DONE. DONE. DONE.
Not one more book, not one more movie, ever!
Comments from John Grisham made in 2014, and largely overlooked it seems, are getting new life in the wake of all the sexual harassment and sexual assault revelations being made daily.
Here’s the headline in Forbes that the NYT’s Maggie Haberman, and others, are just seeing now: Millionaire Author John Grisham Says Not All Men Who Watch Child Porn Are Pedophiles
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 15, 2017
This is what evil sounds like.https://t.co/KGkySjppqD
— Torraine Walker (@TorraineWalker) November 13, 2017
Dear John Grisham, there’s no level of drunkenness that leads to accidentally viewing child porn. It literally does not exist https://t.co/14EmvwXCw5
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 12, 2017
This Forbes piece links back to The Telegraph, where Grisham gave an interview that excused men who just look at child porn:
“We have prisons now filled with guys my age. Sixty-year-old white men in prison who’ve never harmed anybody, would never touch a child,” he said in an exclusive interview to promote his latest novel Gray Mountain which is published next week.
“But they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn.”
You see, Grisham has a scumbag friend who got caught, but it was just underage girls, not 10-year-old boys:
“His drinking was out of control, and he went to a website. It was labelled ‘sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that’. And it said ’16-year-old girls’. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff – it was 16 year old girls who looked 30.
“He shouldn’t ’a done it. It was stupid, but it wasn’t 10-year-old boys. He didn’t touch anything. And God, a week later there was a knock on the door: ‘FBI!’ and it was sting set up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to catch people – sex offenders – and he went to prison for three years.”
I'm sorry. @JohnGrisham said what? Dude, you're defending accidental child porn offendors? You are hanging out with the wrong crowd of creepy old men if that's a concern.
— ILLY #Antigravity (@iLLvibeMusic) November 15, 2017
Child-molester apologist @JohnGrisham thinks child porn is just fine and still wants women to read his books. Don't give this creep one dime. Do not buy his books, do not read his books. He is disgusting. https://t.co/bniiHmrkwj
— Michele Dauber (@mldauber) November 13, 2017
Wow. John Grisham, a lawyer, must understand that simply watching creates a market for child porn, which harms children. His attempt to walk this back went nowhere. Watch his book sales tank, as well they should. Do you watch child porn, @JohnGrisham ?
— Pamella Hopper (@PamellaHopper) November 13, 2017
Grisham tried to walk back his disgusting comments back in 2014:
Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography—online or otherwise—should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable.
I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all.
Not good enough then, and certainly not good enough now.
To change your comments display name, click here.