Not to forget all the rock stars who had sex with 13 yr old girls.
Probably? His lawyers negotiated a sweetheart deal that dropped most of the charges and given him probation only. He fled when it seemed likely the judge was going to give some jail time. Even if the judge gave some jail time it would not have been much. He would have been out long ago.
But as others said, these are distribution companies that don’t want to do business. It’s not the government doing anything. Things have changed post Weinstein. The viewing public was disgusted by the standing ovation Polanski got at the Oscar’s. These are market forces at work not governmental.
So you agree with me.
Two non sequiturs. Why don’t you try answering the question.
They didn’t sound like non sequiturs to me.
Right. So probably, just like I said.
Anybody else wanna try? Stand up and say that people immoral people should be prevented by force from creative expression. If you disagree with me that’s what you you are saying.
Not probably. Definitely. He would have been out decades ago.
What force is being used to prevent creative expression? Distribution companies don’t want to be associated with a rapist. That’s not force. The movie has been made. He’s going to make money off of it in countries where it will be distributed. Where is the force?
Should the companies be forced to participate in his creative expression?
As a consequence for fleeing the country after conviction? Sure, why not? We don’t owe that MFer anything, he raped and drugged a little girl then ran away when he was caught and given his constitutional right to an impartial trial in front of a jury of his peers.
Let the government act positively to ensure that zero American Dollars flow from this country to his overseas bank accounts. I’m 100% OK with that, until he comes back to this jurisdiction to accept the punishment for his crime, and prosecution for his subsequent crimes.
Plenty of people have made art of one sort or another while in prison.
None, right? So he’s not been nor would he be restricted in his free expression. Even prisoners retain their free speech rights. The public boycott is the best we can do.
Of course not. Who has suggested that they do?
That has nothing to do with his free expression. I think it wouldn’t work, but if you want to champion the cause of financial restrictions like that then go for it.
So I am a “bad people” because I think Polanski made some amazing movies, and so did Woody Allen, and Bill Cosby was a very funny guy? Really?
Critically evaluate artistry =/= support artist.
Anything else, would need to be in the Pit, probably.
Replied to wrong post.
You are the one who brought government into it. If you were trying to make a different point you did it poorly.
No I didn’t. Everybody is upset that I pointed out the reality that we don’t restrict people’s free expression as a punishment for crimes. That’s the reality.
After thinking on it some, maybe @Cheesesteak has a good idea with financial restrictions on this movie to prevent Polanski from profiting from it. It’s not profiting from the crime he committed and pled guilty to, but he is a fugitive and it’s not unreasonable to clamp down on his ability to profit from his free expression or any other means until he faces justice.
Every year, hundreds if not thousands of filmmakers fail to secure distribution deals for their movies. I don’t see why Roman Polanski shouldn’t be one of them.
Literally not a single poster in this thread is upset about this fact. Not a single poster has suggested that Polanski should be prevented from making movies, to move back to the particular. Your first post said this:
Nobody in this thread apparently “feels differently.”
This is where you introduced the idea of interfering with free expression, above and beyond refusing to traffic in “the work of some people.” Again, no one here has said they are in favor of this. From your arguments, you seem to think that I have said or implied that I am. I can’t imagine where you got that from, and if you can point to it, please do.
I don’t understand why I’m getting all these negative replies to my statements when once again you and others end up agreeing with me. I don’t know how to respond any differently than I have. I’m agin it, you’re agin it, everyone’s agin it but it’s still a big festering sore on the world that we don’t have a practical way to get rid of.
Maybe because you are arguing about something that isn’t happening? No one is interfering with his free expression. Others are able to use their free expression to chose not to be associated with him.
You mean a very funny fellow…right?