I felt bad for Conan while watching this. I love dogs with every ounce of my soul but that pup was yapping enough to even prevent Coco from cracking a joke.
many others leap to her defense without ever having met her.
I get what you're saying, but this is kind of a silly statement. Not one of the jurors in the case has ever "met" Amanda Knox. If they had, they wouldn't have been allowed on the jury for partiality reasons. If that's our line of thinking, then it makes no sense for people to point out the classism and racism that exists in the American justice system if they've never "met" any of the defendants.
@shoroko: I'm not really saying these people are wrong, or deluded. Just that she's famous, and she's getting all this support, whereas most defendants just don't get the kind of exposure that would enable this.
@Penny: Hmm as opposed to the cool dudes with their sex doll collections ?
Or little boys that love it because they have one too ?
Yes, you remind me that sexism is still an issue and it goes both ways. Don't forget to vilify the other side while fighting for your rights, that will solve things.
I just kind of think that "justice" is an empty word in the context of legal processes. But then I went to like the least law-schooly-law-school on earth.
@LegalCookie: Well, sort of. I guess I am not so much talking about justice as fairness here as I am talking about it as an aspiration to a better world.
What's sick is that he simply reifies the commoditization of female youth. Everyone must want it, no? It's really disgusting that we live in a culture (I daresay EVERY culture is like this) where young girls are valued for their nubile "sexuality." It makes me never want to have girls of my own.
@bluebears: And it sets up this really uncomfortable and often subversive competition between "women" and "girls." Whereby when a woman voices anger about something like this, people like him can dismiss it as simple jealousy.
There's a difference between being a cause celebre and an actual celebrity. I don't think these cases have "striking parallels"; they're just both high-profile cases.
@yvanehtnioj: I disagree. They are similar, in that, both cases involve criminals who are being excused in the court of public opinion based on superficial reasons; either for their past accomplishments or for their looks.
@Lottie: But Roman Polanski is being excused for superficial reasons (Chinatown!!!) even though he admits he did it; Knox is the beneficiary of stereotypes and gender norms that make Americans think she wasn't capable of the crime (girl next door, etc) and at the same time falling victim to stereotypes and gender norms that made the jury (judges?) think that she was capable of doing it (if a girl is willing to have lots of sex, she'll probably do ANYTHING). And, you know, she proclaims her innocence.
Both getting a lot of attention? Yes. Both cases causing us to examine the extent to which unrelated issues come into play in the courtroom? Sure. Striking parallels. I don't see 'em.
@yvanehtnioj: Oversimplification fail.
Judging by the volume of Hollywood-types who came out in support of him, I'd say (some) Americans consider him one of their own.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Dog, it's time to get to work.
12/07/09
I get what you're saying, but this is kind of a silly statement. Not one of the jurors in the case has ever "met" Amanda Knox. If they had, they wouldn't have been allowed on the jury for partiality reasons. If that's our line of thinking, then it makes no sense for people to point out the classism and racism that exists in the American justice system if they've never "met" any of the defendants.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Celebuvict? Crimibrity?
12/07/09
Women that like sex and vibrators are scheming whores!
Little girls must love the sex because I want to put it in them, every one does!
12/07/09
12/07/09
Or little boys that love it because they have one too ?
Yes, you remind me that sexism is still an issue and it goes both ways. Don't forget to vilify the other side while fighting for your rights, that will solve things.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
hmmm....I wonder if this version of "making love" involved force and quaaludes?
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
You may not be able to specifically define justice, but you can identify what does and does not comport with it if you try.
12/07/09
@LegalCookie: Well, sort of. I guess I am not so much talking about justice as fairness here as I am talking about it as an aspiration to a better world.
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
Both getting a lot of attention? Yes. Both cases causing us to examine the extent to which unrelated issues come into play in the courtroom? Sure. Striking parallels. I don't see 'em.
12/07/09
1. The cases deal with sex
2. ...and with Americans abroad.
12/07/09
12/07/09
Judging by the volume of Hollywood-types who came out in support of him, I'd say (some) Americans consider him one of their own.
It's a reach, but that's how it sits in my head.
12/04/09
12/04/09