not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids.
Regardless of the appropriate terminology, the bottom line for me is that he and his cohorts like to control and fuck young girls.
not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids.
That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms. At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up. And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids.
Regardless of the appropriate terminology, the bottom line for me is that he and his cohorts like to control and fuck young girls.
not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids.
That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms. At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up. And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
i've always found these arbitrary age cutoffs a bit weird. i mean, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. but it's just odd that one day the guy could go to prison for life, and literally the next day everything is normal. that's pretty fucked up.
i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are.
not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids.
That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms. At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up. And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
i've always found these arbitrary age cutoffs a bit weird. i mean, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. but it's just odd that one day the guy could go to prison for life, and literally the next day everything is normal. that's pretty fucked up.
i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are.
Well, it happens with some adult couples. It’s the ones in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. who apply that same age difference with young ones.
so these minors can consent to being taken out of the country and not be considered of age to consent to sex? I mean "private island" who has jurisdiction?
I think in the US taking a minor out of state is kidnapping. Seems so from some of the stories I have read concerning sex trafficking. Cant see how this is different.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids.
That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms. At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up. And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
i've always found these arbitrary age cutoffs a bit weird. i mean, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. but it's just odd that one day the guy could go to prison for life, and literally the next day everything is normal. that's pretty fucked up.
i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are.
Well, it happens with some adult couples. It’s the ones in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. who apply that same age difference with young ones.
yes, sorry, that's what i mean. I don't mean a 20 or 30 year age difference applied unilaterally. a 15-45 couple obviously isn't the same as a 45-75 couple.
Alan Dershowitz, who is a real lawyer, claims he has been defamed by Benjamin Dafoe, who is a fictional lawyer.
Hang on, your honor. Things are about to get complicated.
“The Good Fight,” which streams on CBS All Access, frequently revolves around ripped-from-the-headlines events. On May 28, the legal drama aired an episode called “The Gang Discovers Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein,” about the wealthy sex offender who died in prison last year. On the show,
Benjamin Dafoe, Epstein’s (fictional) former attorney, says he formed a very bad opinion of Epstein after “he ditched me for Dershowitz.” Then he adds: “At least I didn’t get a massage, like that shyster.”
In a letter sent to CBS and made public by Variety, Dershowitz’s lawyer claims that this episode is defamatory and constitutes “a direct attack on his professional reputation as an attorney and professor of law.” Dershowitz wants CBS to delete the offending dialogue and issue him a public apology.
A real-life lawyer for CBS responded with all the pluck and wit you would expect from a character on “The Good Fight.” “Benjamin Dafoe is not a real lawyer,” wrote attorney Jonathan Anschell. “. . . In other words, as one might explain to a small child, the Series, its characters and the things they say are all make-believe. People don’t watch the Series for factual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else.”
Dershowitz’s objection to “The Good Fight” may sound like a variant of the strange legal battle that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) launched last year against a parodic cow on Twitter. But his complaint, if successful, could pose a challenge to the vibrancy of contemporary historical fiction and biographical fiction — indeed, to any creative work that includes interactions between fictional and real-life public figures.
Just this summer, for instance, several prominent writers have published novels that borrow, embellish and manipulate the details of well-known people’s lives. Their stories freely mingle fiction and nonfiction, statements people have said and statements they have never said. There are no footnotes in these novels to distinguish truth from fantasy, research from invention. Those elements are as hard to pick out as the lentils that Cinderella’s stepmother tossed in the ashes. (Note: A lawyer for Cinderella’s stepmother categorically denies that accusation.)
Last month, Christopher Buckley published a hilarious Washington satire called “Make Russia Great Again.” While some characters — like the hospitality expert who narrates the novel — are constructed from whole cloth, others are only thinly disguised, such as President Trump’s daughter “Ivunka” and her husband “Jored.” Almost everybody in these pages is accused of committing unethical and illegal acts. The outlandish plot revolves around a videotape of Trump “grabbing” 18 beauty pageant contestants.
