Gromnir

"- putting him in jail wont achieve much," disagree. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," too often we see celebrities and wealthy people getting special treatment, seeming in violation o' the principle that all men is created equal. to the average citizen it appears that not only did polanski get a special deal from prosecutor 'cause the director were a famous person, but when he found out that he were gonna have spend a measly 48 additional days in prison, he fled the country. let us alter facts. imagine if numbers guy or pozi or Gromnir were accused of having sex with a famous 13 year old actress... same transcript and evidence... same flight from justice. everything same 'cept that the victim were the famous person, and nobodies like us were the defendant. you thinks hollywood and the french government would come to pozi's defense? HA! famous people gets different treatment, but Americans don't believe that celebrities should get special handling. so yeah... sending polanski back to prison would achieve something. sees that famous people can't simply pay their way out of their mistakes has value. 'course if you not think polanski made a mistake... HA! Good Fun!

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that. If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age. ... am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent... HA! Good Fun! You missed the point actually Grom - Wals was talking about (in response to me bringing it up) variations in the age of consent across different countries and what he thought was proper, not what the legal definition of consent in America is. I'm fully aware that a 13 year old cannot legally give consent in America. am fully aware what wals were talking 'bout. age of consent is age that children is legal deemed too young to consent to sex. is meant for protection o' children. am not quite sure where you misunderstand. adults is fully aware that if they have sex with a child, they can go to prison. has a deterrent effect. is age o' consent ultimately an arbitrary line drawn in sand? sure it is, but so is speed limits and dollar amounts for grand larceny and a thousand other examples. society decides that to protect children from abuse, age o' consent laws is useful. am hopeful you ain't gonna try the slippery slope relativism o' other posters, 'cause it just not hold muster. "Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that." actually, it does change. perhaps sadly, child abuse is also gots legal implications and definitions. age of consent changes behavior of people having sex with partners who is young. protects those youngsters from possible "abuse." "child abuse is child abuse" doesn't mean anything... but even if it did it wouldn't mean what you thinks it means... confusing, no. to hiro: "You're the one that's suggested the AGE of the person with this 13 year old girl by dismissing it as two minors having sex. I never said anything about age in the FIRST place and later suggested it may have been an adult? an uncle? WHO KNOWS? Maybe it was an uncle and the family didn't want to make this worse than it already is. You're the one that's suggesting she had sex with a minor and dismissing it as such. What a callous and insensitive thing to say. The most obvious reason? Unbelievable." you asked why the other rapists ain't being brought to justice. a simple and obvious possible reason is that previous 2 sexual encounters were with non-adults. am not quite certain where your disconnect is on this. you is trying to imply some kinda silly conspiracy or lack o' diligence on the part of the DA? HA! and again, you gots logic issues. anybody wanna give hiro a basic primer on logic... explain about how impossible it is to disprove something that ain't been proved. prove that God doesn't exist. prove that the previous two sex acts were not with adults. is no need for Gromnir to prove age of the victim's previous partner(s)... is up to You to prove that they was adults. for there to be felony, the partner(s) must be adults... so prove that previous partner(s) was adult. bah. and you still ain't explained how you could be More disturbed by fact that the victim weren't a virgin than you was by the evidence of drugging and rape by a middle-aged man. HA! Good Fun! ps to pozi: admissions is always admissible as evidence o' a crime. what you want or would like is not what the courts need or want. is typical very hard to convict w/o the willing cooperation o' victim, but given polanski's subsequent admission's regarding the incident, am thinking that it would be insane for him to abandon the celebrity-grade plea agreement he worked out so many decades ago... gives DA an opportunity to tack on the rape and sodomy charges.

