Should Harvey Milk Have Been A Registered Sex-Offender?

I have a feeling SF Jeff that you are repeating a lie hoping it becomes true. You know, when you go that far out on a limb to try to change the conversation, your denial of the elephant in the living room looks like your insanity, not mine..

Strawmen will not save the blunder. Your group has made a super big boo boo. Better to admit it and try to recover than risk looking even more insane by trying to play pretendsies that it really really isn't true.!

 

Well at least you admit that, if it's irrational, then you have a phobia.

And sure, I'll give you what you want....

Harvey milk was a poor choice - creepy old man that liked younger guys, I see his type in gay bars now and then. Were it my choice, I'd search harder for someone to front the cause. This doesn't dismiss the fact that he was an important figure in the gay rights movement, but because we have to deal with people like you who will magnify any negative thing about him and try to use it as a weapon against us, we obviously need to be very careful that our "heros" are spotless.

And "gays en mass" is not exactly what I'd describe as those pushing for the holiday recognition. Most gays probably had no idea who he was. Rather, it was a vocal minority that pushed it forward, and a bunch of heterosexuals that went along with it. He was not a pedophile, but he certainly had serious character flaws. The question is if they are bad enough to not recognize him for the good he did. He lost his life for that end, and deserves some respect for that at least.

 

By the way, like I mentioned, it wasn't just homosexuals that got Harvey Milk recognized.... it took a bunch of heterosexuals to prop this man up too.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0805-05.htm

I'm willing to bet that there were far more heterosexuals who approved the measure than homosexuals. Does that mean we can say that heterosexuals supported the measure, en masse, and we can thus assume all heterosexuals support pedophilia?

If not, why would you use the same argument against all homosexuals, en masse? How can you excuse some or all heterosexuals for this act, and then hold it against all homosexuals?

 

Show me once where I have lied Silhouette? Seriously-

You keep making a claim which you can't prove.

Now you accuse me of a lie, which you also can't prove. Which is of course means you are lieing.


Because you still haven't shown any sex crimes against minors by Harvey Milk.

And you keep repeating that claim, and you won't prove it

My group? I am a California voter- thats about the only group that I can think of.

And I am not the one who keeps claiming there is a sex crime, but can't show one piece of evidence to support it.

I am not the one who has started multiple threads trying to promote a homophobic agenda with faux concern about children.

And I will continue to point out you making false claims because I don't like your lies.

 

By the same logic that he claims to be against pedophilia but only posts complaints about homosexuals, and has never shown any concern for the gender that is the majority of pedophilia victims.

 

I presume SF stands for san francisco?

In that case, hi Jeff of San Francisco, I'm Jeff of Las Vegas. The center of heterosexual heathenism greets its homosexual counterpart .

And unfortunately I don't see the logic either. The vast majority of pedophilia is committed by family and friends of the parents who display heterosexual characteristics - you'd think her priorities would be elsewhere. Gays have not been demonstrated to be any more likely to commit pedophilia, yet she insists on searching for any scraps of evidence she can to attach the label to us all.

 

Well at least you're not hiding your own assessment of the homosexual "counterpart". Two wrongs don't make a right now do they? It's a great strawman though..Let's talk about other hedonists and not Harvey Milk...Cuz, you know, he's the guy who was buggering the 16 year old drug addict, incapable of consent and in violation of several state laws in the same state he's being shoved into classrooms as "the gay hero for kids to look up to".

Got it up to another page eh gang?..lol.. I know, I know. You NEED this topic to GO AWAY! After all, how easy is it to explain...choosing a man who performed sex crimes on minors as your "official spokesman" for the gay movement?

You cannot debate it away. Defending Harvey Milk only makes the situation worse. So the "slow march off the active list" must begin. If I spammed half as much as SFJeff in order to make this thread go away, I'd receive a warning. But SFJeff has a moderator perhaps sympathetic to making this topic go away?

Who knows..

