He has a bit of history in Panama City Beach as well. For filming a 16 year old girl “performing sexual acts”. The Sheriff’s Office has evidence of his crew filming at least 35 minors. At one point he was facing 71 felony charges, some have been dropped.
:smack: Well, if I had read the article in the OP before posting that . . .
Yet professionally she brings it up in a story where she says he raped a girl. A story where she makes several broad ‘issue’ statements about society in general and Francis specifically. She didn’t want to press charges and interviewed a girl that didn’t press charges yet he’s tried and convicted merely in the pages of her article? He comes off as a totally out of control lunatic in that article why would such a huge target have so few ‘hits’ if he behaved like she’s claiming? She says “Oh he spends a lot on lawyers but that comes with the territory of being a sleaze” (paraphrasing of course) well convictions often come with being an illegal sleaze but he’s avoided convictions by gasp doing things in a legal manner. I also found this bizarre
Black men selling white porn? What does that have to do with anything other then to try to push the buttons of people that would find that creepy?
Describing something that happened to someone you spent time with while you spent time with them is the job. Pressing charges against the person is something I can understand a reporter wanting to avoid, although I’m not sure I’d make the same decision.
Why would anybody find it creepy that black guys are selling white porn? I think maybe she mentioned it because it’s what she saw.
Who would find it creepy? Are you serious? ‘those negros want our white wimmin’ has been a racist platform for a long long time. Fear of black men in general doing anything has been a long held emotion in this country. Black men doing something sexual with good white girls from the suburbs is a horrible idea on a conscious and unconscious level for many many people (including a large percent that would swear up and down that they don’t have a racist bone in their body). As for just reporting what she’s seeing? Give me a break. Who walks into a place and thinks “Hmm seems to be a majority of African Americans selling white porn here. I better note that down as an objective non-emotional fact” If she hadn’t mentioned WHITE girls I wouldn’t have probably even noticed it but she did so I did and I think it’s something she did on purpose.
As for the first part of the post I typed a response a few times but I couldn’t really get out what I meant. I guess for me it boils down to she didn’t try to convict him in court but took her perception of events and used it in a story where she accuses him of rape. She wants to call him a sleaze and a slime ok fine but if she wants to say he’s a rapist who assaults women put him in jail already don’t just write stories about it.
That and having to deal with comments like the ones here, “She was drunk and stupid-she probably just regretted it and now wants to get back at him.”
And before anyone objects, no, I’m NOT saying that never occurs, that women DON’T try to cry “rape!” to be vindictive. But not all of them.
Yes, she was drunk. Yes, she was stripping. Yes, she was stupid. And yes, she MAY be lying. However, drunk stripper or not, she had a right to say no.
Actually, the gender of the workers isn’t mentioned as far as I can tell, except at one point where a young man - you assume an employee - gasps as Francis passes him in the hall. I actually assumed the workers were female, possibly doing sexy voices trying to entice guys into ordering videos.
I was raped and didn’t dare press charges against the guy who did it, and he was a college student - my word against his, etc., etc. Oh yeah, and I was drunk! And I was stupid, and I left a party with him! For some strange reason, I decided people might think this meant I wanted the guy to force himself on me, and threaten to tie me up/use a knife on me. :rolleyes: I also can totally understand her reluctance to press charges against a multimillionaire who might at worst get a misdemeanor charge out of the deal.
For what it’s worth, here’s Jannel Syzrka’s Myspace page. Doesn’t exactly give off the “doesn’t get drunk and fuck anything that moves” vibe.
Yes, I’m serious. I know who you were implying would be creeped out, but the situation doesn’t actually exist in the story. No black men are having sex with white women. A group of men, most of them black, are selling porn featuring women who we presume are mostly white, and the women in that porn are not having sex with any men as far as I know. That’s about three times removed from the actual ‘creepiness.’ And how many of those bigots do you think are reading the Los Angeles Times to begin with?
Maybe she should. Like I say, though - if she thinks that having him arrested for assault is the right thing to do - she’s probably going to violate one set of ethics or another.
Whoa whoa…I’m talking about the reporter, not the young lady who was allegedly raped. Yes, I think the distinction is pretty significant.
