My Photo

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad

Photo Albums

« STAND UP | Main | IT'S UP TO YOU »

August 21, 2006

Comments

Mother of 3

Why is it wrong to alert authorities of suspected child abuse?

If the world was perfect no one would be harmed in anyway.

But the world isn't perfect and because of that authorities must become involved.

Your suggestion that Dakota is harmed by the attention is a joke, the child is the victim of sexual exploitation. Why not care for her rather than those that abused her?

Imagine a girl that has become a victim of incest, the teacher hears from another child what has happened and alerts authorities. Parents, neighbors, siblings, etc. must be interviewed to find the truth and bring about justice.

This is how you deal with child abuse, you investigate it and bring awareness to it. You don't do a movie about it and show that if you take matters into your own hand and keep silent everything will work out.

No one has attacked Dakota and you know it, her mother, the director, producers and agent should all be brought up on charges.

AngryElvis

In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.

"No one has attacked Dakota and you know it, her mother, the director, producers and agent should all be brought up on charges"

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Gulity

__________________________________________

"Imagine a girl that has become a victim of incest"

OK let's say this girl is YOUR daughter and Tre Bensen heard a "rumor" that she was molested. He puts up a website, post her picture, your picture, describes in graphic detail what happened, when and where, who was involved, who was contacted, what they said, details about the laws, what action has been taken so far, creates multiple blog sites, writes daily personal attacks against the girl and you, comments to the local news, makes comments to other reporters, and goes on the RADIO LIVE every week to talk about this crime.

ARE YOU TELLING ME YOUR DAUGHTER WOULD NOT BE HARMED BY THIS??

Put down your crack pipe, sober up, think about this, and come back tommorow and give an explination how this DOES NOT HARM HER.

I'm not saying they shouldn't alert authorities, THEY ALREADY DID, now it's up to the proper authorities to decide what action if any should be taken. NOT TRE BENSEN OR YOU

Mother of 3

Dakota chose to be in a public media via her mother and perhaps father. She is a public figure and because of that her life is an open book.

Same with all the others connected to the movie Hound Dog.

My son has a copy of the script used to shoot the movie. I have read it. it is exactly the same as what was published on the Blue Line website. My son and his friends that worked on the film said that Dakota was without a doubt filmed in sexually explicit scenes.

I applaud all of those attacking this script and the resulting movie. Why law enforcement isn't coming forward to say anything is troubling for me. But if you were to witness a crime wouldn't you shout from the rooftops to stop it? Wouldn't you want to point your finger and say "they went that away"?

The law is very specific and should be enforced. Until I hear from authorities that an investigation turned up no illegal acts then I will continue to sign any and all petitions that come my way. As far as I know arrests are pending.

AngryElvis

I have no problem with them reporting this to the proper authorities which they already did. Do you think promoting a website loaded with lies and rumors and all the details about the "crime" is helpful? This whole controversy is something she wanted?

I voted for the District Attorney of New Hanover County because I trusted his judgement when it comes to making decisions about people who have broken the law. If Ben David felt that any laws were broken he could have taken action or referred this to someone in the state level that could take action. I DID NOT VOTE for Tre Bensen and I did not give him the authority to make these decisions. He has decided that the law was broken not the elected authorities. Regardless of his personal views about this, the decision to take action remains in the hands of the people elected to do so.

In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.

He is being allowed to make all these claims and statements mostly based on lies and rumors but is not providing evidence to support his claims.

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Gulity

AngryElvis

I have no problem with them reporting this to the proper authorities which they already did. Do you think promoting a website loaded with lies and rumors and all the details about the "crime" is helpful? This whole controversy is something she wanted?

I voted for the District Attorney of New Hanover County because I trusted his judgement when it comes to making decisions about people who have broken the law. If Ben David felt that any laws were broken he could have taken action or referred this to someone in the state level that could take action. I DID NOT VOTE for Tre Bensen and I did not give him the authority to make these decisions. He has decided that the law was broken not the elected authorities. Regardless of his personal views about this, the decision to take action remains in the hands of the people elected to do so.

In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.

He is being allowed to make all these claims and statements mostly based on lies and rumors but is not providing evidence to support his claims.

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Gulity

Steve

Dear Angry Elvis:

It really seems to me that, in general principle, you, I, Tre Benson and Mother of 3 are largely in agreement. All of us are very concerned about the threat that wide aspects of our out-of-control popular culture poses to our children.

