The petition for Polanski and individuals/orgs that have signed it:

[The Straight Story]

Just in case you want to sign it :)

Petition for Roman Polanski

We have learned the astonishing news of Roman Polanski's arrest by the Swiss police on September 26th, upon arrival in Zurich (Switzerland) while on his way to a film festival where he was due to receive an award for his career in filmmaking.

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.

By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians - everyone involved in international filmmaking - want him to know that he has their support and friendship.

On September 16th, 2009, Mr. Charles Rivkin, the US Ambassador to France, received French artists and intellectuals at the embassy. He presented to them the new Minister Counselor for Public Affairs at the embassy, Ms Judith Baroody. In perfect French she lauded the Franco-American friendship and recommended the development of cultural relations between our two countries.

If only in the name of this friendship between our two countries, we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/39618660.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. OMG! This never ends!?!

:crazy:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

2. Natalie Portman, huh? That's really disappointing.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

6. Saw some new info on Michael Jackson today

:rofl:

[katanalori]

3. Is there a counter petition?

One that basically says to lock this rapist up forever?

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. All scum.

Thanks for the link.

[noiretextatique]

5. no mention of him admitting he drugged and raped a child

perhaps they consider it a "youthful indiscretion." he was only 44 when it happened :sarcasm:

[WeekendWarrior]

12. Because he never admitted he drugged and raped her

The drug and forcible rape charges were dropped. He plead to unlawful sex with a minor. Statutory rape. He claims it was consensual.

Doesn't make him any less of a perv, but let's at least try to be accurate.

[anonymous171]

13. The victim claims it wasn't. I trust her more than him. nt

[WeekendWarrior]

16. You know what? So do I, but

that isn't what the post I responded to said. Call me a stickler but I believe in accuracy when it comes to such things. Too many innocent people get thrown in jail because people go nuts and rely on emotion rather than objectivity and the rule of law.

Polanski has only admitted ONE thing. That he slept with a 13 year old. Whether you or I believe him is another thing entirely.

[noiretextatique]

58. that's statutory rape eom

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. To be accutate the DA allowed him to plea to the least charge and dropped the others

There was also a sentencing recommendation. While in pre-sentencing psych evaluation, he took off. His claim is that the judge was not going to honor the recommendation (which he was not required to).

The DA has recently recanted the story he told the movie makers.

[noiretextatique]

59. he raped a 13 year old girl

and claimed it was consensual, like most depraved perverts. how's that for accuracy?

[madokie]

7. fuck roman polanski

in the ass even

[msanthrope]

8. "in a case of morals."---As in, he raped a 13 year old. n/t

[anonymous171]

9. Hollywood: Rape is moral. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. The ignorance of his supporters is amazaing

He is already convicted
He has spent no time in jail
The plea deal allowed him to have only one charge with a 1 year sentence max.
The victim is irrelevant at this point

[WeekendWarrior]

14. He spent 48 days in a maximum security prison

to undergo psychiatric evaluation. His sentence was supposed to be 90 days. The judge was going to renege on the plea deal so he ran.

[anonymous171]

15. 48 days!? Poor guy.

:sarcasm:

[WeekendWarrior]

17. Again, just trying to be accurate.

When we aren't accurate with our facts, we're engaging in the same b.s. we accuse Republicans of every day around here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Then be accurate...

[seabeyond]

25. he spent 42 days of 90. the judge was going to have him sit 48 more days to finish the 90

that is it on the supposed reneg part of the deal. he ran for a 48 day sentence to finish what he was initially givin. they expected/wanted judge to say time served. no renegin from what i am seeing

[WeekendWarrior]

27. Thanks for the correction on the initial count

but it's my understanding that after speaking out of court with another prosecutor (a breach of precedure) the judge was going to throw out the original sentence and sentence him to much more than the remainder of those ninety days, thus reneging on the plea deal.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/28/judge-the-movie-not-the-man/

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

[seabeyond]

31. someone says..... he boasted he was gonna give the guy a 100 yrs. hm, that sounds doable

someone says

someone says (the D.A.) that the judge was what out of control whatever, what did he say on the documentary? i never watched it.

the defense used that as an excuse for polanski running. they are the ones saying judge was gonna throw the book at him. this is the defense. you believe them?

