Although apparently the young girl wasn't chaste (having had sex with her boyfriend) and apparently Polanski's filmmaking is not art (IMHO - from what I've seen of it).

Yes, some fools in Hollywood decided they had to back one of their own. No different than members in the GOP that back all the sex crimes by members of the GOP.

Really, groups like to protect their own. Take the police. Just the nature of group behavior.

Jesus Christ. It wasn't the young woman's chastity that Polanski violated--it was her will.

Also, see Chinatown. Fool.

And GOP sex crimes? I hate Republicans as much as the next communist. But adultery and gay trysts aren't "sex crimes."

Well, Axel, if you've had sex then it's OK with you if someone rapes you, eh?

"It wasn't the young woman's chastity that Polanski violated--it was her will.

Also, see Chinatown. Fool."

It's in dispute whether it was against her will or not - the court convicted him of the latter.

Also, I've seen Chinatown. I'll see it again in lieu of sleeping pills. But I suppose you and the Academy can't be wrong. Fool.

Ok, so if I offer an 13 year old girl candy for sex and she accepts, that is OK? A 13 year old can't give consent, that's that law we have called, hmm, let me see... Oh,yeah! The age of consent. If I am correct, 13 is not over that age in this case. That would mean, she couldn't give consent and was therefor raped–a violation of her will.

"Also, see Chinatown. Fool."

What does that have to do with anything? The script was a Robert Towne creation and Roman Polanski was only brought on because of Robert Evans. It's not as if Polanski wrote and directed the film.

Being opposed to what he did do doesn't give you the right to conflate it into something he didn't do. If the judge had deemed it a forced rape, he would not have let the sleezebag out of prison (so that he could abscond). If the girl had resisted, kicking, screaming and scratching, I don't think the sleezebag would have done what he did. Still doesn't make it right - nor does it make it right because the girl should not have been on a "photo shoot" alone with him in the first place (for the second time).