 

New poster. Let me say that I created a topic on this title Harvey Milk. Matthew Shepard. Politically incorrect facts on Sean Hannity's forum on March 5th under the name P51Mustang & they banned me. I had mentioned the fact that Harvey Bernard Milk committed homosexual statutory rape on a 16/17 year old boy in 1964 & that he was never prosecuted for it. I had also said that Daniel James (DJ) White was a decorated Vietnam War Sargent, SF Police/Fireman who once saved a woman & her baby from a burning building. SF Mayor Moscone who was killed was a public defender before he was mayor & while people accused of crimes innocent or guilty deserve a lawyer, Mayor Moscone defended child molesters.

I had said that what Dan (DJ) White did by killing Harvey Milk in 1978 was do what the Calif. authorities did not do to Harvey Milk in 1964 & had I been on that jury (I was 9 in 1979), I would've convicted Dan (DJ) White of Manslaughter because Harvey Bernard Milk was a bad person. In addition to committing homosexual statutory rape, Harvey Milk also bragged about how he would have sex in parks (public indecency) & not get caught by the police.

With Matthew Shepard or who I call Methew Wayne Shepard, a politically wrong fact about him is that a drunk MW Shepard 2 months before his death committed assault & battery on a Cody bartender who reacted by decking him. The next day, MW Shepard made homosexual gang rape accusation against the bartender, but medical tests came back negative other than a fat lip. Cops interviewed the bartender, waitress who saw what happened & they concluded the bartender was right. Matthew Shepard's excuse has been that he was drunk & his memory was clouded & that once he knew his story was wrong he 'dropped' the charge when it's the cops who prosecute/drop case. Judy Shepard does not deny this but makes excuses for her son such as him having PTSD, being drunk, etc. Maybe MW Shepard believed his story-only he knows his intent, but Matthew Shepard chose to worsen himself by getting drunk, using drugs such as Ecstasy which is why I call him Methew Wayne Shepard.

Anyhow, the posters hostile to me on Hannity forums saw nothing wrong with Harvey B. Milk committing homosexual statutory rape & they saw nothing wrong with Matthew Wayne Shepard committing assault&battery while drunk & then making up story of being homosexually gang raped the next day to the police. I was banned from Hannity forums on the grounds of 'advocating violence' when a poster complained. My point there was that both Harvey Milk & Matthew Shepard were bad people & that just because some1 is a crime victim, it doesn't change the fact that both Harvey Bernard Milk & Matthew Wayne Shepard treated people poorly. 1 poster called MW Shepard's deed a petty crime. Well I see something wrong with MW Shepard committing assault & battery + falsely reporting crime as people who make false accusations are almost as bad as people who do the crimes. I did not advocate violence but said that I can not accept the conduct of both of these people & do not mourn their deaths. Yes, I see something wrong with homo/lesbian activities & I see something wrong with sex change maimings. My main point there was to talk about who both Shepard & Milk were & people became hostile to me, not because I said anything disputable, but they hated that I saw something wrong with their conduct.

 

It's called a joke, don't take everything so seriously . I've only driven through SF once, so I can't actually speak for the place, although I couldn't begin to tell you stories about LV

Perhaps you can explain why a bunch of heterosexuals supported the passage of Harvey Milk Day? I mean, obviously that makes those heterosexuals, and all heterosexuals en masse proponents of child abuse and pedophilia correct? That's the logic you're using for homosexuals, somehow saying it makes all homosexuals proponents of child molestation en masse. He's recognized by heterosexuals and homosexuals for the good he did... it's just a product of your invention trying to say that makes us all proponents of child molestation.

And why is it you're focusing so much on this harvey milk to try and connect homosexuality to pedophilia in the first place? If there was an actual connection, wouldn't you be able to prove it with statistics and studies of pedophiles and homosexuals to see the link? Any study I've seen, including the ones you put forward, show no link. Now you are desperately pushing evidence together in an attempt to salvage a link between homosexuality and pedophilia that you can't actually find any direct evidence for.

Fact is, almost 100% of pedophilia is committed by men. The vast majority of victims are girls. The vast majority is committed by family and friends of the parents. In almost all cases, the perpetrators are heterosexual. Why is it you are focusing so much on homosexuals as your pet problem? Your bias and desperation is obvious.

