We aren't really talking about the case, we're talking about peoples opinions on the case.
What's the distinction? The only way to talk about a case without injecting your opinion is just to robotically enumerate the basic facts without commentary or conclusion, which would be pointless.
The victim has wanted to move on for 20 years.
Unless anyone is proposing we haul her in front of a jury, I'm not sure why this is relevant, or precludes anyone from having an opinion.
If you really want "justice" then just do to Polanski what you do to Terrorists and send a drone strike to murder him.
I don't see how this makes sense as a response on any level.
Logistically: only a handful of people in the world have that power, so even if we wanted to, we can't.
Definitionally: not everyone's idea of "justice" for this crime involves killing the perpetrator.
Ideologically: someone can think somebody deserves punishment without thinking we should administer it outside of the justice system.
I disagree strongly with this...we only go after the moral issues with Polanski because he's a celebrity.
You say you disagree strongly, but the bit after the ellipsis doesn't seem to contradict or address anything you were purportedly disagreeing with. It's just an ad hominem about people's motivation.
It's targeted prosecution, same thing they did with Michael Vick. If Polanski wasn't a celebrity or Vick wasn't a celebrity the statutory rape or dog fighting charges wouldn't have stuck. We don't address the moral issues on a macro level only on a micro-level.
And on a macro level, what kind of message do you think it sends when people deflect or run interference for the wealthy and powerful when they do something awful?
You care about Roman Polanski but your tax dollars fun child rape in Afghanistan look up "bacha bazi" and ask yourself why you care about a single case in the 1970's.
I think comparing the drugging and sexual assault of a minor with the second-order effects of foreign policy (which generally carries with it at least the
expectation of some positive outcome) is totally invalid. But putting that aside, sure, media coverage of celebrity crimes is disproportionate. I have no idea why you think that should lead anyone to let Polanski off the hook, though.
We don't touch on our congressional sexual misconduct, the actions of the Catholic Church, the Presidents sexual assault, you can claim their is room to be outraged over it all, I'll believe it when I see it.
Why do you think we don't "touch on" these things? They are discussed (and condemned) all the time, some of them far more than Polanski's case.
Not sure why it matters, anyway. "You should be mad about these other things" is an argument to care about
more, not an excuse to care about less.