The division is largely one of priorities. You make a good. strong case for television being a top concern. There is much to what you say. At age 55, I have witnessed TV going from it's "Golden Age" to it's present sorry state and am, believe me, no less appalled than you. The appearance of cable and satellite has helped in some ways, but hideously lowered it even further in others. Likewise can be said for VCR and DVD.

The multiplicity of venues by which unscrupulous porn purveyors can reach our kids and turn them into a future customer base seems to expand every month! Kids, being brought up with it, know the ins and outs far better than their parents. Parents, often in a household where both work, can't keep up with it all.

Hell, I can't! I barely know what an iPod is or how to use it! The kids know all this and have the time and motivation to keep up with it. Parents just don't have control of what their children see and hear for good or evil.

Only a couple of months ago, Dakota Fanning herself addressed the problem simply and concisely; "Kids find a way."

Elvis: Please understand that we all deeply share your concerns. Nor, I'm sure, do any of us bear Dakota herself any ill-will. Exactly the opposite. She's a child. Cody Hanford and Isabelle Fuhrman are even younger child actors. All were sexually exploited in one of the most vicious and degenerate films that I have heard tell of for a while... at least for one where children were actively involved.

If we seem to be somewhat obsessive about this film, seemingly to the exclusion of other venues of cultural attack, then that's the reason. Children have been used here in a manner that was previously confined to 35mm film in a grimy basement of a Greenwich Village flat. This was done with little apparent fear of legal reprisal. It was done with every intention of openly releasing it to movie audiences. THIS is what filmmaking has come to.

We're responding to a terrible challenge, Elvis. Through Deborah Kampmeier (and have no doubt of this!) the film industry is testing the legal and cultural waters. They intend to see how far the ongoing sexualization of children can progress and how much profit stands to be made in the process.

"Hounddog" could rightly be re-titled "Vanguard"!

If this film IS released and, as most cheap porn productions do, turns a profit, then more will follow. Many more. Full Moon Films will have proven that all these highly touted child protection laws, both state and federal, can be easily circumvented. Again I remind you; laws are only as good as the willingness to enforce them.

That's why we're responding to forcefully to this threat. It is a major threat. It is also one that the vested interests have succeeded in keeping off the major media. Remember also that, these days, films, television (including the news), radio (thankfully to a lesser degree) and even the pop music industry are largely controlled by a few large corporations with interests in all those facets. Talk radio and blogsites are about all they don't control.

We all care about Dakota, the other two kids, the 7,500 other child actors in the business and, equally important, the other children of America and their having a safe and healthful environment in which they might grow up morally straight.

Dakota Fanning, however, is central to it all. She's the most prominent and widely-loved child actor that there is. When these filmmaking lowlifes trashed her as they did, they symbolically dragged her entire generation right through the muck with her.

Elvis: I encourage you to follow your convictions. Call and email every elected representative of yours, every other elected official who's been prominent in children's affairs and any media figure or commentator who's been noted for pursuing outrages against children. If you consider television to be the major threat, tell them! I'm with you. WE ALL ARE. The cause we expouse is one and the same!

There is no reason for any acrimony among us. We all love our children and care for all the others in this country. As I've said, that's what we, as adults, are essentially FOR. I think we all understand this. We wouldn't be here otherwise.

Dakota Fanning has just become the poster child for both sides! Let's make her ours exclusively; not as a two-dimensional symbol to be used, but as a living child who's despicable treatment deserves the same loving concern that our own children would. She needs and deserves our help, our love... and justice! That gawky little girl with the huge smile has just had her good name purloined by heartless panderers. And she stands still as the personification of her entire growing generation. No matter which course of action we may independently pursue, let's bear her foremost in mind least we lose focus on our common cause.

