Why hasn't Colin Farell been charged with rape?

[Dijon_Warlock]

@Cartooniverse

Dijon Warlock, my meaning in the statement you quoted just above was this: If someone old enough to legally consent, wants to participate in a sex scene, then go for it. No problem, she chose to do so, the others participating chose to do so. ( Real or “faked”). The part that reads, " till she’s sore " did, upon reflection, come out unduly harsh. I didn’t mean that an actress of any age should be abused or hurt. My point was that, given an age of majority as they say, she is free to do as she wishes on camera. A child is not.

Point taken, and moderation noted.

Due to the plethora of ideas and issues swirling around this thread, I hope you will forgive my only replying to you (and not everyone else) for the sake of brevity.

You say that,

@Cartooniverse

“given an age of majority as they say, she is free to do as she wishes on camera. A child is not.”

There seems to be some debate as to whether you are offering a legal opinion or a personal one. You are (of course) welcome to any personal opinion that you wish, but you must realize that said opinion does not legally or morally obligate anyone else.

From a legal standpoint, you appear to be mostly wrong. ‘Free to do what she wishes on camera vs. not?’ Not really (Example: it isn’t legal for an adult to kill someone on camera. It IS, however, legal for the actress under discussion in this thread to act the part in this movie).

As people have noted, age-of-conset varies from one jurisdiction to another–not according to your personal preference. However, even independently of age-of-consent laws, things which could be construed as sexual exploitation are routinely allowed under acceptable contexts.

Think: department store catalogues with pictures of children in their underwear.

Sesame Street, where I’ve (flipping channels) seen girls in the 5-7 age range splashing topless around in a fire hydrant.

Barney, where there’s a lot of hugging and kissing of children in the closing number (what’s Michael Jackson doing these days? HAW-HAW-HAW!).

Not to mention all of the movies mentioned in this thread. Child nudity isn’t illegal (which comes as a shock to many people), and imitated crimes are not illegal, either. That doesn’t change when children are involved (nor, in my mind, should it).

I really do think you’re getting more outraged than is warranted here. Just sayin’.

[Shirley_Ujest]

We are all missing a more serious topic: How do you pronounce her first name?

[Dijon_Warlock]

“Throat-warbler Mangrove.”

[crowmanyclouds]

@Dijon Warlock

“Throat-warbler Mangrove.”

But it’s spelled “Raymond Luxury Yacht”!

[Cartooniverse]

@glee

You want to play in The Pit? Keep on track, and save the personal shit.

The personal shit was brought up by Quint. You’re talking to the wrong Doper. He chose to attack me personally, instead of attacking my OP and stance on the topic.

Are you like, new to message boards or something, that you’re incapable of seeing this kind of a thing? Believe me, I would have been just as happy not to read the attack on both of my careers launched by Quint, who appears now to be lying through his/her teeth. Nobody who isn’t in the business would phrase it that way. " Hiding on the camera truck". So, I call bullshit back.

Legally? I didn’t cite Virginia law. Morally? Guess what- this isn’t G.Q. It’s an OP that originated in a Forum where members are permitted to state opinion.

As I am free to state mine, ya’ll are free to state yours. Demanding that I prove an opinion is ludicrous. In my opinion, a 14 year old etc. etc.

[hajario]

What about the fact that you were totally wrong about the specific case involving Farell and the movie? Are you ever going to address that?

[mhendo]

@Cartooniverse

As I am free to state mine, ya’ll are free to state yours. Demanding that I prove an opinion is ludicrous. In my opinion, a 14 year old etc. etc.

But when you make very clear that your opinion is based on a particular set of circumstances, it is not unreasonable for people to ask whether those circumstances ever actually happened.

In this case, you opinion about Colin Farrell and the movie in general is, as dozens of people have already pointed out, based upon a completely mistaken belief about what occurred in the movie. You are flat out wrong about the level of contact between the actors in this situation, and yet from your incorrect assumptions you apparently hold the opinion that Colin Farrell should be charged with rape.

The fact that you continually refuse even to address this issue, even after a couple of days of different people pointing out your error, suggests that you’re wilfully ignorant or just too cowardly to admit your error.