In a less riotous but equally inventive vein, Curtis Sittenfeld’s new novel, “Rodham,” presents itself as a memoir by Hillary Clinton. The novel’s early pages follow the generally known details of Hillary’s life. It’s often difficult to remember that you’re not actually reading the former first lady’s words. But soon, Hillary and her magnetic boyfriend, Bill Clinton, break up. The rest of the novel takes place in an alt-reality where the two never married. A crisis erupts when a fictional character accuses Hillary of sexual harassment. Whether this is defamatory depends on what your definition of is is.
Later this month, Darin Strauss will publish a novel called “The Queen of Tuesday” about the TV star Lucille Ball. Much of the detail about Ball’s life and career is based on her biography, but the heart of the novel involves a fictional affair between Ball and Strauss’s grandfather. It’s too late for Ball to sue, of course, but does this illicit story line damage her legacy?
Consider how many novels, plays, TV shows and movies would have to be canceled or dramatically clipped to protect famous people from being offended by such creative license. Fiction should be like Vegas: What happens there, stays there. Fictional characters can no more defame a real-life person than they can murder one.
We like to imagine this is a modern issue, but our earliest stories arose millennia ago from a complex mingling of fact and fiction, tribal history and myth. Could Penelope’s suitors have sued Homer for Odysseus’s comments about them? Okay, that’s a ridiculous question, because surely Athena would have defended him, but stay with me here.
The challenge of blending real and invented characters wasn’t so theoretical for William Shakespeare. Macbeth probably lacked standing to challenge him in court, but writing political history plays under the reign of a monarch was a dangerous endeavor for the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. When Shakespeare worked on a play called “Henry VIII,” he was treading very close to the sensitivities of tyrannical power.
Consider how many novels, plays, TV shows and movies would have to be canceled or dramatically clipped to protect famous people from being offended by such creative license. Fiction should be like Vegas: What happens there, stays there. Fictional characters can no more defame a real-life person than they can murder one.
We like to imagine this is a modern issue, but our earliest stories arose millennia ago from a complex mingling of fact and fiction, tribal history and myth. Could Penelope’s suitors have sued Homer for Odysseus’s comments about them? Okay, that’s a ridiculous question, because surely Athena would have defended him, but stay with me here.
The challenge of blending real and invented characters wasn’t so theoretical for William Shakespeare. Macbeth probably lacked standing to challenge him in court, but writing political history plays under the reign of a monarch was a dangerous endeavor for the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. When Shakespeare worked on a play called “Henry VIII,” he was treading very close to the sensitivities of tyrannical power.
Since that time, we’ve continued to relish the portrayal — laudatory and malicious — of famous people in works of art, and courts have extended special protection to such amalgamations. Just two years ago, an appellate court in California ruled against Olivia de Havilland when she sued FX Networks over the miniseries “Feud: Bette and Joan.” The legendary actress claimed that the TV show violated her privacy, misappropriated her identity and harmed her reputation. But the court shot down those complaints, writing that “viewers are generally familiar with dramatized, fact-based movies and miniseries in which scenes, conversations, and even characters are fictionalized and imagined.” The judges referred to an earlier decision from 2001, which concluded that “the right of publicity cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, be a right to control the celebrity’s image by censoring disagreeable portrayals.”
Writers are fortunate to have that First Amendment protection, but we readers and viewers benefit most. In a good work of historical or biographical fiction, there’s a magical synthesis between fact and creativity. We’re drawn into an understanding that transcends the mere details of history and biography.
This is, admittedly, a sophisticated game that authors are playing with us — and the law. In a brief Author’s Note, Buckley states, “Any person finding any resemblance between themselves and persons depicted herein should probably be ashamed.” Sittenfeld takes a more serious approach. She begins her new novel by claiming: “While some characters have real-life counterparts, their characterizations and the incidents in which they are depicted are products of the author’s imagination and are used fictitiously. ‘Rodham’ should be read as a work of fiction, not biography or history.”