 

Would love to chat with you about the percentages of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles, and that homosexuals making up only 2% of the 100% population are responsible for over 33% of ALL molestations AND have the highest rate of recitivism for child sex crimes between the two types...but that would be chasing a strawman...and like I said, I won't allow you that privelege.

As to the topic:

The fact that this or that mainstream homosexual or heterosexual promote Harvey Milk day is also a strawman. What is significant is that organized homosexual cultural promotional groups are promoting Harvey Milk as their ambassador. They know of his sex crimes against 16 year old drug-addicted minor Jack McKinley. They have even constructed a "sanitized" version of the Life and Times of Harvey Milk....forgetting of course that those zealous students looking for extra credit can check out and read the same book they all have from the library: The Mayor of Castro Street.

See, that's the point. Kids are encouraged to look deeply into their historical figures and do comprehensive reports on their lives. Is the gay movement next going to burn Randy Shilts book so that only the sanitized version of their child-predator/ambassador can be told? I doubt it. Meanwhile the truth is known and the predator was chosen. Not everyone has read The Mayor of Castro Street but those who chose Harvey Milk to be their ambassador have. And that's the disturbing part..

Even more disturbing are those like yourself who know what he did and who try to use strawmen and manipulation of semantics to try to divert or defend the indefensible: promoting a sodomizer of intoxicated minors to children as "gay hero".

 

What have I spammed?

You keep making the same claims, and you can't back them up.

I keep pointing out that the claim is a lie.

You stop making the same incorrect claim, and I will stop refuting it.

You still have never provided one piece of evidence to support your assertion that Harvey Milk was sodomizing a 16 yar old.

Meanwhile, you ignore the vast majority of victims- who like the victim of Roman Polanski- are girls who are abused by men.

 

Now if you would just show some evidence to support that claim.

Hint: Taking key words from 5 or 6 different statements and trying to link them together and say they mean something different from what the words actually said isn't supporting a claim.

 

of course you wouldn't

Perhaps you'd care to explain WHY it's a strawman instead of just saying it's a strawman without reason. Main-stream, elected heterosexual officials decided to institute this holiday for harvey milk, and you're trying to shove that under the rug and does not reflect poorly on heterosexuals.... and at the same time, you're trying to say that a non-elected body of homosexual supporters that ALSO support the recognition for harvey milk is an inditement against all homosexuals.

With respect, the actions of elected, main-stream heterosexuals speaks volumes more than the actions of a non-elected body of homosexual advocates.

If there's anyone here who's manipulated, misunderstood and equivocated semantics here, it's you.

You have yet to demonstrate that Harvey Milk actually sodomized a 16 year old.... certainly you've manipulated or misunderstood semantics of language used in your source to try and show it, but you haven't actually done so.

Worse, you try and twist any support for the good works Harvey Milk did into saying we apparently support child molestation at the same time. Those who recognize him and support him as a hero in the gay rights movement support him for just those reasons. It does not mean they support his questionable relationships with young men. You are inventing that link.

 

Sex with a 16 year old is not pedophilia, because pedophilia is concerned with prepubescent children (generally 12 and lower).

I dont think he should be registered or prosecuted from a moral point of view, as I believe at 16 years old informed consent can be given. Age of consent over here is 15, and I consider it fitting. No harm done here.

 

Silhouette, 33% of homosexuals report homosexual rape in youth & if a boy is repeatedly homosexually raped, then there's a possibility that he'll turn out gay behaviorally speaking in his adulthood. Gay/lesbian activities are comparable to drug use. The problem that some people say with the statistic that 97% of pedophiles are straight depends on what people define as straight, gay, lesbian. I've heard gay groups say that if an adult has homosexual sex with a boy, that he is not a homosexual Well I use sexual behavior to define gay, lesbian & homosexual. So if some1 has homosexual sex with a boy, then he is a homosexual.