[betenoir]

@Cartooniverse

T
As I am free to state mine, ya’ll are free to state yours. Demanding that I prove an opinion is ludicrous.

What’s ludicrous is posting your opinion on a public discussion board and not expecting it to be…discussed. And criticized. Particularly if your opinion is based on things that are not true.

In my opinion, a 14 year old etc. etc.

Ok, the etc. etc. is that “pretend” sex for the camera is no different that real sex and amounts to assault. I don’t think that necessarily the case (see my OB-GYN post) but it’s an opinion. Why don’t you come up with some circumstance where this has actualy happened, and then discuss it?

Or, gee, go to featherlou’s thread where they’re actually discussing this…and how it generally doesn’t happen.

[Weirddave]

@Equipoise

My theories?

1. either Colin Farrell killed his brother and Cartooniverse holds grudges (I don’t hear him calling for Christain Bale to be arrested for his kissing Kilcher. Hell, their characters even had a baby, so Bale obviously raped Kilcher),

2. or he’s been hired by a competing studio to start or help foster a negative “whisper campaign” to lower the movie’s chances of being nominated for an Academy Award.

3. or he could just be physically and mentally incapable of admitting he’s wrong, and would rather look like an idiot than to do such a thing.

Based upon his posting history, I think 3 is the most likely, but he reacts so violently and so irrationally to threads about pedophilia that I have to wonder if there is a 4 here. Cartooniverse’s reaction reminds me an awful lot of that of a closeted gay person vehemently denying that he’s gay and doing everything he can to appear anti-gay so that nobody would think that of him. Does this mean that I think Cartooniverse is a pedophile? Not a bit of it, not even close. Unlike the OP I would never make an accusation like that without proof. There is another category of person who can act in as irrational a manner as Cartooniverse is demonstrating here, however, and that is someone who is himself a victim of abuse. Perhaps, sometime in the past, Cartooniverse himself was the abused one, and because of that his empathy for those suffering abuse overrides his rational side, leading him to see abuse where none exists? Again, I have no knowledge that this is the case, I am merely speculating on one possible reason that Cartooniverse continues to fly in the face of all reason and evidence in this thread, but if that is indeed the case than maybe he is less deserving of our scorn and more deserving or our compassion.

[GraceTX]

@Cartooniverse

The personal shit was brought up by Quint. You’re talking to the wrong Doper. He chose to attack me personally, instead of attacking my OP and stance on the topic.

Are you like, new to message boards or something, that you’re incapable of seeing this kind of a thing? Believe me, I would have been just as happy not to read the attack on both of my careers launched by Quint, who appears now to be lying through his/her teeth. Nobody who isn’t in the business would phrase it that way. " Hiding on the camera truck". So, I call bullshit back.

Legally? I didn’t cite Virginia law. Morally? Guess what- this isn’t G.Q. It’s an OP that originated in a Forum where members are permitted to state opinion.

As I am free to state mine, ya’ll are free to state yours. Demanding that I prove an opinion is ludicrous. In my opinion, a 14 year old etc. etc.

As you formed said opinion without even getting your facts straight first, of course you’re going to be called on it.

Are you like, new to message boards or something, that you’re incapable of seeing posts that point out that your opinion is, quite frankly, wrong, due to the fact that the events described in your OP never even happened? Believe me, I would have been just as happy not to read the attack on Colin Farrell’s career launched by Cartooniverse, who appears now to be burying his/her head in the sand. Nobody who is in their right mind would phrase it that way. “Rape”. So I call bullshit back.

Seriously dude, respond to the calls from those who’ve seen the movie and admit you were wrong, or take your claims of rape to the police or FBI. In fact do the latter. I’d love to hear about either them laughing in your face or Farrell and Kilcher suing your ass for slandering their good names.
:wally

[mhendo]

@Lil' Mahoney

…or Farrell and Kilcher suing your ass for slandering their good names.

Well, to be fair, from what i’ve seen Farrell doesn’t have too much of a good name. In fact, he seems actively to cultivate a bad one. And, while i haven’t seen his latest work, what i have seen of his acting has always left me rather underwhelmed.