am thinking you not know what a straw man argument is. "What disturbs me is your lack of understanding and comprehension of what I've posted and the fact that you condemn Polanski but it's okay for the other two times when she had sex and dismiss it as 'playing doctor with a neighbour'." see, now That is a straw man. Gromnir conceded that it were indeed disturbing that a 13 year old girl would had sex. however, we did note that sex 'tween minors is far more common than you seem to believe. quick use o' google reveals statistics such as the following: "The percentage of teens 15-19 who had initiated sexual intercourse before age 14 has decreased in recent years, from a high of 8 percent of girls and 11 percent of boys in 1995 to a low of 6 percent of girls and 8 percent of boys in 2002." http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S...-Fact-Sheet.pdf better than 1 in 20 13 year old girls has "initiated" sex before age of 14? btw, California is pretty typical for "statutory rape". most jurisdictions don't call it statutory rape, but that is kinda beside the point. regardless, in California, sex 'tween minors is a misdemeanor offense that is covered by the same penal code section that deals with "statutory rape". am recollecting that there may be a $70 fine involved. you wonder why the "prosecutors" not hunt down the other rapist(s) that engaged in sex with the victim previous to polanski? most obvious reason is that they not got time or effort to waste on minor misdemeanor offenses that not even have a complaint. sex 'tween minors is unfortunate, but is misdemeanor offense with no teeth... and given the mind-boggling number o' minors who is having sex, we imagine that lots more judges, lawyers and cops is gonna have to be found if hiro is to get justice. *snort* does Gromnir know that the victim's previous sexual experiences were with minors? nope, but you don't know either. you want an explanation? if the victim's previous sexual encounters were with fellow minors, that would explain the reason why those folks weren't hunted. regardless, speaking o' logic fallacies, how does absence o' prosecution of your missing rapists absolve polanski? and please, explain how polanski's forced sex with a 13 year old girl that he got drunk and drugged is less disturbing than fact that the girl admitted to having experienced sex 2x previous to being violated by polanski. HA! Good Fun!

hiro's response is perfect example o' why we sympathize with rape victim families. a 13 year old girl is given booze and drugs and then forced to have sex with a middle-aged man, but what really disturbs hiro is that the 13 year old weren't a virgin at the time roman violated her. talk 'bout disturbing.

Disturbing stuff. Even more disturbing is she admitted she had sex twice before being raped by Polanski. That's three times she's been raped. Whether consensual or not, it's still rape. What happened to the other person(s) that had sex with her. Why the outcry over Polanski and not the one(s) before Polanski? Could you give a source for your allegation? For example, the page of the trial transcript in which the admission was made? from linked transcript: page 13, line 28.

mom were foolish. 'course if setting were dirt water missouri and we were talking 'bout private math lessons or private piano lessons, most parents probable wouldn't be over concerned. hollywood "photographer" wants to take photos o' your 13 year old girl? yeah, some warning bell shoulda' gone off in mom's head. woulda' been another reason why victim's family didn't want trial at the time... mom/daughter/family woulda' been raked over coals til you weren't certain who were on trial no more. before rape shield, the victim's prior sexual experience were fair game. girl and family woulda' been violated in court and in press over and over again. HA! Good Fun! to hiro: 1) you don't know if the prior sexual encounters were with adult any more than Gromnir... but sure seems more likely that it weren't with an adult. you ask why the sex with roman gets pub and previous encounters didn't. obvious answer: the victim's prior sexual encounters were with similar aged teens. but you think is More disturbing that she had sex 2 times previous to polanski? wacky. an adult drugs a 13 year old girl and then forces himself on her, but you find mere fact that she had already had sex 2x More disturbing? 2) am thinking you is a bit naive. you not think that some kids experiment with sex at very young age. hell, Gromnir grew up in freakin south & north dakota and we knew kids who had experimented with sex by age 13. considering how few people Gromnir knew, that is saying something too. nearest neighbor for Gromnir were over a mile away. Gromnir never suggested that all such experiments is involving intercourse, but you is ridiculous obtuse if you think it not happen... and if you think that such occurrences is extreme rare then you is nuts.

you serious? how many kids has played doctor in basement with a neighbor? is disturbing, but More disturbing than being drugged and forced to have sex with an adult? you is kidding. you Must be kidding. HA! Good Fun!

'Normal people' don't try to install windows on a netbook from a flash drive. They either 1) buy a computer from a Best Buy or Dell.com and Windows comes preloaded, or 2) the take a Windows CD and stick it in the drive of their laptop or desktop then sit around while it installs. is complete off-topic, but almost 4 years ago we built a rig and tried to load windows xp home on that thing. try to load os 3 times = 3x fail. gave up. loaded windows xp pro. quickest os install we ever recall. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that. If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age. ... am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent... HA! Good Fun!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-po...0,1100452.story am not a fan of la times, but they did an okie dokie job. HA! Good Fun!

"What the hell is 'American morality'. It sounds scary if you ask me. One can only hope it's at least similar to.... well morality." has "American" modify any word and many of you would be freighted and/or disgusted by the result. HA! Good Fun!

am doubting that polanski's fellow inmates woulda' had as much difficulty with the morality question as does many of you. polanski's trial got good amount o' coverage, and am confident that inmates would be aware of the facts o' the case. am wondering what luck polanski would have debating with some tatooed norteno or skinhead... defend self by pointing to the practices o' socialy progressive japanese businessmen on holiday in thailand? good luck. is our understanding that judge were gonna give polanski 48 days on top of time already served. 48 days ain't much. at the same time, am betting that those woulda' been 48 very long days. HA! Good Fun!

