets game last night. Feel like I need therapy right now." Then I'll close my laptop and that's it.

But... yeah, downloading child porn even if you accidentally stumble upon it or whatever... is messed up. And wrong. There's not enough alcohol on the planet that could get me to look up certain stuff again.

 

[FlakeNoir]

Ok, somebody mentioned earlier about checking the search history on Grisham's computer (which I don't agree with, the guy having an opinion does not imply he is a paedophile). Then they reflected that he is a writer so basically who knows what could appear, and was all looked up in the name of research.

Now hypothetically, if Mr King was researching a topic that may be considered illegal--for example paedophilia/child pornography--it could be expected that he may stumble across some things that no decent law abiding citizen would ever want to witness or willingly search for. This may seem like a stupid question, but Moderator do you guys have some way of handling that...for example would the authorities be notified prior to the research being conducted?

I'm really curious because going by Mr Grisham's reasoning somebody like himself, or Mr King, could also be charged with an offence even if they mistakenly came across the material purely in the name of research.

That came up when he was doing Mr. Mercedes. He didn't want any of us doing research about bombs, explosives, etc. and that extends down to ordering books, going to the library, etc. It didn't occur to us to notify any authorities but then, which authorities do you go to? It would have been easy enough to defend but we really didn't want any of them knocking on our doors and confiscating computers and then having to go through the legal hoops to get them back after proving it was research for a book. I'm trying to remember but it's not coming to me who he went to for advice.

I was just thinking about Mr. Mercedes when I read Ally's post Marsha, because I had wondered the same thing when we were testing the new site, I'd been a bit worried about some of the things I'd been searching for.

 

[hipmamajen]

I think we have all said or done some really awful or stupid things, that we would take back in a second if we could.

But, we are not attorneys, which both men in this story are. And that actually means something in this context.

John Grisham, as a lawyer, has better skills than the average person at speaking particularly in public, even off the cuff. I question whether he misspoke, or whether he really didn't think the issue was that big of a deal until the internet erupted and the crowds formed with their pitchforks and torches...

And Grisham's law school buddy d@mn well knew that what he was doing was against the law when he downloaded graphic pictures of underaged girls. And, in case anyone missed Sigmund 's article, he shared those photos with someone he believed to be another pedophile.

"Pornado"-When you click on a link and a zillion unwanted and uncontrolled pornography windows open and it takes a while to close them.
-Not what Grisham's lawyer friend was caught in.

If they had pulled up in the paddy wagon and hauled this guy off because he accidentally clicked on one link, shut down the window when he realized "16 year old hookers" wasn't about fishing or crochet? Then yeah, I'd say that he was unfairly prosecuted. But that's not the case here.

This guy is dirty as h€ll, and Grisham's downplaying his friend's guilt.

I'm not going to form a posse and string them up, but I don't see any need to go out of my way to spread sunshine and glitter in their direction either.

 

[jacobtlong]

Very well put, hipmamajen. Also thanks for introducing me to the term "pornado." I'll make a mental note to use it sometime in the near future.

 

[Sigmund]

'I deserved my punishment', says lawyer friend of John Grisham | Daily Mail Online

I don't know what to think any more.

Dude says he deserved to be punished/jailed but also says:

‘It’s illegal and should be punished. If it’s a crime, it’s a crime. There’s a violation of the right of privacy involved. There’s people now who, because of the internet, who are making child pornography so they can share it across the internet."

A violation of the right of privacy? The sexually abused child has a right to PRIVACY?! How about the right to not be SEXUALLY ABUSED?!!



Peace.

(AND BTW: don't blame the internet for depravity.)