Silhouette (& others), when you get a chance, please reply to my 1st post because the Sean Patrick Hannity forum banned me on March 5, when I wrote the politically incorrect facts on Milk & Shepard. But here's something more. From December 2011 to Feb. 2012, I posted on Tiffany Edwards Hunt blog regarding Matthew Shepard. For those who don't know Tiffany Edwards Hunt was a Wyoming reporter who covered the Matthew Shepard killing, trial & she now works for Big Island Chronicle in Hawaii. When I 1st wrote on her blog about Matthew Wayne Shepard committing assault & battery on Cody bartender & then the next day making up homosexual gang rape story, Tiffany Edwards Hunt became hostile, not because I wrote anything disputable but because I said facts about him. My posts on Big Island Chronicle www.bigislandchronicle.com surrounding Matthew (Methew) Wayne Shepard can be found & read the 1s with 55 posts, 11 posts & 8 posts.

It's repeat but the main point I told her was that MW Shepard's killing is of minor interest but main interest is who he was & I can not accept Matthew (Methew) Wayne Shepard committing assault and battery & falsely reporting crime. Though I gave minor talk to this, MW Shepard during the last months of his life feared he had AIDS, yet he still would go to bars for casual encounters. Do the people esp. gays & lesbians who mourn Matthew Shepard see anything wrong with MW Shepard endangering the lives of other gays with casual encounters If a straight man who fears he has a Venereal Disease (VD) continues having sex with other women with or w/o condoms, many people would say the man is a reckless pig. Matthew Wayne Shepard was reckless, yet his recklessness is usually ignored. Please share your view to my posts. Thanks.

 

If you want to pursue this, you might want to start a seperate thread. Your issues are tangentally related but only barely, and you clearly have your own unique opinion that you want to express.

 

Jeff, as my comments were about homosexuality, it is greatly related to this thread. Harvey Bernard Milk was a homosexual statutory rapist & to say otherwise is Harvey Bernard Milk also would have sex in parks & he boasted of how he did this w/o getting caught by the police. My point in raising the conduct of both Matthew (Methew) Wayne Shepard & Harvey Bernard Milk is to say that if people (gay or straight) want to mourn Matthew Shepard or honor Harvey Milk, then @least be honest & know who they're mourning & I ask if they see anything wrong with the anti-social conduct of those 2 people ? I want to expand this topic to incl. the ideology of 'gay bashings' & hope that Silhouette & others reply after reading my comments below-please also reply to my other 2 posts which I did yesterday.

With violence against gays/lesbians, almost all of them both assault&battery & murder are domestic violence which get less news coverage because it’s not interesting. When a straight man bashes or kills a gay, it’s natl. news because it’s strange, odd & interesting. But I’ve found is that most of these cases are men reacting or overreacting to criminal abuse that the gay did. If a gay is going to harass a man in a public restroom (Larry Craig style) or repeatedly propose after a man has said no, then it’s criminal harassment. If a gay is going to grab a man’s butt or groin against his will, then it’s assault&battery if intent isn’t sexual (unless it’s self-defense, it’s a crime to grab some1’s butt or groin against will) to something more serious such as sex abuse. In most cases, the man bashed or killed the gay after the gay harassed them or the gay committed assault&battery such as gay grabs man’s butt or groin against will after which the man reacts or overreacts by bashing or killing him. Now yes, killing a gay in those circumstances maybe excessive, but the man reacted to criminal abuse the gay did.

If a man were to grab a woman’s butt or boobs against will, the man would probably be in jail & more men are in jail for this than rape. there are many cases where a man got hit in the face by a woman, her husband or boyfriend esp. in a pub after the man (often drunk) grabbed the woman’s butt or boobs against will after which the woman slaps the man or tells her husband or boyfriend who beats up the man. As I see it, the man committed a crime for which he got bashed-many wouldn’t sympathize with the man as they’d say he got beaten up after he did something he had no right to.

There have been cases where a woman has accused a man of sex abuse, rape, etc. & the man ended up being beaten up only to later be learned the woman made it up. In the 2006 Duke rape case, there were people prepared to beat up the accused men only to later be learned the woman lied about being raped. In 2011, there was a riot against a Gypsy neighborhood in Italy after a teenage girl said that 2 Gypsy men raped her. After the riots, the girl admitted she lied about being raped because she didn’t want her parents to know she was having sex with her boyfriend.