The reporter states quite plainly that there was an officer right there who witnessed the crime, and that he would have gladly arrested the guy. We’re not necesssarily talking about a “he said/she said” case here where there would be a necessity for dragging out the reporter’s past and the type of thing that most rape victims have to deal with when facing their accusers.
I agree 100% with your statement as it pertains to rape victims. But as Darkhold pointed out, there’s something wrong with the reporter trying and convicting even this horrendous scumbag in a newspaper – which is a relatively easy thing for her to do in her position – but not being willing to take a step forward for justice, where she could benefit herself and other potential victims and give this guy what he deserves.
Consequently, in case it wasn’t clear, I am questioning the credibility of the woman as a reporter, not as a victim of crime.
**his employees gasp.
“Joe Francis. Wow, I love your work,” says one flabbergasted young man who passes him in the hall. Francis smiles uneasily and doesn’t stop as the man keeps muttering, “Wow. Wow.”** Well she does reference his employee’s gasping right before mentioning a male complementing him. But the part that bothered me didn’t specifically mention African American Male so fair point.
What happened to you was horrible. I have no doubt that you were raped. I was with a girl for four years that was molested from the time she was 11 years old until she was 17 I’ve seen first hand the damage it did to her. She had fears of being blamed and was reluctant to talk to even me about it though she knew I’d never judge her and would do everything in my power to comfort her. This situation though is a girl with a story that even on the surface MAKES NO SENSE and an article by a person with an agenda. If she was raped it’s a horrible horrible thing and he should be tossed in jail but I just can’t read her story and not think it was an after the fact regret of the situation.
Did you not read the rest of the post? I clearly said it’s not just self identified bigots that are uncomfortable with white women plus black men in any sexual capacity that might feel uneasy about the association. Do you see her reporting on it no matter what the colors were? “Mostly white men selling white porn” “Mostly white men selling African American female porn”? No she only reported it because for some reason she found the fact…reportable. I guess I can’t claim a magic power to see her motives so I’ll just withdraw the observation.
Agreed with Otto, that the choice not to press charges has little to do with the credibility of the occurrence.
I see this a lot in sexual/gender issues and it disturbs me (not to pick on you, Asmiovian, I’m just using your post as a jumping-off place): this idea that (some) men have that if the reaction of the alleged victim isn’t strong enough for their tastes, then the incident must not have been that big of a deal. So any argument that the incident was traumatic or unacceptable is shot down with “well if it was so traumatic, why didn’t she [fill in the blank]?”
Lemme bring it to a personal level as an example (and apologies if this gets long to make a minor point): I was dating this guy, and in the throes of passion, he did something I was not comfortable with. I protested, I shoved, I said “no” repeatedly. After escalating “nos” and “stops” and shoves, he finally stopped. We continued on with other, more pleasing activities and had a nice breakfast the next morning.
In the next day or two, we got into an argument. In the course of the fight, I brought up that his actions the other night were rude and disrespectful, and pissed me off a great deal. He was shocked - shocked! I’ll spare you details, but the crux of his argument was that I could not have been that upset about it because I continued having sex with him.
So, in his mind, the proper response would have been to, what? Scream “rape?” Call the cops? Kick him out of my house? Smack him? Cut his dick off? Make him sleep on the couch? You might well say “Yes!” You couldn’t imagine putting up with such rude behavior, never mind the circumstances or how you feel about the person involved. So the fact that I continued having sex with him - not to mention making breakfast for him! - means that he must not have been behaving rudely. So, who gets to define the “credible” response to certain behaviors? Him? You? The Law? Apparently the only opinion that doesn’t count is mine.
At the time of the “incident” I was pissed, and made no attempt to hide it, but I also recognized the circumstances, that we all can get carried away, what he was doing wasn’t dangerous or harmful, and at the heart of it he was a good cat. I didn’t want to kick him out of bed, I just wanted him to respect my boundaries. I didn’t want to spend the night pouting or crying or yelling or anything else he might have expected me to do if I was “really” mad.
