Quote:
Originally Posted by Stitchawl
What part of my statement; "I DO see people demanding the arrest of an alleged child molester who has been charged with distribution of child pornography" is convicting him of anything. There is the word 'alleged' and the word 'charged,' but no words saying anything about convicting him.
That is absolutely correct. And if you can find somewhere in any of my posts where I've said otherwise, I'll apologize to your right here when you do. I have only said that court orders were drawn up, or that he has been arrested. In fact, in several of my posts I've stated that it is now up to the courts to judge him guilty or innocent. Please read before posting.
Why do people need to change what is said just to fit their own soap boxes?
Stitchawl
|
First, you neglected to include the first part of your post:
Quote:
Well said, except for the fact that he was NOT arrested for writing something. He was arrested for distributing child pornography.
I guess it's just more fun to run amok shouting "Right have been violated" eh?
|
You did not say here he was accused of something. You said he did something and was arrested for it. I contend that what he wrote probably does not fit a legal definition of child pornography (it may fit a legal definition of obscenity, though that is a very sticky thing that the courts will need to decide on).
You do indeed later go on to remind us that he is an "alleged child molester," though there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that in what has been officially reported.
Someone who has sexual desires for children is not necessarily a child molester. I will not deny he has desires for children and I even imagine he probably has fantasies involving children just as I do about men or most straight men do about women. However, if he chooses not to act on his fantasies, then while I may not like the guy and may not want him around my children, I also would respect his right to be left alone.
All I've said (and I'll say it again, though you never said it prior to your response quoted above) is that he has not been convicted of anything and in fact it seems to my (admittedly limited) knowledge that he has a very good case to make for slander and violation of his civil rights against this sheriff who requested the arrest warrant.
Once again, I may not like what he has to say, but I respect his right to say it.