But that’s not entirely true, and if it were, the novel wouldn’t be generating nearly so much attention. Yes, Sittenfeld’s characters and incidents have been creatively manipulated by the author, but part of their fascinating appeal remains their uncanny resemblance to actual people and events. That, it seems to me, is the ambiguous realm we must continue to appreciate — and legally defend. We come to understand something essential about our history, and about the figures who exercise such outsized influence over it, when we engage with stories that force us to imagine them in invented contexts.
When I asked Dershowitz if his complaint could possibly imperil contemporary historical fiction, he noted that his objection is focused on just one issue. “I am challenging the concept that a writer cannot, as a matter of law, defame a living person by putting malicious lies in the mouths of fictional characters,” he wrote via email. “I have no legal objection to the genre of using real names in fictional accounts — though I personally disapprove of it in the name of honesty. Nor do I have a problem with fictional characters being critical of real people, as long as the criticism is not maliciously defamatory.”
I’m not a lawyer — not even a fictional one — but I worry that such a legal limit would constrain artists either by suing them into silence or forcing them to censor their own imaginations to avoid the possibility of being dragged into court. Judges have justly concluded that readers and viewers are smart enough to demarcate fact and fiction, but more than that, we deserve the valuable alloy made from those two metals.
Dershowitz’s position could possibly jeopardize such creativity — and generate a host of lawsuits. By way of example, he wrote: “If Walt Disney had Donald Duck falsely accuse a living person of being a murderer or bank robber, that person should be able to sue Disney or the writer. It’s worse when the writer puts defamatory accusations in the mouth of a realistic lawyer character.”
With all respect, counselor, I’m with Donald Duck here. “Aw, phooey!”
Newly unearthed photos show former President Bill Clinton — who will deliver a key address to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night — receiving a neck massage from alleged Jeffrey Epstein victim Chauntae Davies following a flight on the financier’s infamous “Lolita Express.”
“Would you mind giving it a crack?” Davies recalled Clinton asking, according to the Daily Mail, which published the pictures.
Clinton, 56 at the time of the September 2002 snaps, was en route to Africa for a humanitarian trip with Epstein and his entourage when the Lolita Express — Epstein’s private jet — landed in Portugal for refueling, the report said.
“While we were in the terminal, the ex-President was complaining of stiffness from falling asleep in his chair,” Davies said, according to the outlet.
Davies — then a 22-year-old massage therapist who worked as Epstein’s personal masseuse — was egged on by Ghislaine Maxwell, now charged with procuring underage girls for Epstein.
“Ghislaine chimed in to be funny and said that I could give him a massage,” said Davies. “Everyone had a little chuckle but Ghislaine in her prim British accent insisted and said I was good.”
Davies complied, with photos showing her working over the neck of a beaming Bubba.
“He turned his back to me and I reached up and I started to rub out the kink in our former President’s neck and shoulder,” she recounted.
The massage took an awkward turn when Davies requested Clinton change positions — using a poor choice of words in light of the former president’s Oval Office sex scandal with intern Monica Lewinsky.
“I’ve got a bad angle, would you mind getting on your knees?” she recalled asking. “I’m not at all sure what came over me.
“For a moment the room fell silent. I couldn’t believe I’d said that. The words just shot out before I realized what I was saying or who I said it to,” wrote Davies in her soon-to-be-released memoir, according to the Daily Mail.
“Then, although his face had turned the color of fire, he laughed. The whole room was laughing too. And, being the good sport he was, he sat down so I could get a better angle.”
Despite the uneasy moment, Davies said, “President Clinton was a perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw absolutely no foul play involving him.”
The group, which also included actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker, visited Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa during the five-day humanitarian jaunt.
Clinton has previously acknowledged traveling with Epstein on multiple occasions, but has denied any awareness of the convicted pedophile’s crimes, and has not been accused of any wrongdoing of his own.