AngryElvis

I HAVE NOW MADE A NEW TITLE FOR THIS MOVIE

"The little movie that could"

This movie had to deal with a small budget, limited resources, controversial subject matter, the day they wrap filming is attacked by a gossip columnist, then rumors spread that Dakota Fanning is nude, then the blue line radio show starts talking about it, then they put up a website with pictures of Dokato and her mom, then script excerpts from a copyrighted script, then various accounts of what they think may or may not have happened, then attacks from multiple blog sites, then blue line somehwhat says well we may have been wrong about the nudity thing sort of by we can't deny or prove it, then this is reported on the local news that the film production company is being investigated for sexual exploitation, then they come on the next night and say oh sorry Marc Bensen nows says he thought she was nude and we talk to some like secretary and she says she was not nude and it's no big deal anyway because it's just implied with facial movements and she was covered with a bodysuit, then the other news channel says basically the same thing and "like Marc Bensen says like he's angry about this or something but don't know why", this isn't working so they spread the info all over the internet to various blog sites and wanna be "news" websites, then they get Paul Petersen involved because they know they screwed up and need someone to back them, this guys a real character post 1950's wanna be ex-actor that thinks he knows everything about everything, blah, blah, blah, blah, and all you idiots buy this crap, he post that's she nude so here we go again, is she nude or not ... um maybe but they said .. but maybe she was covered or something .. um I don't know, GOOD STATEGY PAUL because it worked everyone was buying you crap, then they get Ted Baehr because they get scared some of Paul's past is coming out .. he wrote a series of books about sex, drugs, violence, and murder .. oh, *beep* he is suppose to be standing against this stuff so we need us a preacher, along comes Ted Baehr this wanna be film reviewer that gets paid to promote boring little christian feel good movies, and then attacks everything else, he charges $40 to read his reviews, then suckers you in to buy copies of the dvds he's promoting for $16-$27 each, yeah he climbs on on his soapbox for a while .. moral decay this moral decay that, alongs comes a group of internet message board posters, we start reading all the BS and start trying to connect the dots and it just not painting a pretty picture, then some us start saying you know what this crap has got to stop, so we start attacking the these people one by one trying to disprove just about everything they say, then we start arguing about wether or not the film should be made, a couple of us start getting pissed and start defending the movie and day by day we start to learn this is all but bunch of s h i t and it doesn't make sense anyway, why would she have to be nude, they got body doubles and body suits and cgi effects so it doesn't make sense, then today comes along and this guy who has been running his mouth acting like he knows everything put it all into perspective, you pause for a second and say holy crap he's right, maybe they didn't do anything wrong.

Yeah what happened to that innocent until proven guilty thing? I'm not going to believe they did anything wrong until a jury of twelve people comes out and stands up and say GUILTY. Until then I'm going to lay off and give the little movie that could a chance to prove itself. Let me see the final product and I will determine if this movie was worth making. If legal action is taken then all I can say is "you guys screwed up and I hope you get what you deserve"

You don't believe anything I have just said - PROVE ME WRONG




All I am saying is where's the proof?

If you have proof that they did this, eyewitness accounts, people that will testify in court, Dakota or her mom to testify then by ALL MEANS PROSECUTE THEM TO THE FULLEST EXTEND!!

But what do you have? An outdated script, some rumors and a bunch of lies.

Steve

Elvis:

Give Tre some credit. He was sifting out the information as it came and giving it his analysis. That's his job. If it wasn't for his diligence, none of this would have been made public until it was too late.

Remember this, too: The nudity issue is essentially a non-issue. About the only denial that was ever issued from the other side was on this lone factor. The trouble is; body socks and "pasties" ARE nudity to all intents and purposes. As Tre has pointed out from his researches, it's no factor at all in the legal (or moral) sense when it involves children in a sexual context.

Paul Petersen naturally became involved because this is directly the kind of issue that his organization was set up to deal with. If Ted Baehr is a Christian who promotes Christian films... so what? Isn't that something of a higher calling than what you see in people like Deborah Kampmeier? In fact, what isn't?

Look, Elvis: The big concern here is that it will never even go to court because of the reluctance of legal authorities to challenge Hollywood and all it's attendant resources. It's not a matter of there being no sufficient cause. Laws not upheld are laws null and void... and children's laws so nullified leave children without legal protection from society's predators. This is why it is so vital that this issue be kept alive. We could all use your help.

Obviously, you and Tre have been locking horns on the air. I haven't been party to that, living as I do in Houston. Do you think that both of you could admit that you've let personalities get in the way of good sense? Again, from what you've said before, I get the impression that the downward trend in the culture concerns you as much as any of us.

Try this: If you can't bury the hatchet, at least don't waste your time and effort in these profitless arguements. Let's get busy on what really matters.