well, at least you admit that it is a "gut thing." people maybe expect more of Bioware, but that not mean that Bioware games is less good simply 'cause Bio got more experience and more resources than the competition. buy a $50,000 car built by mentally challenged orphans with no thumbs. how you measure quality o' the car? relative to any other $50,000 car, no? quality not change 'cause o' the resources o' the developer. expectations not change the quality o' game, car... whatever. *shrug* 'least you admit it is a gut thing... puts you ahead o' the curve 'round these parts. HA! Good Fun!

no relativist? you is kidding, right? review your homocide comments. our interest, is as we stated already: polanski polarizes. is a curiosity. is very difficult for folks on one side of argument to understand folks on the other side. is an odd issue to result in such divisiveness. kinda like OJ insofar as predictability o' guessing which pov a person will be choosing. as to whether we know something you don't... is another one we won't touch... too easy. HA! Good Fun!

am not gonna touch the suggestion that behavior can be legitimized through historical evidence... and slippery-slope relativism leads to even more unpleasant conclusions. however, am genuinely wondering where folks getting information 'bout the incident. have noticed some pretty varied descriptions o' the girl and the scenario. is you using the grand jury transcript (which is available numerous places online) or is you using newspaper, magazine or film source to get your facts? maybe you use multiple sources... or none. you feel comfortable with your source? HA! Good Fun!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich...html#cnnSTCText am curious. polanski polarizes. victimized or villain? HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit we didn't read the thread. saw a couple posts and the title. resulted in Gromnir confusion. me2 characters suck. me2 characters is great. me2 characters is... meh. ... am missing something. has me2 been released and we not heard? you base good v. bad on what? how on earth you judge good v. bad w/o playing? 'course Gromnir is getting the feeling that many of you not need to play game to make up mind 'bout characters in Any game. appearnce and character concept is more important than how character is developed. HA! Good Fun!

am quite familiar with what Court is doing. First Amendment speech might seem complex to the neophyte or the inexperienced, but those crazy arsed Justices and judges doesn't just ignore precedent in favor o' expedience as you would suggest. "oh sure, there isn't a vice category, but we all know what the Court is REALLY doing." hogwash. how many times does we see O'brien get applied to nudie bars and p0rn shops? if vice were summarily dismissed as obscenity, O'brien would never get no mention in context o' pr0n. unprotected speech not require application of O'brien. make some crazy distinction 'tween case law and the manner in which courts actual apply the law? *chuckle* 'cause judges loves being overturned on appeal. the strength of the State interest does not in any way, shape or form, decrease Constitutional protection or the level o' scrutiny required for State to successful limit free speech rights. and again, single out art in Miller is wacky and wrong... is Serious art, lit, science and political that is making up prong 3. to continue to identify as an "art" exception or category is more than a little inaccurate. and as for cigarettes... you is again complete wrong. commercial speech does get a different level o' scrutiny, but has nothing to do with cigarettes v. books. cigarette related speech not get any less protection than any other kinda commercial speech. is the State interest part o' the test that is easier for the State to meet. and no, art doesn't get an automatic win. if art falls in another category of unprotected speech, then you lose... regardless o' artistic merit. btw, medium is gonna be a factor that hurts video games as 'posed to helps. in Pacifica we get the indecent speech sub-category 'cause o' the nature o' the medium and the increased likelihood of affecting children... always gotta be wary of the cute case. am thankful that is tougher to spin the pervasive nature o' video games 'posed to radio, but you got a complete distorted notion o' how medium affects. "so it serves the interest of video game developers and publishers to make sure that they never get put into the same boat as smoking and porn, but instead are compared to novels and films." wacky. even the non-lawyers on the board is gonna see that your pr0n v. books and film distinction is ridiculous... really. Miller made life easier for SCOTUS 'cause only prong 3 is a question o' law... and Court got tired of constant state and local appeals post Roth... but post Miller world ain't genuine more simple for lawyers with an obscenity question... not by a long shot. regardless... is getting pretty far off-base of actual topic. take your final shot at the issue before the inevitable mod warning. HA! Good Fun!

there were no complexity in the unknown. state lost. is one reason why Miller Court changed. state were tired of losing. "they call it something else everytime, but when you get down to it, vice activities are given less protection by the courts. still i do absolutely recognize that they themselves won't admit to these categories (and thus i wouldnt bring them up in these exact words in a brief), but don't kid yourself about reality (i may be a bit cynical here so pardon me)" am sure you don't write up the brief that way. *chuckle* in point o' fact, Court is real careful not to make no art distinction. Chaplinsky and other cases makes real clear that there is a Very limited number o' categories o' expression that is unprotected, and "vice" ain't unprotected 'less is obscene (or kiddie pr0n). the state interest may be public morality, but don't get confused with the level o' protection the speech is getting. and again, as stated first place, the medium got zero relevance. enoch: am wondering if gravity is different in sigil. those girls is gonna have some serious back problems. it is kinda funny that the brothel in ps:t did less to t!tillate the prurient interests of the player than any other game brothel we can recall. HA! Good Fun!

