A statement from John Grisham
Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography—online or otherwise—should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable.
I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all.
date
newest »
newest »
Suzie wrote: "Far too little, far too late. Especially since you misrepresented the reality.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic......"
Well said, Suzie. He lost a major fan here by misrepresenting the reality.
No way, not near enough, not good enough, just NO. The regular white old man's response.
Not touching another one of your books. Ever.
Accessing those images supports the industry, and that's what makes this act most despicable, IMO.Yet someday I think we'll see the act of imprisoning people for what is ultimately a mouse-click-verified crime of the mind to be every bit as Puritan-silly as drowning supposed witches.
Why the apology? You stated your opinion, stand by your convictions.The exploitation of any human being for sexual release does not promote good relationship. Innocent children are most vunerable to a distorted psyche. Adult viewers of pornography enter into a downward spiral away from the true value of meaningful life relationship. The sex act itself finds its true value when in relationship a loving couple wish to share the deepest expression of that love. Can this be exploited?
Sadly I can no longer read the books of a man who expresses these opinions.
I lost all respect for John Grisham, will no longer buy his books
I had just got back into Grisham after many years away. Now I'm gone for good.
I'm a huge fan of Grisham, but the posts In reading are very unsettling. I'm unaware of the interview. Where do I find it?
Okay. I see it now. Shame on you, John. I'm so very disappointed! What were you thinking? ????
Some times we put are foot in our mouths, we all do it at times.
I just saw the video of John Grisham's statement...Wow! Really?!
It's very sad, and scary that an intelligent, mature, influential man can not see the harm in looking at and downloading pornography.
"White men" that are "filling our jails" for "just looking" are the reason these children are being exploited. If there weren't any men doing the looking, then children wouldn't be kidnapped, drugged, filmed, and abused in the first place.
That a man can be turned on or at all interested by a naked child is a sickness, and Yes, John, they are "perverts", and they do deserve to go to jail, because by looking they increase the demand, and maybe jail will make them think twice before pursuing this sick, addictive, sexual lust any further.
It's been shown that "just looking" is just the beginning and most often escalates into more. First, they "just look", then they download the pictures, so they can keep going back and fantisizing, then they watch and download videos, escalating to harder core videos, then maybe start watching kids at a school or park, and then possibly take it to a physical level by paying for sex with a minor or molesting a child they know, etc.
So, again I say, "Yes, John, just looking is wrong, and perverted, and a criminal act against these innocent children."
"What if it were your little girl's photo?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
I've been a huge fan but I think I've lost the stomach for your books. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can't. I think you need to spend some time educating yourself about rape culture and sex slavery Mr. Grisham. That the 16 years old girls were "not 10 year old boys" does not matter is the least. They were likely not on any website out of their own free will. This entire society's attitude toward sex crimes and sexual violence needs to change and you Mr. Grisham, have the public platform and clout to help change it. You may say you didn't choose that but you chose public life and with public life come extra responsibility. Do some research. Look especially at some feminist websites. And no, that is not a dirty word. I'll not be reading your books anymore.
Pediphiles have to get their start somewhere-first it's looking, then it's looking and downloading,etc.... The investigators could search the history of his friend's computer, jail time for one incident? I'm not buying it.And thank you John Grisham for perpetuating the grim stereotype.
-White People Everywhere
Patti wrote: "Pediphiles have to get their start somewhere-first it's looking, then it's looking and downloading,etc.... "You learned this from experience? I suppose all the cops and prosecutors that look at those pictures will soon become perverts. Maybe they should be arrested also.
I don't understand the apology either. You are a lawyer, John. I hope you don't believe in preventive law and thought control. If they ever find a way to read minds everyone will be in prison. Women won't be allowed to wear bathing suits because it may cause men to have thoughts about sex and even lead to perversion. Watching movies with children in them could lead to child labor laws being broken. Don't distort this to think I am FOR child porn. We just need to stand up for objective laws and stay away from the vagaries of preventive law and thought control. It will lead us to 1984.
If those cops and prosecutors download those pictures to their personal computer or take evidence home for personal use I would say yes they should be arrested, too. I guess I should have not generalized my observations-I should have been more clear, it was really directed toward John Grisham's statement In the UK Daily Mail. He almost dismisses his friend's actions as harmless because 1)he was drunk (so he was not responsible, gee how many people would LOVE that as a defense in a court of law) 2) it was stupid 3) it involved mature "looking" 16 year girls not 10 year old boys. So implying child pornography against young males is more criminal than against young girls. It's like he is deciding that some forms are ok and others are not when actually all of it is harmful. John Grisham is a public figure and was a respected author and his flippant attitude towards what he assumes is his friend's one time offense (which further investigations revealed the friend had a long history of trading child porn on line) is totally irresponsible and frankly I think insulting to the many who are exploited and those who try to bring justice against the criminals who partake in any form of child pornography.
"Take home for personal use?" As opposed to "official" use? How far removed is looking at an image from remembering the same image? Especially for someone with a photographic memory. Does "personal use" involve physical action of any kind or just visualizing or thinking the wrong thoughts? Is "taking home" that different from taking to the restroom in one's mind? If I rent murder movies because I want to murder someone am I committing a crime? If I watch news stories of actual murders, rape, child abuse, am I promoting them or does it depend on what I am thinking at the time? If some hacker leaves lots of child porn on your computer and you can't prove that you didn't do it, should you be locked away? Would they need to "dig up" questionable acts or behavior in your past to support it? What about adult porn movies? Wouldn't you like to make those a crime also? How far removed are they from child porn if the performers are one day older than the "legal" age? What about animated films that look real? What about books with verbal pictures of such? What is the line between immoral and illegal? I think there are too many people who would love to be the one in charge of those decisions and thought control. How wonderful would you look if everything you did expecting it to be totally private, involving no other person, was exposed to the world?
You're still number one in my book, Mr. Grisham!
Not a single one of us are perfect. You ate an exceptional writer and I always look forward to your new novels. Thank you for many, many hours of enjoyment.
We all fall short before the glory of God!
Ron wrote: ""Take home for personal use?" As opposed to "official" use? How far removed is looking at an image from remembering the same image? Especially for someone with a photographic memory. Does "personal..."but other people are involved innocent children who have their lives ruined.
And the actual perpetrators should be punished.
I am very late to respond but isn't a sixteen year old a child? Don't we have a moral obligation to protect a child?
I think all of us understand how terrible child abuse can be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...