AngryElvis

"Obviously, you and Tre have been locking horns on the air. I haven't been party to that, living as I do in Houston. Do you think that both of you could admit that you've let personalities get in the way of good sense? Again, from what you've said before, I get the impression that the downward trend in the culture concerns you as much as any of us"

I haven't talked to Tre on the air, for the most part NO ONE HAS, they get maybe two or three calls each show talking about this. Why? Because no one is supporting his little crusade.


Try this: If you can't bury the hatchet, at least don't waste your time and effort in these profitless arguements. Let's get busy on what really matters.

Just the opposite...

If I am to believe that these film makers broke the law then produce credible EVIDENCE to support this claim. Take action before it's too late and make the guilty pay. If they have all this EVIDENCE that the film makers broke the law then take it to someone that will take action. That's all I want. You got evidence and you can prove your case in court then do it. Marc was a cop he KNOWS that this the case. Is this what they teach cops these days? Just keep making up stuff until you find something that is real?

Everyone keeps saying they should go to jail. OK Matlock produce the evidence and send them to jail. If everything you are saying is TRUE then it shouldn't be hard.

AngryElvis

"Give Tre some credit. He was sifting out the information as it came and giving it his analysis. That's his job. If it wasn't for his diligence, none of this would have been made public until it was too late"

I voted for the District Attorney of New Hanover County because I trusted his judgement when it comes to making decisions about people who have broken the law. If Ben David felt that any laws were broken he could have taken action or referred this to someone in the state level that could take action. I DID NOT VOTE for Tre Bensen and I did not give him the authority to make these decisions. He has decided that the law was broken not the elected authorities. Regardless of his personal views about this, the decision to take action remains in the hands of the people elected to do so.

That's why we have these elections. I don't remember anyone giving Tre Besen the authority to determine if a law is broken. We have ELECTED officials that do that.

Give your EVIDENCE to the proper authorities and let them decide what to do because that is why we ELECTED them.

AngryElvis

"Imagine a girl that has become a victim of incest"

OK let's say this girl is YOUR daughter and Tre Bensen heard a "rumor" that she was molested. He puts up a website, post her picture, your picture, describes in graphic detail what happened, when and where, who was involved, who was contacted, what they said, details about the laws, what action has been taken so far, creates multiple blog sites, writes daily personal attacks against the girl and you, comments to the local news, makes comments to other reporters, and goes on the RADIO LIVE every week to talk about this crime.

ARE YOU TELLING ME YOUR DAUGHTER WOULD NOT BE HARMED BY THIS??

You people can argue your moral reasons until you are blue in the face. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY in case you did not know and we elected people to over see this democracy and so far they have determined that the film makers did not do anything wrong. It's not the first time they have been wrong and it's not the last time. Next election you can change this by voting for other people. Until then stop acting like you know what is best for the rest of us.

CAN ANYONE OF YOU JUSTIFY THE BLUE LINE WEBSITE AND HOW THEY HAVE PRESENTED THE INFORMATION?

ATTACKING A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL WITH LIES AND RUMORS

AngryElvis

slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech)

libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.

defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character.

The term "exploitation" may carry two distinct meanings:

1. The act of utilizing something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use.
2. The act of utilizing something in an unjust, cruel or selfish manner for one's own advantage.


In political economy, economics, and sociology, exploitation involves a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others. This corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the treatment of human beings as mere means to an end — or as mere "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-being.

Lloyd Groves (Gossip Cloumnist)

Dakatos Picture, Unproven Information, Defamation, Slander, Libel

Possiple Motive: More readers, more fame, more money

(1-10) Lawsuit Factor: 5


Ted Baehr (Movie Reviewer)

Unproven Information, Defamation, Slander, Libel

Positive Motive: More members for his review website at $40 each, dvd sales, publicity

(1-10) Lawsuit Factor: 3


Paul Petersen (Child Star Activist)

Unproven Facts, Lies, Copyright Enfringement, Defamation, Slander, Libel

Possible Motive: Publicity, Fame, Chance to sell unpcoming dvds

(1-10) Lawsuit Factor: 5


Marc & Tre Bensen ie: Blue Line (Ex Cop - Radio Show Host)

Unproven Facts, Lies, Copyright Enfringement, Defamation, Slander, Libel
Exploitation Of A Minor (using kids to promote their cause), posting pictures of victims, using copyrighted photos, attacking character of minors, attacking character of parents

Posible Motive: 15 Minutes Of Fame, Publicity, Chance to be on the news, name reconigtion for upcoming sherrif election, Hateful

(1-10) Lawsuit Factor: 95

AngryElvis

Marc and Tre,

Where's your response to all this?