So if a gay is going to be anti-social such as harass or do abuse described her, then a man has a right to use any just force to end the abuse. Whether the man reacted with just or excessive force is a jury topic, but the man did react to a crime the gay did. If it's a murder trial, the jury will decide if the man's reaction to killing the gay was self-defend & if it's not, then what degree to convict on. Gay/lesbian groups call it 'gay panic' but I call it man reacting to criminal abuse the gay did. Again, if a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to bring up criminal harassment or assault&battery the gay did before the man reacted by bashing or killing the gay, then go ahead & do so with a jury deciding if reaction is just, excessive & if excessive, then what degree.

 

I tend to agree with SFJeff on this point Snow, that topic deserves it's own thread. While your comments are directed towards Harvey Milk, they are more on the "punishing" end of his behavior. This thread was created to direct instead a more of an understanding of a deeper concept. And that concept is one of the gay community at large, knowing and then promoting a man guilty of sex crimes against minors as their "ambassador/gay hero".

It is supposed to be a thread of revelation about the gay movement at large and not so narrowly focused on punishing Milk.

Your points are important though. Perhaps if you just condensed them into things you have read about Milk and the sources? For instance, you taught me with your posts that Harvey Milk, in addition to illegally sodomizing 16 year old drug addicted [incapable of legal consent] Jack McKinley, also was into public sexual exhibitionism. Thanks for that update.

Instead of focusing on "what should have been done to Milk", let's focus on "what he did that was known/published about and how it relates to the gay community at large picking HIM [of all people they could've chosen] to head up their PR-campaign for the "Rainbow Push"...including but not limited to [see California SB 48 on your search engines] "gay marraige"...etc..

Thanks for joining here. This crowd is a bit more tolerant than the Hannity forums. The mods here have been for the most part very fair, as long as you don't flame-bait people, promote violence or spam [Jeff] or post off-topic.

Hannity is pretty much of a jackass and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

How about if there were laws against sodomizing the 16 year old in a state that has determined that because of the great variance in maturity levels of different children, 18 is the minimal age for consent to cover all bases? And how about in a state where sex with ANYONE of ANY AGE who is obviously intoxicated and cannot give consent, is illegal?

Harvey Milk was sodomizing a drug-addicted 16 year old minor in two states where that was illegal: NY and CA. Since CA is where they are forcing children to emulate this child-sex criminal, I've included the CA penal code that addresses his crimes here on this thread:

 

I'd say pretty much every point has been beaten dead on this thread, and I don't see any new information or trains of thought coming through.

What kind of conclusions are we trying to draw from this? On the surface, it's a pretty innocent question. Harvey was never prosicuted, and none of us have intimate details of Harvey's sexual relations... at best, we have a few quotes from biographies the language, circumstances and severity of which can be interpreted as one will. But while nothing has been technically proven, it's easy to speculate that he had indeed committed the crime. We're being asked if Harvey Milk technically violated a law without any technical proof in the matter, which leaves it to speculation for us all. It's a fair, and (on the surface) an innocent question that I'd usually be more than happy to speculate on. And that's pretty much where we are in this deadlocked debate.


But there are another two questions.... not really important for the OP of the thread, but certainly important for the hidden agenda Silhouette has for the thread.

1: How severe is the offense?
2: How relevant is it to the question of him being memorialized as a civil rights activist?


Question 1 is a pretty subjective one... There's 18 year olds who have been put on the sex registry for having sex with their 17 year old girlfriends with consent. Technicalities don't mean much from a moral standpoint. People and states have a wide range of opinions about the age of consent. Sex while intoxicated is not exactly uncommon, and some (most?) might even argue it's perfectly acceptable in the context of a long-term relationship where consent can be implied. It's not like the 16 year old woke up after being intoxicated and having sex and suddenly felt violated (or at least there's no report of it if he did). There's no indication from police reports or biographies that any sex they had was considered non-consensual, regardless of intoxication at the time. The relationship went on for years, into the age of 18, and still no question of consent. Statute of limitations has long since passed, where the 18 year old implied his consent.

Any question about this is almost purely a question of technicality, and has almost nothing to do with the moral question. This isn't like slipping someone some roofies and raping them, which is the type of scenario that laws against having sex with drugged victims is really designed to go after.