IF it was a matter of judging giving him an awesome amount of time, ONE of these news organizations would surely be sensationalizing it. instead cnn says..... judge was gonna make him finish the 48 days.

not that cnn is infallible, but buy it over defense after their client ran.

[Gwendolyn]

34. Cause it makes sooooo much SENSE to go on the lam for 30 year over 6 weeks in prison, right?

Right?

Guess who wrote this?

"I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?"

and

"My attitude surprises many people. That's because they didn't go through it all; they don't know everything that I know. People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! "

It's from the OP.

[anonymous171]

36. Tough shit. Normal people get screwed by the system all the time

Hollywood does not care about them. Therefore, I do not care about Polanski. I hope he dies in jail like the rapist scum he is.

[Gwendolyn]

37. That's fine. Was merely trying to help out those who are concerned.

Is that a problem?

[WeekendWarrior]

49. So because "normal" people get screwed it's okay for

Polanski or anyone else to get screwed? What kind of logic is that?

I would think the point would be that normal people SHOULDN'T get screwed and neither should Polanski. He and anyone else accused should get a fair trial. Period.

Just because that doesn't always happen doesn't mean it shouldn't, no matter how much of a scumball the defendant might be.

[anonymous171]

50. I should add that he isn't getting screwed.

He has the best lawyers money can buy, so there is absolutely no way he can get screwed. When you have the money and you still get convicted/plead guilty, you are guilty as hell.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Actually it wasn't possible

He plead to the least charge and the others were dropped. The judge is not requited to follow the recommendation, but is limited as to sentence based on the charge. IIRC, the max was 1 year. We will never really know what the judge was going to do. He did have a reputation for not giving celebs props. I tend to think that is a good thing.

The prosecutor has recanted what he told the film makers

[WeekendWarrior]

48. Well, I think that prosecutor may well be trying to cover his ass

because he screwed up. He was lying then but he's telling the truth now? Makes no sense to me.

That said, I think the judge could have thrown out the plea deal if he had wanted to and put Polanski on trial, reinstating the original charges, which could very likely have resulted in a guilty plea and decades in jail.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Why if given the chance why wouldn't you not mess with the media/film makers

I have a deep monkey wrenching streak. Always have. It still gets me in trouble.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Psych eval was not in a max security prision other wise he could not have gotten out and fled

The judge has to approve a plea deal and has the option not to. We applaud that here at times, such as in the recent B of A matter. The judge did not renege on anything.

[Confusious]

44. SO? The judge can say fuck you and ignore plea deals

For the most part, they don't.

They way I hear it, he was to stay in the country, but took off to Germany, giving the judge a big F you.

Judges don't like people saying F you to them. They do things like lock your ass away, if your a little person like me. If you're Polanski, you can do what the fuck you want.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. Signing that should be probable cause for searching their homes and computers for

kiddy porn.

[Mixopterus]

22. Wtf?

Hyperbole or you are a goddamn sympathizer with tyranny.

[EmilyAnne]

23. Sarcasm, yes? I hope so. nt

[Forkboy]

24. Oy vey.

[Hepburn]

26. Are you Dick Cheney? n/t

[Zywiec]

28. That's what you consider probable cause?

:crazy:

[SIMPLYB1980]

29. Well most child rape defenders do probably

have some kiddie porn on their hard drives. Probable cause?

[redqueen]

62. I disagree. I think most defenders are just so immersed in our rape culture

that they manage to minimize it enough so that for themselves, it's just not that big of a deal... at least not when the victim is so easy for people like that to smear/blame. The fact that they would is sickening and saddening... but that's the world we live in right now.