Come back with something good...

Like: "Your a Dick" "So stop arguing with me"

Didn't think I would forget that did you?

AngryElvis

Still no response.....

I'm just trying to bring "awareness" as you like to call it to the fact that YOU PEOPLE are also EXPLOITING this girl by using this controversy to bring attention to yourselves.

There is a better way to present this information. Putting it all on the internet then spreading rumors is NOT helping your cause.

I could have been on your side in this debate. Trying to stop this from happening again but I DO NOT AGREE with the way you handled this by trying bring attention to yourself. You should have presented the FACTS and the FACTS ONLY. Not your interpretation of what happened and what should be done about it.

At some point this has got to stop. Prove they did something wrong or leave the poor girl alone. Every day another wanna be reporter post a story that she was nude and exploited. It's going to keep getting worse.

Dakota Fanning is innocent in this matter and should not be used as the focal point of your crusade. Go after the film industry and stop this from happening again but don't use a 12 year old girl to do it.

These kids have been through enough.

Thank You that is the end of my rant.

Do you have a reply?

What??

Did everyone drop their picket signs and run away?

I'm tired of hearing Marc Bensen said, Tre Bensen wrote, Blue Line reported, or Paul Petersen posted..

FACTS, just the facts....

No one cares what YOU think happened or what YOU think about it because YOU were not there so stop using this so that YOU can get publicity for YOURSELF.

It's about the kids right?

Reply?

Steve

For Christ's sake, Elvis. I can't be online all the time. Some of us unfortunate clods have to work for a living. Try it yourself sometime!

Since I have to work early tomorrow (for the seventh straight day) I've only had a chance to fly-by your numerous rants since my last post. All I can make of it on short notice is:

1. You don't like the Benson brothers.

2. You believe that unless there is a smoking gun with a truck-load of ammunition besides, then no case should be pursued, regardless of the potential consequences to many if it is not.

3. You think that it's worse for a child to embarass her and her parents than it is if that child has been exploited sexually and remains in the custody of adults who are likely to do it again if able.

4. You have the amazing idea that we are somehow NOT fighting the sordid culture of Hollywood by defending the lives and innocence of three child actors whose case may well decide the trend of popular culture for the future... not to mention the fate of those kids and the safety of all their peers in this country.

5. You REALLY hate the Benson brothers!

Elvis: I gave you every benefit of a doubt, thinking that your heart was maybe in the right place and that our dispute was merely about the best tactics to pursue and in what direction. Likewise, I gave Joy Fanning and Cindy Osbrink that same courtesy, not wanting to believe that they would betray the dearest child in America in such a manner. In both cases, the accumulation of evidence has forced me to an unwanted, but necessary conclusion.

Once again, if there is any true motivation left in you for standing against the ongoing depredations against children by the popular culture (in any of it's facets) then I suggest you concentrate your efforts in that direction. All you're doing here is pouring a lot of hot air into cyberspace. Go ahead and take on the "TV Moguls" whom you think are the prime offenders. I, on the other hand, will take it forward from this angle.

However, as I said, your shallow rantings are meaningless and an obvious attempt at distraction. I am not to be distracted in my purpose, Elvis. I only wish to God that all this was just some incredible misunderstanding, that those three children had not been exploited on the set of a cheap, vile sex film and that the laws set up to protect minors from such abuses were not shown to be so easily circumvented by vested economic interests as they have been thus far. I only wish... but then we both know it has been, don't we?

Just what, "Angry Elvis", is your TRUE motivation? It's not pro-child. That's plain enough to see.

AngryElvis

Just the opposite. I wanted to believe you that is why I got involved. If there is enough evidence that they sexually exploited these kids then let's go after them with every resource possible. You have not presented enough evidence to prove to me that is the case.

Do you have evidence other than your interpretation of the script and witnesses willing to tesity? If so I'm with you 100% and I say we demand that the elected officials do something about this.