Davies has alleged that Epstein — who hanged himself while in federal custody in August 2019 — raped her on several occasions after she was recruited by Maxwell.
Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to charges of wrangling girls for Epstein, then lying about the arrangement under oath.
I’m no fan of either Clinton, but that specific story seems more or less irrelevant (sorry, that word’s a bit stronger than what I mean, I’m a wee bit baked, lol) to the larger allegations. Other than putting Bill on Epstein’s plane (already established) everything here is willing behaviours between adults (with a slight suggestion of pressure from Maxwell).
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
I’m no fan of either Clinton, but that specific story seems more or less irrelevant (sorry, that word’s a bit stronger than what I mean, I’m a wee bit baked, lol) to the larger allegations. Other than putting Bill on Epstein’s plane (already established) everything here is willing behaviours between adults (with a slight suggestion of pressure from Maxwell).
I get what you mean by "irrelevant" and how you're using it. It's just another "Clinton connection to Epstein" thing. She was 22 after all. But stuff linking Clinton to Epstein keeps leaking, and god knows what Maxwell might be sitting on.
I’m no fan of either Clinton, but that specific story seems more or less irrelevant (sorry, that word’s a bit stronger than what I mean, I’m a wee bit baked, lol) to the larger allegations. Other than putting Bill on Epstein’s plane (already established) everything here is willing behaviours between adults (with a slight suggestion of pressure from Maxwell).
I get what you mean by "irrelevant" and how you're using it. It's just another "Clinton connection to Epstein" thing. She was 22 after all. But stuff linking Clinton to Epstein keeps leaking, and god knows what Maxwell might be sitting on.
Agreed, who knows what might be uncovered as a result of this, I just hope they have enough evidence on her so that she can’t cut too sweet a deal if the authorities use her to catch others.
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
I’m no fan of either Clinton, but that specific story seems more or less irrelevant (sorry, that word’s a bit stronger than what I mean, I’m a wee bit baked, lol) to the larger allegations. Other than putting Bill on Epstein’s plane (already established) everything here is willing behaviours between adults (with a slight suggestion of pressure from Maxwell).
I get what you mean by "irrelevant" and how you're using it. It's just another "Clinton connection to Epstein" thing. She was 22 after all. But stuff linking Clinton to Epstein keeps leaking, and god knows what Maxwell might be sitting on.
i am not sure what you are going for here. i think any one of us on the progressive side of things would gladly turn over clinton to the feds if there was evidence that he was involved in any way in any sort of sex with minors.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I’m no fan of either Clinton, but that specific story seems more or less irrelevant (sorry, that word’s a bit stronger than what I mean, I’m a wee bit baked, lol) to the larger allegations. Other than putting Bill on Epstein’s plane (already established) everything here is willing behaviours between adults (with a slight suggestion of pressure from Maxwell).
I get what you mean by "irrelevant" and how you're using it. It's just another "Clinton connection to Epstein" thing. She was 22 after all. But stuff linking Clinton to Epstein keeps leaking, and god knows what Maxwell might be sitting on.
i am not sure what you are going for here. i think any one of us on the progressive side of things would gladly turn over clinton to the feds if there was evidence that he was involved in any way in any sort of sex with minors.
I know...but so far there isn't any evidence of sex with minors. No hard evidence anyway, which is what you'll need to take down Clinton. I'm just posting this as another connection to Epstein.
It's circumstantial (maybe the better word than "irrelevant") but at best it further confirms he's a sleaze ball.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
It's circumstantial (maybe the better word than "irrelevant") but at best it further confirms he's a sleaze ball.
Yeah. This girl, though she was an adult, was still, according to her preyed upon and raped several times by Epstein between 2001 and 2005. The pictures with Clinton are from 2002. Regarding her interaction with Clinton, she says....
"Although the image looks bizarre, President Clinton was a perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw absolutely no foul play involving him," Davies said, according to The Daily Mail.