1) initial you make a distinction 'tween books, movies and video games as art v. pr0n and cigarettes as vice. is no such distinction. the medium has no immediate relevance. wanna discuss Pacifica? neither does Gromnir... and it not help you in any event. 2) anybody who thinks Miller made simple has never had 1st hand experience with an obscenity case. pre-Miller the state had burden o' showing that the material in question were utter without redeeming social value. were almost impossible for state to prove. made simple. maybe you not like the simplicity of impossible, but simple it was. in addition to the vagueness o' "serious" we got the damnably myopic community standard... which is indeed effective if all you is concerned 'bout is shutting down strip clubs and nudie bars, but in 2009 with internet and mass media... pre-miller were easier on judge, but only marginally so. "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." *snort* regardless, is no art category... not in any way shape or form. non-art gets loads o' protection. again, non-protected speech is limited to some very limited categories. art rarely gets mentioned save for in the obscenity context... and even so is mentioned equal with political, literary and scientific.. HA! Good Fun!

was easier before Miller. no "serious" language and community standard is now more headache than help. third prong is question of law, not fact. prong one and two is for fact finder (judge or jury). HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir is right here. Though I'd suggest that most obscenity rulings boil down to 'is it art?

there is no "art" category for first amendment. there is protected speech and unprotected speech. obscenity, kiddie pr0n, and fighting words is examples o' unprotected speech. is no books, music and video games distinction. pr0n gets just as much first protection as does War & Peace or Gone With the Wind. is only when pron is obscene that it not get protection of amendment 1. for instance, is more than a few japanese video games that is considered obscene and does not get first amendment protection. similarly, there is books and movies that is considered obscene. has nothing to do with the medium. HA! Good Fun!

"Some books are, some movies are, there is absolutely no reason, why at some point in time an excellent game could be considered by renown art critics as a masterpiece of art..." am not recalling where we argued 'gainst your point. lord knows we never claimed that all books and movies is art. what we did note is that in millions o' years, games ain't been able to overcome perception that they can't be art. video games IS games. fact that checkers can be played on a computer not make fundamental different than checkers played with tangible game pieces. fact that millions o' years has produced no games=art not mean that it won't happen in future, but is a damned discouraging for those who is expecting sudden appreciation o' the video game as art. am also wondering if you is willful obtuse. is a reason we bring up D. H. Lawrence and pr0n. as long as Lady Chatterley were viewed as pr0n it weren't gonna be accepted as art by the majority... or even my a noteworthy minority. Lady Chatterley not change since it were written, but perception as pr0n has. as long as video games is seen primarily Games, then we not see much hope for the art label sticking in near future. even so, we gotta thank you for the chess piece ploy... genuine laughed. "What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?" for some folks it could mean lots. imagine getting your MFA in video games? heck, become a professor o' video games. am s'posing there would be some grant monies involved. new class o' dweebs is able to terrorize and exploit their grad students. personally, am not caring. call art or not won't change how much we enjoys games. nevertheless, as the question of when/if games will eventual get widespread recognition as art were raised, Gromnir thought it were fun to challenge the rather biased and optimistic pov o' a bunch gamers posting at a computer game developer board. HA! Good Fun!

the only one distracting here is you, comparing videogames with normal games... they are both games sure but of totaly different kind... it's the same like you would said that movies and porn is the same kind of entertainment... one reason why video games is unlikely to be taken serious as art is 'cause they is games. you not get that? apparently not. heck, the word "game" is right there in your video game label. am recalling that chrisA, in an interview talking 'bout crpgs, recognized that you could take the writing out o' a video game and still has a quality game as long as the gameplay were engaging... but reverse were not true. take gameplay out o' the game and keep the writing and you got... nothing. Game not ceases to be a game because is video. and pr0n film is film. pr0n literature is literature. is not totally different at all. the definition o' pr0n changes depending on time, and location, audience and community. maybe you read up on Lady Chatterley's Lover as a start. is 'bout perception. d.h. lawrence book ain't changed, but perception has. is no way that pr0n will be viewed as art, but sometimes what is viewed as pr0n does change. sheesh. HA! Good Fun!