[Ignis]

63. -1, Why do you hate the 4th Amendment? (nt)

[Hoopla Phil]

64. Why do you rob candy from little babies?

[Ignis]

68. Because they can't fight back. Why do you support Mind Crimes? (nt)

[Whisp]

18. morals?

His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.

I don't understand. MORALS? a case of MORALS? wtf? I suppose this has been talked about here a lot but I've missed this before.

IN A CASE OF MORALS?

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. My thoughts as well

This sickens me. Because he is a brilliant film maker, it is okay for him to rape a child. :wtf:

[Whisp]

30. how I take it is...

some people are being way too 'moralistic' (or prissy, or puritanical, or prudish), treating poor little Roman like he was a rapist.

whichever intrepretation it makes me ill.

[Odin2005]

33. Don't you know? They are Ubermenschen that are above the morality of us rabble!

:sarcasm:

[Mixopterus]

43. .

. misread the post, disregard.

[Confusious]

45. I've got my life experience in ethics

I don't need to read a book from a guy who only sat and thought about ethics.

[Mixopterus]

46. So you are smarter than Immanuel Kant?

That is cool, I guess we should throw out one of the foundational contributors to modern philosophy and more or less the cornerstone of non-consequentialist ethical thought?

Let's throw out Ross and Rawls while we are at it, hell, let's just throw away all philosophy and see what that does to society, especially regarding the field of law.

EDIT: Your personal experience would be called "Intuitionism" in ethics and considered a strong but often misguided force in determining action that is wholly reliant upon culture, state of mind, and personal motivation. That's no way to go about deciding fates, in other words.

[Confusious]

47. I have no problem with that

I'm tired of hearing about stupid "philosophers" and their ideas about life and economics ayn rand, Machiavelli, nitche who break thing down into little words such as "Intuitionism" which have no bearing on my life, except to give some dumbass CEO the justification he needs to fuck the little guy, or people the means to TRY and make the rest of us feel small, because they feel small themselves.

"Your personal experience would be called "Intuitionism" in ethics and considered a strong but often misguided force in determining action that is wholly reliant upon culture, state of mind, and personal motivation. That's no way to go about deciding fates, in other words."

Basic "philosophers" horseshit. Am I suppose to have morals that apply in the past, today ( I should grow a beard, because people in the late 19th century thought every clean-shaven man was a criminal, or not to be trusted in the least )? Or maybe I should have the morals of the future, which I have never seen. The only morals I have right now are based upon experience, and the effect they had on people. They could change tomorrow, but I doubt it.

"that is wholly reliant upon culture, state of mind, and personal motivation"

So I suppose the ass who thought this up lived outside culture, state of mind, and personal motivation until the day this popped out of his brain. Even if he did, how are you going to make a judgment outside of culture, state of mind or personal motivation? Its bullshit wrapped in horseshit.

"That's no way to go about deciding fates, in other words."

That's how every decision ha been made in the past 7000 years. That's how Rome became an empire. I highly doubt some guys brain fart is going to change things. And if it does, I will bet 1 million to 1, it will make things worse.

[Mixopterus]

51. Oh man, where do I begin?

" I'm tired of hearing about stupid "philosophers" and their ideas about life and economics ayn rand, Machiavelli, nitche who break thing down into little words such as "Intuitionism" which have no bearing on my life, except to give some dumbass CEO the justification he needs to fuck the little guy, or people the means to TRY and make the rest of us feel small, because they feel small themselves."

And for every Ayn Rand and Nietzsche (Nietzsche wasn't that bad, actually, as he is considered one of the earliest origins of existentialism) there are philosophers that try to truly enrich the world like Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, John Rawls, Camus, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and Philippa Foot. Philosophy is a tool that is used to organize thought in a meaningful and often new way, and can be used for good or evil depending on the philosopher and the individual applying the idea. EVERYTHING, from modern liberalism to science is actually a philosophy at the core.