She later added: "He turned his back to me and I reached up and I started to rub out the kink in our former President's neck and shoulder."
Davies said they "had a stop-over for the jet to refuel and while we were in the terminal the ex-President was complaining of stiffness from falling asleep in his chair," according to The Daily Mail.
"Ghislaine chimed in to be funny and said that I could give him a massage."
So she's not accusing Clinton of rape or anything like that. But he's still consorting with a girl who, for all intents and purposes, was Epstein's sex slave at the time.
It's circumstantial (maybe the better word than "irrelevant") but at best it further confirms he's a sleaze ball.
Thank you, much better word for what I meant, lol. Immaterial is another word that came to mind. As was said, we already knew Bill’s a sleazeball, but this isn’t proof of sex with minors, and doesn’t even really sound like sexual harassment beyond possibly Maxwell’s initial prompting. Is this maybe more so innuendo?
(Sorry, I’ll stop, I need to step away anyways because of my Prime Minister’s announcement moments ago (not good for my stress) and my bakedness, lol. Back to the hockey game, lol.)
I just don’t want to get sidetracked from the real victims as well.
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
Yeah...If Clinton did anything illegal, he should face the consequences. Same with any Democrat or Republican. It's sad that anyone would try to politicize this. Of course, one of the growing sources of mainstream info in the latter party is a conspiracy based on pizza shop basements, Hollywood, and Democrats trafficking children. It would be nice if people would just look out for common decency, but then again, look at how many pedophiles and serial rapists get away with it for so long because groups of people turn their collective heads.
But, yeah, unless they have something on Biden* or Harris, it should not impact the election.
*I would not be surprised if this is being fabricated as we speak.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Yeah...If Clinton did anything illegal, he should face the consequences. Same with any Democrat or Republican. It's sad that anyone would try to politicize this. Of course, one of the growing sources of mainstream info in the latter party is a conspiracy based on pizza shop basements, Hollywood, and Democrats trafficking children. It would be nice if people would just look out for common decency, but then again, look at how many pedophiles and serial rapists get away with it for so long because groups of people turn their collective heads.
But, yeah, unless they have something on Biden* or Harris, it should not impact the election.
*I would not be surprised if this is being fabricated as we speak.
I love how these so called pedophilia crusaders are so convinced that all these evil people just so happen to all be opponents of Trump. Wha ta coincidence!
Where are these nut-jobs with the Catholic church?
Yeah...If Clinton did anything illegal, he should face the consequences. Same with any Democrat or Republican. It's sad that anyone would try to politicize this. Of course, one of the growing sources of mainstream info in the latter party is a conspiracy based on pizza shop basements, Hollywood, and Democrats trafficking children. It would be nice if people would just look out for common decency, but then again, look at how many pedophiles and serial rapists get away with it for so long because groups of people turn their collective heads.
But, yeah, unless they have something on Biden* or Harris, it should not impact the election.
*I would not be surprised if this is being fabricated as we speak.
I love how these so called pedophilia crusaders are so convinced that all these evil people just so happen to all be opponents of Trump. Wha ta coincidence!
Where are these nut-jobs with the Catholic church?
The man who molested me for years was Jewish. I neither know nor care where he stood politically. Same goes for others of his ilk.
Sick fucks come in all colors.
I’m so sorry you endured that abuse. Yes, sick fucks are everywhere and use whatever means necessary (priests) to fulfill their fucked up desires. Again, me saying I’m sorry can’t help but I’ve shed a few tears for you today.
The man who molested me for years was Jewish. I neither know nor care where he stood politically. Same goes for others of his ilk.
Sick fucks come in all colors.
I’m so sorry you endured that abuse. Yes, sick fucks are everywhere and use whatever means necessary (priests) to fulfill their fucked up desires. Again, me saying I’m sorry can’t help but I’ve shed a few tears for you today.
I appreciate your kindness. Those who perpetuate or even turn a blind eye to it have no sense (or care) of the lifelong ramifications. Tougher when you’re a kid, but difficult nonetheless at any age.
Comments
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
www.headstonesband.com
i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are.
www.headstonesband.com
apply that same age difference with young ones.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
https://apple.news/AXp8_pYhbR7ya0sQpOnnL6Q
How’s your head feeling?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://fortune.com/2020/07/20/epstein-trial-judges-son-killed-hitman-deutsche-bank-esther-salas/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/alan-dershowitz-claims-the-good-wife-defamed-him-the-implications-for-fiction-writers-are-very-real/2020/08/05/703e7106-d699-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html?hpid=hp_sundayarts-right-4-0_arts-ent-magic2:homepage/story-ans
Alan Dershowitz, who is a real lawyer, claims he has been defamed by Benjamin Dafoe, who is a fictional lawyer.
Hang on, your honor. Things are about to get complicated.
“The Good Fight,” which streams on CBS All Access, frequently revolves around ripped-from-the-headlines events. On May 28, the legal drama aired an episode called “The Gang Discovers Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein,” about the wealthy sex offender who died in prison last year. On the show,
Benjamin Dafoe, Epstein’s (fictional) former attorney, says he formed a very bad opinion of Epstein after “he ditched me for Dershowitz.” Then he adds: “At least I didn’t get a massage, like that shyster.”
In a letter sent to CBS and made public by Variety, Dershowitz’s lawyer claims that this episode is defamatory and constitutes “a direct attack on his professional reputation as an attorney and professor of law.” Dershowitz wants CBS to delete the offending dialogue and issue him a public apology.
A real-life lawyer for CBS responded with all the pluck and wit you would expect from a character on “The Good Fight.” “Benjamin Dafoe is not a real lawyer,” wrote attorney Jonathan Anschell. “. . . In other words, as one might explain to a small child, the Series, its characters and the things they say are all make-believe. People don’t watch the Series for factual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else.”
Dershowitz’s objection to “The Good Fight” may sound like a variant of the strange legal battle that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) launched last year against a parodic cow on Twitter. But his complaint, if successful, could pose a challenge to the vibrancy of contemporary historical fiction and biographical fiction — indeed, to any creative work that includes interactions between fictional and real-life public figures.
Just this summer, for instance, several prominent writers have published novels that borrow, embellish and manipulate the details of well-known people’s lives. Their stories freely mingle fiction and nonfiction, statements people have said and statements they have never said. There are no footnotes in these novels to distinguish truth from fantasy, research from invention. Those elements are as hard to pick out as the lentils that Cinderella’s stepmother tossed in the ashes. (Note: A lawyer for Cinderella’s stepmother categorically denies that accusation.)
Last month, Christopher Buckley published a hilarious Washington satire called “Make Russia Great Again.” While some characters — like the hospitality expert who narrates the novel — are constructed from whole cloth, others are only thinly disguised, such as President Trump’s daughter “Ivunka” and her husband “Jored.” Almost everybody in these pages is accused of committing unethical and illegal acts. The outlandish plot revolves around a videotape of Trump “grabbing” 18 beauty pageant contestants.
In a less riotous but equally inventive vein, Curtis Sittenfeld’s new novel, “Rodham,” presents itself as a memoir by Hillary Clinton. The novel’s early pages follow the generally known details of Hillary’s life. It’s often difficult to remember that you’re not actually reading the former first lady’s words. But soon, Hillary and her magnetic boyfriend, Bill Clinton, break up. The rest of the novel takes place in an alt-reality where the two never married. A crisis erupts when a fictional character accuses Hillary of sexual harassment. Whether this is defamatory depends on what your definition of is is.
Later this month, Darin Strauss will publish a novel called “The Queen of Tuesday” about the TV star Lucille Ball. Much of the detail about Ball’s life and career is based on her biography, but the heart of the novel involves a fictional affair between Ball and Strauss’s grandfather. It’s too late for Ball to sue, of course, but does this illicit story line damage her legacy?
Consider how many novels, plays, TV shows and movies would have to be canceled or dramatically clipped to protect famous people from being offended by such creative license. Fiction should be like Vegas: What happens there, stays there. Fictional characters can no more defame a real-life person than they can murder one.
We like to imagine this is a modern issue, but our earliest stories arose millennia ago from a complex mingling of fact and fiction, tribal history and myth. Could Penelope’s suitors have sued Homer for Odysseus’s comments about them? Okay, that’s a ridiculous question, because surely Athena would have defended him, but stay with me here.
The challenge of blending real and invented characters wasn’t so theoretical for William Shakespeare. Macbeth probably lacked standing to challenge him in court, but writing political history plays under the reign of a monarch was a dangerous endeavor for the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. When Shakespeare worked on a play called “Henry VIII,” he was treading very close to the sensitivities of tyrannical power.
Consider how many novels, plays, TV shows and movies would have to be canceled or dramatically clipped to protect famous people from being offended by such creative license. Fiction should be like Vegas: What happens there, stays there. Fictional characters can no more defame a real-life person than they can murder one.
We like to imagine this is a modern issue, but our earliest stories arose millennia ago from a complex mingling of fact and fiction, tribal history and myth. Could Penelope’s suitors have sued Homer for Odysseus’s comments about them? Okay, that’s a ridiculous question, because surely Athena would have defended him, but stay with me here.
The challenge of blending real and invented characters wasn’t so theoretical for William Shakespeare. Macbeth probably lacked standing to challenge him in court, but writing political history plays under the reign of a monarch was a dangerous endeavor for the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. When Shakespeare worked on a play called “Henry VIII,” he was treading very close to the sensitivities of tyrannical power.
Writers are fortunate to have that First Amendment protection, but we readers and viewers benefit most. In a good work of historical or biographical fiction, there’s a magical synthesis between fact and creativity. We’re drawn into an understanding that transcends the mere details of history and biography.
This is, admittedly, a sophisticated game that authors are playing with us — and the law. In a brief Author’s Note, Buckley states, “Any person finding any resemblance between themselves and persons depicted herein should probably be ashamed.” Sittenfeld takes a more serious approach. She begins her new novel by claiming: “While some characters have real-life counterparts, their characterizations and the incidents in which they are depicted are products of the author’s imagination and are used fictitiously. ‘Rodham’ should be read as a work of fiction, not biography or history.”
But that’s not entirely true, and if it were, the novel wouldn’t be generating nearly so much attention. Yes, Sittenfeld’s characters and incidents have been creatively manipulated by the author, but part of their fascinating appeal remains their uncanny resemblance to actual people and events. That, it seems to me, is the ambiguous realm we must continue to appreciate — and legally defend. We come to understand something essential about our history, and about the figures who exercise such outsized influence over it, when we engage with stories that force us to imagine them in invented contexts.
When I asked Dershowitz if his complaint could possibly imperil contemporary historical fiction, he noted that his objection is focused on just one issue. “I am challenging the concept that a writer cannot, as a matter of law, defame a living person by putting malicious lies in the mouths of fictional characters,” he wrote via email. “I have no legal objection to the genre of using real names in fictional accounts — though I personally disapprove of it in the name of honesty. Nor do I have a problem with fictional characters being critical of real people, as long as the criticism is not maliciously defamatory.”
I’m not a lawyer — not even a fictional one — but I worry that such a legal limit would constrain artists either by suing them into silence or forcing them to censor their own imaginations to avoid the possibility of being dragged into court. Judges have justly concluded that readers and viewers are smart enough to demarcate fact and fiction, but more than that, we deserve the valuable alloy made from those two metals.
