There is no crime committed if you are aware of child prostitution and do nothing. There is no general duty to report crimes.
And this merits an apology… how?
I see, gonzo, that you have not spent your month off in deep introspection.
Regards,
Shodan
It doesn’t. But now that you know more about the story, had your opinion changed on the matter? After all, it was your thread titled, “ACORN workers caught on tape apparently advising on child prostitution,” that kicked this off.
The tapes were heavily edited.
Conversations were shown out of sequence.
He didn’t pretend to be a pimp, instead said he was a law student.
Other than him recording people, no illegal activity was found.
He did say apparently, so ass covered.
How to put this delicately …
… there will be no mentions of Waldorf, Cobb nor Caesar when the salad order is taken.
Right, and now it is apparent that they didn’t.
Done,
CMC fnord!
Some of the names in “memory lane” - I like those guys, and generally tend to pay attention to what they say.
Aren’t they often the very ones who insist that other people see both sides and do some fact checking?
It just goes to show, nobody is immune to getting foooled.
I only put that bit in about not knowing if it’s illegal or not because you keep throwing the charge around about legality when I’ve never brought it up. At any rate, I believe **Bricker **answered your question.
But “enabling child prostitution” isn’t very specific, and even the worst possibly analysis of what happened wouldn’t necessarily conclude that “enabling” had taken place. All the ACORN worker did was give some free advice. Maybe (and I emphasize maybe) there might be a charge of conspiracy. But then again IANAL, so I’m not going to say I know one way or the other.
The courts that decided the cases involving ACORN had access to them. They concluded that ACORN did not do anything illegal or unethical. They said the tapes were edited to create a false impression. Okeefe would ask a question, then there was a break in the tape and an answer that was obviously not immediate was inserted. It was a fine example "Gotcha "journalism. The tapes were edited to create the impression that Okeefe and other righties wanted. It was a pile of right wing crap and you would have to be warped to defend it.
That’s a curious statement. The tape has one ACORN worker saying, “Don’t get caught, because it is against the law.”
Now we can imagine all sorts of creative editing, but it’s unclear to me how you get to someone saying, Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law, unless they are advising someone not to get caught doing something that is against the law.
Nothing I wrote about this issue relied on how O’Keefe was dressed. And what ACORN did wrong was not commit a crime, but show supreme indifference to whether their advice was helping to further a crime. That’s not illegal.
But if we are funding organizations like ACORN to do community outreach and support, I would like them staffed with people that don’t respond like that.
That’s a legitimate call for me (or Congress) to make.
What “courts” determined that?
Well, not quite. You were quick to accept a version of events that casts ACORN in a bad light, to wit:
I asked for verification, “do they have this on tape”? I suggest that your inference may be just one of many such inferences that are derived from sources we have reason to be suspicious of. To say the least.
Advancing that point, I suggest that it might be illegal to turn a blind eye to child prostitution, that if such evidence existed, it might likely be acted upon. Or course, it only could be acted upon by a prosecutor willing to take on the huge liberal machine in the courageous pursuit of truth.
Now, if BrickerEsq is correct, and a failure to report such is not illegal, then the further proof I was seeking is moot. My point would remain, but unsupported by that particular inference.
Be that as it may, aiding, abetting, or otherwise condoning prostitution by minors is an act I personally consider revolting and heinous. I expect my position has popular support. Hence, adding that to the list of purported vileness by the evil minions of ACORN is pretty strong stuff and I expect that you could fully support such an inference with evidence. Is that too much to ask?
Is there anyone here who will dispute this summary of the events?
ACORN was dedicated to empowering the poor and disenfranchised. They were, at least to some degree, a political organization, I will not pretend that they didn’t know that the poor and powerless tend to vote against the Establishment, given the opportunity. ACORN was determined to afford them this opportunity.
Republicans found this disagreeable, in the sense that they find any increase in Dem voters disagreeable. It is a matter of public record that efforts were expended to find them breaking laws, efforts that included pressuring Federal attorneys to file charges on evidence that varied from the flimsy to the imaginary.
Clearly, the Pubbies had a massive, throbbing hard-on for ACORN. That is the source of all of this. Well, they succeeded, did they not? ACORN has been publicly fucked. I am entirely comfortable with suggesting that the primary crime ACORN committed was acting against the interests of the Republican Party, and acting to lessen the political power thereof. They did this by the heinous and repulsive practice of registering people to vote, people who might well be expected to be sympathetic to Democratic candidates. The horror, the horror.
And that’s all any of this was ever about, from the false charges of “voter fraud” to the Rovian “rat-fuck” dreamed up by Mr. O’Keefe, (may a thousand diseases of the camel settle onto his naughty bits and fester therein).
I ask: what could be more American, what could be truer to the values we allege to honor, than registering people to vote? What do we stand for, if not for that? ACORN was pursued, prosecuted, and vilified for actions that we, as Americans, should applaud and support. If the tighty rightys want to get out there and register voters, I’m all for it. I would not for an instant condone any dishonest effort to hamper them. I am committed to democratic governance, I will not shrink from the implications of that commitment.
I expect the same from them. When She shall cease to avert Her eyes, perhaps…
Did you? It would have been time well spent if you did.
Well, I spent some of it in introspection, some of it posting on the SDMB, and some of it laughing at you. Not a lot, but some.
Welcome back, sort of. I am starting to get a vibe that you aren’t going to last too long this time either.
Regards,
Shodan
ACORN qua ACORN didn’t do shit.
I actually interpret that response differently than you do, and it is possible you’re imputing your own cultural bias on it.
The expression “don’t get caught” isn’t condoning an illegal action, quite the opposite. My friend’s mother used to say it to us when we were doing something his father wouldn’t approve of. She’d see us playing with power tools, and her way of expressing disapproval was to sternly say, “don’t get caught [because your father will whoop you].” It means don’t do it.
Later, when I was working with the Salvation Army, the expression was used a lot by girls from Chicago. If I started doing something they knew was wrong, one of them would very loudly tell me, “Don’t get caught, 'cause you’re not allowed to do that.” They aren’t about to stop me, and they aren’t going to tell on me. But they know it’s wrong, and they don’t want any part of it.
He’s asking her about doing something illegal (operating a brothel). Note, that the woman very explicitly said, “it is against the law.” She is in effect, powerless to stop him, so expresses her disapproval by saying, “don’t get caught.”
Now that you mention it EM it seems that this is precisely the context in which this admonition was offered. One might still say you shouldn’t be even that nonchalant about operating a brothel but that was before one finds out about the full context of the conversation.
In effect, if reports of the full unedited video are to be believed, the worker is saying “I have no choice but to look the other way because you are PRETENDING to operate a brothel in order to help the women/girls, but I still think what you’re doing is illegal and therefore I advise against doing it.”