Question 2 is relative to how you feel about question 1, but also consideres the question of what qualifies someone to be memorialized? How bad or questionable does someone have to be on a personal level before you're unwilling to recognize them for their contributions to society? A highly subjective question, which I doubt you'll ever get absolute agreement on. From the genocide of Christopher Columbus, the over-extensions of power of Abraham Lincoln, to the racist allegations against Walt Disney, it's not exactly unheard of for people to be memorialized despite far more serious moral crimes. Some might demand absolute perfection from heros people wish to memorializes... others are content remembering and teaching of the good works of people, without being caught up on the skeletons in the closets of long-since dead men.

Indeed, the elected legislature comprised primarily of heterosexuals, and with the support of homosexuals came together to memorialize this man. Judge them as you will for doing so based on question 1 and 2, but it's not fair to assume that they did so for sake of trying to promote or normalize child molestation. Based on your opinions of this matter, this may indeed be what you think has been accomplished, but again, it's not fair to assume that was the motivation of those who chose to memorialize him.

 

I thought this read was also rather interesting... hitting on a rather important point about the laws in question that has been glossed over:
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: Link removed at links request >>>

In other words, when looking at these laws, we're not just looking at a black and white technicality that will send you to jail. Laws are considered to have purpose beyond their black and white, and it is allowed to the prosecutors discretion to apply those laws best to promote that purpose.... not just follow the black and white.

So here we are, decades later, putting ourselves in the shoes of a prosecutor. Prosecutors of the day, apparently, did not see this as a case that needed to be pursued... he was a public figure, and well hated among law enforcement, so it's not like the crimes in question were not known. Why are we coming back now and questioning the prosecutor's discretion in the matter, decades later? Prosecutors and even the "victim" himself after turning 18 did not come forward.

The reason's obvious for some: They're against homosexuality, so naturally they will have a bias and unfavorable opinion from the get-go.

Apparently, the "crime" was not seen as a violation to the PURPOSE of the law. And now we're here, playing monday monday morning quarterback. It's certainly interesting to speculate and debate the topic, but taking a topic that has long since been settled by legal authorities long before out time, and trying to twist it into some idea that homosexuals support child molestation is a bit of an exaggeration.

 

You are defending a 33 year old sexual predator who took advantage of an at-risk drug-addicted 16 year old homeless boy in order to sodomize and cast away later when he began to look too old for his sexual appetites.

Just look at the spectacle. And you said this thread had been beaten to death. Not by a longshot pal. As long as you and yours jump to the plate to defend the indefensible, this thread is alive and kicking..

The laws in California are prejudiced against, not for a much larger age gap in sexual participants.


Nice try inserting a lie there. Did you hope nobody would notice? I did. That is because much older people are way more worldly and wiley than youngsters and are way more apt to take advantage of them. It's the same reason someone must be at least 18 to sign a contract. Let's look at the CA laws again, shall we?

Here, in 288 (c), the law discusses a more severe situation if the sexual participant is much older than the child (10 years or more) as oppossed to a "lesser" crime of being nearer in age to the child:

This is with regards to lewd acts with just any child.

With sodomy, in California, the age of consent is 18. Jack McKinley was 16 and addicted to drugs when 33 year old Harvey Milk begain sodomizing him in NY and CA. [and likely travel points in between...more or less severe state laws]. 33-16 =17... a 17-year age gap from adult perpetrator over the child.

Even though the age-distinction is invoked with a child under 14 or "14 or 15" as above in the prosecutor's discretion, or even "16 thru 18 or even older" in the case of a vulnerable homeless child addicted to drugs..as Jack McKinley was.. it is important to note that California considers that the older the perpetrator is from the child, the more likely it is a perverse and insidious crime.

Note that the State is very prejudiced when it comes to the wider age gap... Prejudiced AGAINST..

And you hear all the time about exacerbating circumstances in prosecutions. In young Jack McKinley's case, he was homeless, vulnerable, addicted to drugs and under the age of consent. Harvey Milk sodomizing him should have landed him in prison. Then and now.

