In the John K situation, defense of certain actions as potentially not improper is not particularly strong for me; but other recent cases have included things that are not clearly indefensible and that it may be problematic to prohibit discussion of (for example, in the Louis CK situation, I would say asking two adult comedians you have no work relationship with if you can masturbate in front them, having them give a thumbs up, then masturbating in front of then while they stay and laugh and go "gross!", is readily defensible as not improper).

It's harder to accept in the John K example, but the arguments that certain actions are malum prohibitum instead of malum in se (i.e., 16 is not the age of consent in California, but it is in many states) isn't something that should be dismissed out of hand as so beyond the pale that someone cannot take that position and use it to argue the morality of the behavior at issue. Even the argument "Katie and Robyn did what they did to benefit themselves" isn't itself inherently incorrect; Katie admits as much, while deeply regretting it; the person making the argument is not wrong on the facts, but if they are silenced and told they cannot mention it, how can there be a space to explain to them the power differential between a middle aged man and a teenager that takes the wind from the sails of the argument? You can look at the actions and be disgusted, you can read the stories of the women who were hurt by it, and you can make a value judgement that it is wrong (I have), but human life is complicated and while you and I have come to one value judgement, it is short sighted to silence those who have come to a different conclusion, and it would be a failure to understand how someone could engage in those actions.

There is no need to apologize to me for offending me. But I do ask you to strive for a forum that does not make the mistakes of other forums in the past, and that does not silence of alienate those who disagree with a general consensus on any particular issue, because reasonable minds may differ, but if you segregate out everyone with a differing opinoin, you end up with an echo chamber like John K had around him, with everyone telling you the ideas in the echo chamber are super awesome. And we know how that situation ended up.

Things of this nature can be extremely difficult to adjudicate, especially in a case like this where emotions can run high and opinions can be sharply divided. But there are a few facets that everyone needs to be aware of:

1: It is possible to discuss the facts of a case without supporting the actions the person is accused of.

2: It is possible to respect a person's art without respecting the actions of the person himself.

But it's a very fine line, and we don't intent to shut down any discussion of this issue as long as it is not supportive of John's apparent sexual predation. It largely depends of the attitude of the poster. To wit, it can go one of three ways. For example:

A: Harvey Weinstein is accused of being a Hollywood sexual predator. Let's discuss the facts of the case against him and see if there is any veracity to them. That's fine.

B: Harvey Weinstein was responsible for some great movies! But I can't really countenance the things that's he's said to have done. Okay.

C: Harvey Weinstein was responsible for some great movies! Who cares what he did! Not okay.

Lastly, as far as being heavy-handed goes ... I've been a message board moderator for quite a while. I used to be a moderator on the Straight Dope Message Board. And I can tell you without exception that in cases like this, if you don't say things explicitly and directly, there will always ... ALWAYS ... be someone who is going to try to push the boundaries of what is proper and what is not. PopKorn Kat has a hard enough job here as it is, so do your best to make things easier for her.

Thanks!

I would also like to point out that while, as Gasmask Ted alluded to, there may be some validity in a discussion of whether what happened was LEGALLY okay (I would hope to God that no one here thinks that what happened was MORALLY okay!). But that's where the fine line cuts in and discussion of the legal rightness of this tends to slop over into support for the situation, which would not be allowed. And that discussion is not really in the scope of this message board. It would be more apt at the American Bar Association Message Board (if they even have one!)

Besides ... we're here to talk about cartoons! So ... how 'bot dat Spongebob!!!

I think we might want to consider closing this thread. It could get worse.

It seems that Jim Smith, longtime buddy of John, isn't innocent either.

https://twitter.com/88_nmartinez/status/991080401581084672?s=21 

---

The ABA has a forum. This is not the type of thing discussed there, by and large (although I haven't looked at the feed for it regularly in a few years).

My point is actually that there that there should be space to discuss the morality/propriety of the actions, which upon your (E.'s) clarification is what is intended to be prohibited (and I strongly disagree with that approach); the legality of the situation was an example of something being discussed that may bear upon the issue of whether or not the actions are acceptable. While there are many legal things which are immoral (this will depend on what any given individual finds to be moral; remember that morality is subjective), and many illegal things which are not immoral (for example, other than someone who takes the view that all illegal things are immoral, few people would find driving one mile over the speed limit on an empty road to be immoral), that there is division about what the age of consent in different US jurisdictions is relevant to the baseline question of when is someone capable of making decisions regarding their sexuality, which is a subject relevant to John K's moral culpability. My argument is that that type of discussion, that defense of the accused, should not simply be banned, for the various reasons outlined previously. It is the role of those who find the behavior to be repugnant to explain why it is repugnant to those who do not find it to be so, not to tell them to shut up and go away.

As to the Jim Smith allegations, I would point out that these extremely vague allegations may be conflating the wrongness of a shirtless drunk with a man who was grooming middle schoolers for sex, and is an example of why it is important to have discussions about whether or not something is or is not wrong, and if wrong to what degree it is wrong.

You are free to strongly disagree with our approach and, this being America and all, you are free to start your own blog where you can discuss this with all sorts of people as you will. However, for the purposes of this message board, we're going to assume that we wouldn't have to explain why the situation is morally repugnant. It really should be self-evident and we shouldn't have to defend it.

As I think everyone has had their say on this matter, I'm closing this thread and don't expect another to be opened about it unless there are any other serious developments.