"Basic "philosophers" horseshit. Am I suppose to have morals that apply in the past, today ( I should grow a beard, because people in the late 19th century thought every clean-shaven man was a criminal, or not to be trusted in the least )? Or maybe I should have the morals of the future, which I have never seen. The only morals I have right now are based upon experience, and the effect they had on people. They could change tomorrow, but I doubt it."

The philosophers I cited, especially Kant, were universal in their approach to ethics. Their methods for organizing what a human should and should not do are timeless in nature and designed to be used in a universal manner, applying to everyone in all times regardless of culture. I encourage you to read about Immanuel Kant and the categorical imperatives to see what I am talking about as a start.

"So I suppose the ass who thought this up lived outside culture, state of mind, and personal motivation until the day this popped out of his brain. Even if he did, how are you going to make a judgment outside of culture, state of mind or personal motivation? Its bullshit wrapped in horseshit."

See the above, culture may have allowed for such developments the the mechanisms for organizing ethical behavior themselves have a timeless and culture-neutral quality.

"That's how every decision ha been made in the past 7000 years. That's how Rome became an empire. I highly doubt some guys brain fart is going to change things. And if it does, I will bet 1 million to 1, it will make things worse."

No, wrong again, philosophy (well, Western philosophy) is one of the things that emerged almost simultaneously with Hellenic culture, which is largely considered the earliest point of Western civilization. We would have no Hellenic or Hellenistic civilization without philosophy, as the earliest pre-socratics dealt with a great many things, ranging from agriculture to astronomy. Later, philosophy helped shape the Greek world, providing an intellectual basis for the Greek world. Rome, too, delved into philosophy and it was actually a lack of intellectual and philosophical vigor that helped do Rome in, as they became intellectually stagnant around the late Republic/early Empire. Even then, the basis for Roman law was -philosophical- in nature, as all Western law is.

Your anger towards philosophy is misguided, I think, you are likely angry at the misapplications of philosophy as a tool and not philosophy itself as an intellectual pursuit.

[Confusious]

53. Yep

"Your anger towards philosophy is misguided, I think, you are likely angry at the misapplications of philosophy as a tool and not philosophy itself as an intellectual pursuit."

That you have that right. But I think they are applied correctly. Unless you have some sort of standard, and those people are allowed to call themselves "philosophers", you'll draw my ire.

"The philosophers I cited, especially Kant, were universal in their approach to ethics. Their methods for organizing what a human should and should not do are timeless in nature and designed to be used in a universal manner, applying to everyone in all times regardless of culture. I encourage you to read about Immanuel Kant and the categorical imperatives to see what I am talking about as a start."

Now this, is, I believe, is wrong. Morals that apply to all, at all times, are genetic, and trying to pin them on philosophy are misguided. Smiles, for 99% of humans, is a sign of happiness. It is genetic for us to recognize it. Civilization in itself is genetic, since we are wired to cooperate. Other things, such as my example with facial hair, is cultural, and depends on the whims of fashion.

Anything you can define as "timeless in nature" I can pin on genetics. Hence, I see it (mostly) as a waste of time, telling me things I already know.

"which is largely considered the earliest point of Western civilization"

Mesopotamia and Egypt are always considered the start in history classes. They had no "western philosophy" yet their civilization lasted 3000 years.

"philosophy helped shape the Greek world, providing an intellectual basis for the Greek world"

Maybe, but they have separated. Now it seems that most "philosophers" ignore principles of reality and knowledge and try to turn it into their own little worlds.

ON Edit: A little like Harry Binswanger. He's a ayn rand groupie/PHD philosophy who kept trying to call liberals "fascists". I got into it with him via email, and he was telling me to apply logic, and you'll see liberals are fascist. If you want to dump all standards of reality and knowledge, then OK. I gave up, because he was a legend in his own mind.

[Mixopterus]

72. Ok

Philosophy is an intellectual tool, not unlike our ability to use our intelligence to construct homes as well as weapons. Faulting the whole of an intellectual pursuit because people misuse the tool would condemn every single intellectual pursuit on earth, as they have all been abused. For the record, people like Ayn Rand are despised among many, or even most, students of philosophy. We have our own left and right wing too, you know.