I and many other people contacted Paul Petersen in regards to his statements on the website he promotes. He admits that after further investigation that he has also determined that she was not nude. But yet he still has this information on his website. That makes him a liar just looking for attention. How long does it take to change a few paragraphs on a webpage?

There are ethics when reporting information to the public. You provide factual information and once you determine that your information was not correct you make changes. The same could be said about your website.

Since the legal community didn't do anything and the politicians didn't do anything then I have to assume your accounts of what happened are incorrect. You and Paul Petersen are just spreading rumors in a way that it brings attention to youselves.

I'm asking that you take this into account and present the information you do have in a better way so that other people can decide if they did anything wrong. Focus your attention on the adults that are responsible for this movie. Director, producers, cinemtographers, ect. They are responsible for this "crime" not a 12 year old girl.

You guys had to stand up against the film makers for what they did wrong. Well I'm the one that is standing up you for what you did wrong.

No need to respond to the other items I addressed. It's not important because no one cares. I wanted to be with you guys and go after the film makers and the industry and this would have been a good oppurtunity but the way you guys handled this blew it.

OK, delete all my post, I'm done with this.

Steve

First of all, Elvis, just how much evidence do you need before you consider that action is necessary? Especially where children are concerned? There are statements from witnesses, copies of the screenplay and, possibly, a video camera recording of the now-excised FIRST molestation scene with Dakota and David Morse.

The "nudity" angle, once again, has been the only response from the Osbrink Agency and Full Moon Films. As has been explained before, it is a non-issue and entended to distract from the main issue. Even if a body sock or "pasties" were used in the shots, it is still technical nudity and of no distinction under law.

It only serves to point out the greatest reasons why this event should be vigorously pursued. First; the very issue of children being in ANY state of undress in a sexually explicit picture is reason to investigate right there. Secondly; the fact that no other allegation put forward has been challenged and that it has been accepted by veteran Hollywood watchers, bloggers and reviewers without dissent... well, what does that tell you?

It tells ME that, almost certainly, something illegal was done on that set and that children were, at the very least, subjected to situations that no child should be exposed to under any conditions. This is a terrible wrong.

Again, what more do you need before you feel inclined to act? Elvis; I've just about come to the conclusion that you're nothing more than another secular progressive who's just trying to muddy the waters. Nice try, but you blew it!

AngryElvis

"possibly, a video camera recording of the now-excised FIRST molestation scene with Dakota and David Morse"

This is all new to me. Is it confirmed that this video is real or just another rumor on a blog site? The description of the alleged video is very graphic and far from what has been reported about this movie. A rape scene as brutal as this and involving David Morse does change things quite a bit.

Based on the lack of action I have assummed that the movie is not as bad as reported. I'm sure there are a lot of things I don't know about the movie. Every blog site has a different account of what happened and it's hard to make a determination of who is telling the truth and who is spreading rumors.

If it turns out this video is real then they went way over the line and I owe you an apology. Until proven otherwise I will continue to believe that all the stories so far are just unproven rumors.

Steve

Dear Elvis:

That's why I'm not saying that the video is definitely for real. Naturally, I'm trying to be as careful as possible. It was reported by a poster that a "video assist", apparently a standard procedure in filmmaking these days, recorded this first molestation scene. The story is that the first scene was so vile and graphic, that Full Moon Film's resident lawyer almost immediately ordered it's destruction. There was no way it could be edited down into legality. The video assist footage, it is alleged, was retrieved by a crewman, processed into a DVD (original intent unknown!) and made available. It supposedly was on YouTube for a short while before being hastily pulled.

How much of this is true, I can't say at this time. I'm still pursuing it. Please note, though; I'm as convinced as ever that the other scenes mentioned by Blue Line Radio (in crewmen's statements and from the screenplay) are valid. That alone, in my opinion, is reason to pursue this matter. If, however, some uncut footage of a pornographic scene DOES exist and if it IS legally admissable as evidence, then a major weapon against these pandering movie-makers is there to be used. We'll see.

You're quite right, Elvis, in that it's necessary to be careful about what's heard from anonymous posters. What needs to be remembered, however, is that what actually occured on the set, what HAD to occur, to even film the later edited versions for release, is what's key. If an uncut video of the worst scene of all even possibly exists, then it's worth pursuing.

