Polanski: Celebrities v. everyone else?

Earlier today on Twitter, I wondered aloud why the Roman Polanski thing seemed to be shaping up as a liberal v. conservative issue. Clearly, plying a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs so you can forcibly rape and sodomize her should be something we can all agree is wrong, right?

It appears we are in agreement on that...at least for the most part. According to Christian Toto at Big Hollywood, it appears to be liberal celebrities who seem to harbor moral ambiguity about child rape. And I use the term "celebrity" here in the broadest sense of the term.

• Kim Masters: “Roman Polanski understands women” – starts with her exasperation over the Polanski witch hunt.
• Bernard-Henri Levy: Let’s start a petition in support of Polanski.
• John Farr: Leniency for Polanski.

But HuffPo readers aren’t buying it. And boy, are they angry.

Check out the comments left on each of these essays and you’ll see faithful HuffPo readers aghast that the site could be defending the indefensible.

Here are just a few comments:

“Nope, it’s not a “conspiracy.” Child rape is a crime and Polanski should serve his time- he should have served it long ago instead of trying to pay off his victim”

“I am an California attorney, a confirmed Democrat-liberal and admirer of Mr. Polanski’s talents and those of many who have niavely signed this petition … Mr. Polanski did what he did and no amount of spin or the passage of time can change that. He drugged and raped a child. What don’t you understand about that? Is it O.K. to do that to your daughters? … Shame on you, all of you. You should (and probably do) know better.
“Let’s see these artists sign their names to a petition to excuse the drugging of and forced sex with a 13 year old. Let’s put it bluntly.”

I say "broadest sense of the term" because I've no fucking clue who Masters, Levy and Farr are, but if they're writing for HuffPo - and defending Roman Polanski - I'm guessing they're a collection of failed journalists and/or B-list actors.

In any event, good on HuffPo's readers for having none of this bullshit.

Update: Do these depraved fuckers even know the details of Polanski's case? Or do they believe that art transcends morals and puts them beyond judgment? Once again, Allahpundit at Hot Air says it better than I can.

Since when is it OK to be a child rapist?

These are facts that are not in dispute: Roman Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and quaaludes, forcibly had sex with her, then sodomized her for good measure, and pleaded guilty.

But, hey, he's a genius of the arts, so it's OK. So sayeth the Hollywood illuminati. I can't say anything better about this than Allahpundit at Hot Air, in rare form on this topic:

Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently it’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

Come on, you neanderthals, give Polanski a break. Do it for the children.