But with people like SFJeff jumping to defend him and make him a "gay hero", you find a very confusing social situation indeed. Lawbreakers are sometimes seen as heros, like Jessie James. But that doesn't mean that robbing people should be part of the new social mores. Nor should we have a class taught to children called "bank-robber heros" and encourage them to celebrate that lifestyle.

Promoting Harvey Milk is the same thing as promoting his lifestyle which, from reading The Mayor of Castro Street, was a sad and diseased victim of child molestation himself, carrying on the vector by molesting other youngsters, being a sex exhibitionist in public parks and calling this "healthy". I don't see it that way. And neither do the majority of voters on this thread's poll....SFJeff et al. notwithstanding..

 

Once again....just to make sure everyone gets all the facts-

You consistantly refuse to provide any evidence to support this claim.

You have not provided any evidence that Milk ever sodomized a 16 year old.

This is purely your speculation.

And based upon your speculation you advocate a 'post death' conviction and registration of a dead guy as a sex-offender.

Meanwhile...you have never once expressed any concern for the majority of pedophile victims- girls sexually assaulted by men.

 

Where did you get the impression that the 16 year old was "cast away"? My understanding of their history was that the 16 year old, who was no longer 16 by the end of their relationship, decided to move back to new york to pursue a career in theater. As Harvey became more and more involved in politics, Jack disliked the involvement and went his separate way. I've read nothing, anywhere, that suggested he was cast away for not appealing to harvey's sexual tastes. Did you just make up? You're trying to paint a picture that just isn't there.

And yes, if even the authorities of the day didn't see it as a case deserving prosecution, the case is perfectly defensible, subjective, and involves much more detail on the quality of the relationship and maturity of the 16 year old involved that the prosecutor would take into considerations. The 16 year old in question was emancipated, pursuing a career in theater, and could reasonably be seen as able to make decisions for himself - not necessarily the type of case prosecutors would go after, and indeed they didn't. Apparently they did not see this as a violation of the PURPOSE of the law.

I didn't suggest the thread was dead, just that every point anyone has tried to make has been repeated about 50 times already... hence, beaten to death. New information needs to be introduced or it will just go in circles. Which is fine for those who want to go in circles.

You're confusing PRACTICALITY for PURPOSE. Indeed, the law has, for practical reasons, established some bias for wider age differences, likely because the age difference also can create positions where the older person has substantially more power and control - thus reducing the younger person's ability to give legitimate consent.

So indeed, there is a bias for practical reasons against wide age differences, but that doesn't mean that the PURPOSE is specifically to attack the wide age difference. The prosecutors have discretion in deciding if the age difference is a factor that took away the younger person's ability to give consent.

And yet the prosecutors and law enforcement in two different states didn't pursue it, nor did the victim ever make claims (even after the age of 1 ever make claims that he was taken advantage. Exacerbating circumstances should certainly be taken into consideration, this is true. But they don't automatically make guilty. Prosecutors still have discretion, the "victim" still has the ability to speak out, especially after he moved out.... and it never happened. Jacke was safely 18+ on the other side of the country, well out of the control of Harvey, and still.... nothing. You're trying to paint a much worse picture than was actually perceived.

The majority of pole voters in this thread is rather inconsequential. Interesting to get people involved, but it doesn't mean anything. The mainstream, elected state legislature voted overwhelmingly for the measure.... twice. it's not exactly an uncommon position to take.

You do not see it as appropriate to promote someone who contributed to civil rights, and died for it, because of questionable lifestyles. I respect that and agree that it should be carefully considered when deciding how and if he should be promoted. I'm not an expert on education or child psychology, so I can only default to the opinions of others on how best to handle it. I don't think the legislature of california is particularly good for making this decision either, but despite the holiday being declared, the decision on if and what to teach in school has still been left to authorities in the school districts.

Again, I respect your (and many other's) opinion on how strict we should be before promoting a "hero" for civil rights. But I also respect that not everyone agrees that our heros have to be perfect, and we can recognize their great accomplishments without having to be caught up with the skeletons in the closets of long-since dead men. Promoting of his civil rights activism does not HAVE to be seen as promoting questionable parts of his moral ethics and lifestyle.

 

You really need to quit spamming SFJeff. If you challenge what I'm saying, I'm forced to respond.