Humans are wired to cooperate, but that is not civilization, it is culture. Civilization is the large-scale, formal method of human organization and is a relatively recent phenomenon compared to how long humans have existed. As it was very unlikely that we experienced some kind of sudden evolutionary change in 6,000 B.C., I think it is a safe assumption that civilization is an artificial means of tapping into our natural propensity to organize.

Kant, himself, was merely formalizing what you could call "common sense" ethics. What he was attempting to do was distill our natural inclinations (no murder, no stealing, no rape, etc.) into a universal manner not unlike how civilization is merely a formal method of organizing our natural tendency organize. I highly recommend Kant, actually, you will probably agree with him on most things.

As for civilizations pre-dating the Greeks and "Western" philosophy, they too had their own systems of proto-philosophy and meaning making via religious tradition, which is actually identical to the Greek proto-philosophy.

I honestly think your opinion of philosophy as a whole is somewhat uninformed and prejudiced, which is not altogether uncommon. Philosophy today has many different branches, some guilty of your accusations and most others not. It would be unfair to label all philosophy like you have due to the few (and they really are few).

[DeadEyeDyck]

65. Enrich the world??

Al Camus was a nihilist!!

[Mixopterus]

71. He was an absurdist

Get your facts straight. He proposed identifying what is most valuable to you as a method of meaning making, as everything was, ultimately, going to be destroyed anyway.

That is a very liberating concept, hence an attempt to enrich the world.

[joeybee12]

19. Throw them all in prison! How dare they voice their opinion!

I don't agree with them, but I can't get riled up about this whole thing.

[LibDemAlways]

70. You're either for us or against us....That seems to be the

DU take on this. A little too black and white for my taste. I'm for letting the courts do their job.

[Odin2005]

32. Disgusting. People defending a child rapist because he is a "great filmmaker"

"Take away his freedom"? WTF!?! He RAPED A 13YO GIRL, he doesn't deserve freedom! :grr:

[Gwendolyn]

35. Frack, that list keeps festooning by the minute! n/t

[proteus_lives]

41. Shame on everyone who signed this petition!

I bet very few of them would allow their daughters to spend the weekend with the rapist Polanski.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. Moral of this story, don't rape children?

I guess if you do it has the potential to follow you for a very long time. :shrug:

[4lbs]

54. I agree! Bush shouldn't be arrested for criminal acts if he goes to Europe. It would undermine

many traditions, take away his freedom, and no one can know the effects this will have.


If it's good enough for Polanski, it's good enough for Bush!









(I don't really think that, but hey, if it applies to one, it applies to all. Gotta be fair.)

[anonymous171]

55. It's a question of morals after all.

Child Rape and illegal warmongering are very moral pursuits and should therefore not be punished by any Government.

[G_j]

69. war criminals get EXTRA special treament nt

[Joanne98]

57. What do you expect from people who spent the last fifty years making COP SHOWS!

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. They make him sound like a fucking political prisoner

"By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this."

It's a fucking FILM FESTIVAL, not a UN summit. "Extraterritorial nature"? This sentence so perfectly illustrates the grandiose self-aggrandizement of the Hollywood artistic elite.

I'm sorry, Roman Polanski isn't an auteur fleeing political persecution for making a courageous film documenting human rights abuses in his native land. He's a convicted child rapist fleeing the due process of law - which EVERY citizen of a democracy is subject to. That the elite intelligentsia would deliberately conflate the two is appalling.

[NashVegas]

61. I Wonder How Many Would Scratch Their Names Off If They Read the Testimony

And who wouldn't?

Some of them, I give the benefit of the doubt to, especially Europeans.

[varelse]

66. Did rendition get this kind of outcry?

did any of the signatories to this petition sign any petition to halt and investigate that heinous practice? :shrug:

[myrna minx]

67. This sickens me.

:puke: