The man who is organizing a petition for a guy who anally raped a 13-year-old weighs in on the astounding morals of Hollywood:
[Movie Mogul Harvey] Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said.
“Hollywood has the best moral compass.” Folks, I couldn’t make that up if you paid me.
Jack Dunphy nails it at NRO:
So it has come to this: Drugging and raping a 13-year-old is now a “so-called crime,” for which artistic talent, the approbation of peers, and the passage of time can coalesce to earn the rapist immunity from official sanction, if indeed any was called for in the first place.
“Whatever you think about the so-called crime, [Roman] Polanski has served his time,” says film producer Harvey Weinstein in The Independent. His piece is notable not only for its moral obtuseness but also for its sickeningly unctuous tone. “I was with him the day he won the Legion of Honour in France,” writes Weinstein, “which was a spectacular day. I remember the incredible love and affection that people have for him.”
He makes great movies, so why not let him drug and sodomize a scared child? After all, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs . . . or make mediocre movies without anally raping drunk and drugged 13-year-olds.
Here’s Allahpundit at Twitter:
Word on the street: Polanski’s next film is so good, Europe’s going to let him bang an eight-year-old. It’s THAT GOOD.
I think it’s time for the disclaimer.