Dershowitz’s position could possibly jeopardize such creativity — and generate a host of lawsuits. By way of example, he wrote: “If Walt Disney had Donald Duck falsely accuse a living person of being a murderer or bank robber, that person should be able to sue Disney or the writer. It’s worse when the writer puts defamatory accusations in the mouth of a realistic lawyer character.”
With all respect, counselor, I’m with Donald Duck here. “Aw, phooey!”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://nypost.com/2020/08/18/photos-show-bill-clinton-getting-massage-from-epstein-accuser/
Newly unearthed photos show former President Bill Clinton — who will deliver a key address to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night — receiving a neck massage from alleged Jeffrey Epstein victim Chauntae Davies following a flight on the financier’s infamous “Lolita Express.”
“Would you mind giving it a crack?” Davies recalled Clinton asking, according to the Daily Mail, which published the pictures.
Clinton, 56 at the time of the September 2002 snaps, was en route to Africa for a humanitarian trip with Epstein and his entourage when the Lolita Express — Epstein’s private jet — landed in Portugal for refueling, the report said.
“While we were in the terminal, the ex-President was complaining of stiffness from falling asleep in his chair,” Davies said, according to the outlet.
Davies — then a 22-year-old massage therapist who worked as Epstein’s personal masseuse — was egged on by Ghislaine Maxwell, now charged with procuring underage girls for Epstein.
“Ghislaine chimed in to be funny and said that I could give him a massage,” said Davies. “Everyone had a little chuckle but Ghislaine in her prim British accent insisted and said I was good.”
Davies complied, with photos showing her working over the neck of a beaming Bubba.
“He turned his back to me and I reached up and I started to rub out the kink in our former President’s neck and shoulder,” she recounted.The massage took an awkward turn when Davies requested Clinton change positions — using a poor choice of words in light of the former president’s Oval Office sex scandal with intern Monica Lewinsky.
“I’ve got a bad angle, would you mind getting on your knees?” she recalled asking. “I’m not at all sure what came over me.
“For a moment the room fell silent. I couldn’t believe I’d said that. The words just shot out before I realized what I was saying or who I said it to,” wrote Davies in her soon-to-be-released memoir, according to the Daily Mail.
“Then, although his face had turned the color of fire, he laughed. The whole room was laughing too. And, being the good sport he was, he sat down so I could get a better angle.”
The group, which also included actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker, visited Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa during the five-day humanitarian jaunt.
Clinton has previously acknowledged traveling with Epstein on multiple occasions, but has denied any awareness of the convicted pedophile’s crimes, and has not been accused of any wrongdoing of his own.
Davies has alleged that Epstein — who hanged himself while in federal custody in August 2019 — raped her on several occasions after she was recruited by Maxwell.
Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to charges of wrangling girls for Epstein, then lying about the arrangement under oath.
Original story that the New York Post article is reporting on:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8639501/Bill-Clinton-smiles-receiving-neck-massage-Jeffrey-Epstein-victim.html
Pictures from that article:
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
"Although the image looks bizarre, President Clinton was a perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw absolutely no foul play involving him," Davies said, according to The Daily Mail.
She later added: "He turned his back to me and I reached up and I started to rub out the kink in our former President's neck and shoulder."
Davies said they "had a stop-over for the jet to refuel and while we were in the terminal the ex-President was complaining of stiffness from falling asleep in his chair," according to The Daily Mail.
"Ghislaine chimed in to be funny and said that I could give him a massage."
So she's not accusing Clinton of rape or anything like that. But he's still consorting with a girl who, for all intents and purposes, was Epstein's sex slave at the time.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10413899/chauntae-davies-jeffrey-epstein-bill-clinton-private-island/Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
(Sorry, I’ll stop, I need to step away anyways because of my Prime Minister’s announcement moments ago (not good for my stress) and my bakedness, lol. Back to the hockey game, lol.)
I just don’t want to get sidetracked from the real victims as well.
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Where are these nut-jobs with the Catholic church?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Again, me saying I’m sorry can’t help but I’ve shed a few tears for you today.
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..