If I had, indeed, reacted at the moment in any of the presumably “appropriate” ways to show I was pissed (none of which he actually defined for me, though I did ask several times), I’m quite sure he would have been just as confused, being that this was absolutely contrary to the way I behave normally - I’m not a hitter, screamer, a “fuck-you-you-fucking-fuck”-er. I’m someone who will forgive quickly, but discuss at length later, in less naked and late-night circumstances. In short, by not reacting in the way he considered appropriate, within the time period he deemed proper, then somehow I gave up all right to call him on his shitty behavior. Again, where do my feelings count in any of this?
So back to the non-me reason for this post - you get into dangerous territory when you attempt to judge the credibility of someone’s story based on what you consider the appropriate reaction. It must not have happened because she didn’t press charges? She must not have been raped because she didn’t put a bullet in his head? She must not have been beaten because she went back to him? All of these are convenient ways of diverting the focus from the one who did the (allegedly) shitty thing to begin with to the (alleged) victim to justify her behavior.
and, yes, feel free to change genders around if you like, the same premise applies.
Still haven’t learned the difference between probability and certainty, eh?
Correction: she never says he’s a rapist or accuses him of rape. She reports what the teenager told her in an interview. The word “rape,” in fact, is never used until Francis himself says it in his denial (at least I don’t think so, I’m not gonna go back and read the whole article again).
The reporter reports. Of course her own experiences and opinions contribute to the tone of the article (a fact she in no way attempts to hide), but I see nothing in the article that cannot be considered substantive fact: she reports the statements of a girl who claims to have been raped. She reports statements from Francis who claims he’s not a rapist. She reports statements from Francis’s co-workers who says he’s a god (I paraphrase). She reports Francis’ voice mail messages about her having a crush on him (note she does not deny this). She reports Francis’ business success and legal entanglements. She reports her own first-hand experience (and first-hand emotions) on being in the company of Francis. She reports statements from witnesses to his physical altercation with her (which I do not believe she ever names as “assault” in the article).
She certainly has chosen to include (and not include) facts in her article which will present her personal take on the man, but this is no different from any profile, or really any piece of journalism.
She is a reporter, not a cop. She didn’t press charges, and she had her reasons. She certainly cannot press charges for the alleged rape, nor can (or should) she encourage the young woman to do so. If she had, it would be a breach of journalistic principles. However, she can report facts, and state conclusions based on those facts, in any way she chooses (within proper ethical constructs). What people choose to do with those facts is not her concern.
I’m not sure if you’re lumping me in with the arguments of others or not, but let me try to make my point one more time.
My issue is not with the alleged rape victim, nor is my issue with the reporter’s take regarding the alleged rape. As you said, the reporter had no control over (and would likely have been violating some ethical principle, one way or another, by influencing) the alleged victim’s handling of the situation.
All I’m saying is that it seems a little like punching below the belt for her to use her position as a journalist to accuse someone of a crime when the accused has no real opportunity to defend himself against the allegations. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, no matter how little I may think of him.
You still can’t see that an accuser’s ethnicity has no bearing on either the “probability” or “certainty” that they are telling the truth.
Christ help us all.
sigh
I meant to say, once again, that I’m referring to the crime of assault against the reporter, not the rape crime.
I get that you’re not talking about the alleged rape. I addressed that the reporter is well within her rights to choose to not press charges on her own assault. The rape bit doesn’t relate to your post directly.
(bolding mine) But she doesn’t accuse him of rape! She reports the statements of someone else who accuses him of an unwanted sexual assault (even she does not use the word “rape”). That’s a big difference. She also does indeed give him the opportunity to defend himself - she quotes his statement that he’s never raped anyone, as well as numerous comments he made thereafter disparaging the journalist’s credibility. I don’t understand how this is an abuse of her position as a journalist, or how it is unfair to the subject.
I did read the rest of it. I still think the whole thing is a big reach.
You do get what I’m trying to say, I hope. It doesn’t seem prurient to me, and for all I know, in her spot I’d have added the same thing to the story just so people could visualize what goes on in the headquarters and who actually works there. I’m always hesitant to read those kinds of things into a reporter’s words.