[DeadlyAccurate]

@mhendo

Well, to be fair, from what i’ve seen Farrell doesn’t have too much of a good name. In fact, he seems actively to cultivate a bad one. And, while i haven’t seen his latest work, what i have seen of his acting has always left me rather underwhelmed.

I doubt being known as a child rapist is quite what he had in mind. (I find him rather skeevy, too, but I think Cartooniverse is being a jerk by not admitting his mistake.)

[Who_me_1]

As ridiculous as this thread is, I just want to point out that statutory rape appears to need more than what Cartooniverse thinks it does according to Virginia law.

http://www.vahealth.org/civp/sexualviolence/varapelaws/laws_rape.asp

http://www.vahealth.org/civp/sexualviolence/varapelaws/statutes.pdf

(I know that someone posted the law in here before, but I can’t seem to find it at the moment)

Now, although I didn’t see the movie, I assume the posters here claiming to have seen it are not lying when they say that there are no love scenes. If there are no love scenes, I tend to doubt whether Mr. Farrell sexually penetrated the girl or committed cunnilingus during these non existant scenes. Nothing in the statutes mention that touching a breast or kissing an underage girl is rape, therefore… it is my opinion that Mr. Farrell is innocent of these charges against him.

[GraceTX]

@mhendo

Well, to be fair, from what i’ve seen Farrell doesn’t have too much of a good name. In fact, he seems actively to cultivate a bad one. And, while i haven’t seen his latest work, what i have seen of his acting has always left me rather underwhelmed.

Point taken, but accusing him of kiddie-rape is still very much on a different level to his use of alcohol, recreational drugs and loose (consenting) women.

On the acting front, I liked him in Minority Report, although that might have been because I hate Tom Cruise so much so he was bound to shine next to him. To be honest, I can’t think of much else I’ve seen him in.

Ok, how about I rephrase that to “Kilcher’s good name and Farrell’s… reputation”?

[mhendo]

I guess i should have put in a smiley. I never meant to imply that Farrell’s general idiocy should be construed as the moral equivalent of child rape.

[vivalostwages]

@Shirley Ujest

We are all missing a more serious topic: How do you pronounce her first name?

King Kong.
But maybe that’s because I go to the movies way too much.

[Sailboat]

Not having seen the movie (I’m not a fan of that director), and not being a lawyer, it seems to me there is still something worth discussing buried in the OP. Maybe this movie doesn’t have any scenes that could be construed to be child sexual abuse, but as a thought experiment, what if, in a high scool play, an adult male drama teacher deliberately touched a 14-year-old-girl’s breast while demonstrating how a scene should be played out?

Would the “it’s art” and “it’s not real sex” arguments protect said drama teacher from legal repercussions? I doubt it. If that’s so, why would Colin Farrell be protected if a similar event occurred? If it’s only because he’s famous, that wouldn’t be right.

Purely hypothetically.

Sailboat

[AndyPolley]

@Shirley Ujest

We are all missing a more serious topic: How do you pronounce her first name?

Try “kwor-e-anka.”

[pile on]

For the record…Cartooniverse is being an unreasonable douchebag.

[/pile on]

[kidchameleon]

@Sailboat

Not having seen the movie (I’m not a fan of that director), and not being a lawyer, it seems to me there is still something worth discussing buried in the OP. Maybe this movie doesn’t have any scenes that could be construed to be child sexual abuse, but as a thought experiment, what if, in a high scool play, an adult male drama teacher deliberately touched a 14-year-old-girl’s breast while demonstrating how a scene should be played out?

Would the “it’s art” and “it’s not real sex” arguments protect said drama teacher from legal repercussions? I doubt it. If that’s so, why would Colin Farrell be protected if a similar event occurred? If it’s only because he’s famous, that wouldn’t be right.

Purely hypothetically.

Sailboat

I’m amazed no one has come up with that idea.

[tomndebb]

@Cartooniverse

In my opinion, a 14 year old etc. etc.

So, you think that harming children is wrong? So what? No one in this thread has argued that harming children is a good thing.

However, you posted a lie as the premise of your OP and you have staunchly refused to admit your lie despite mountains of testimony that you were wrong.

Thus, you appear to enjoy simply being a liar who hides behind the fact that there have been minor hijacks in this thread in order to avoid taking responsibility for your libel of Mr. Farell.