AngryElvis

Well Steve you can forget the statement that I made regarding the need to offer an apology. That will not be needed because I have already been able to determine that this video is not real. The film makers did NOT film a rape scene with David Morse and Dakota Fanning. So stop trying to verify if it's real because it's strictly a rumor posted on a two bit unknown blog site. I dare you to prove me wrong.

Just ANOTHER attemp to mislead people in believing that they did something wrong. All of your conspiracy theories that the film makers are trying to destroy evidence in an attemp to cover up what they did have proven to be wrong. In fact they will disprove all of your theories and release to the public all of the evidence in the form of a motion picture.

This just proves that I have been right all long that you people are just spreading rumors and lies. I believe your intentions are good but you are being misguided into thinking it's worse than it really is. Yes there are elements in this movie that are controversial but the evidence so far suggest that the film makers did not do anything wrong.

If you would look past all the rumors and lies you will see that the movie is not as bad as you think. There is a reason why you and me are the only ones still posting on here. Because no one is supporting your crusade. I'm convinced that you and people like you are causing more harm by spreading these rumors and lies and trying to defame the character of the actors, actresses, and film makers. That's why I have continued my crusade. Guess what, I gaining more support for my crusade than you are and I can back up my claims with proof. I don't need lies and rumors.

Steve

Look, Elvis; I hope you're right about the alleged molestation scene with David Morse being false. I hope the WHOLE damn thing is false. Do you think I ENJOY the idea of a little girl being subjected to abuse and humiliation... and of THAT magnitude?

The entire idea of the most beloved child in the country placed in such extremis sickens me as it would any decent man. The knowledge that if the story is true TO ANY DEGREE, it will threaten the lives and innocence of every child in America, Dakota Fanning being just one, is what drives me to discover the truth.

There is too much to this story that points in the direction that evil actions occured on the set of "Hounddog". The plot, the screenplay, the statements and the backgrounds and resumes of the prinicipals involved... all these things taken together paint a grim scenario that cannot be ignored. The consequences of inaction are too great.

What you call lies and rumors and dismiss off-hand, I search and evaluate as dispassionately as possible. From that, I try to put together a rational picture, piece by piece. That's the way it's done.

I repeat: No one would be happier than I to find out that everything was one big fabrication. No one would be more relieved and thankful to discover that those three children were in no way exploited or defamed by conscienceless adults for the purposes of profit and/or to forward a social agenda of unremitting vileness. I hope so. However, there is too much out there that points in the other direction. While questions remain unanswered, I'll continue to pursue it. I DARE not do otherwise.

Cynthia

I'm still waiting for you to call the show to prove this rumor is not real.

Can I get a bumbersticker? I want to get it signed by Deborah Kampmeier, Joy Fanning, Dakota Fanning, and Robin Wright Penn.

Cynthia

Celina: I’m not accusing Dakota of anything, if that’s what you mean. Nor, as I said, do I doubt that it’s a hoax. My anger is by and large directed at the unbelievable lowlifes who tried to plunge the whole country into mourning… because that’s what would have happened if that story had gotten any coverage or traction. Do you doubt that Dakota is the single most beloved child in America? It would have been like every kid around, including you, losing a sister.

But, as I said, the story is still on the websites and will remain there. It therefore should have been refuted immediately and vocally… first by CNN (it was their website that was plagiarized) and then quickly followed by the Osbrink Agency that manages her affairs. It’s been ten days now, and there’s not been so much as a public statement of denial and condemnation from either. That should have happened that very morning.

As to CNN, it’s hardly unexpected. It’s what they are. Cindy Osbrink, however, if she truely had Dakota’s best interests at heart, should have been quick to respond and reassure her client’s many devoted supporters (like you) that all was well. Her failure to do so follows a dismal pattern over the past few months of not acting to protect that child’s career and good name…or, perhaps, even her personal safety.

Steve on April 21st, 2006 at 7:23 am

______________________________________

Nobody hates you, Celina. You’re charming!

Steve on April 21st, 2006 at 5:20 pm

______________________________________

Michael: Take it easy! Remember, there is absolutely no proof that anything bad happened to Dakota. Nor do I believe it, either. They couldn’t hush up something like that for two weeks, anyway!

Sitting on the story was the easy route, but it still involves needless anxiety to Dakota’s many young fans and supporters. To me, this equates to an arrogant disregard by the Osbrink Agency toward the kids whose love and support for her actress/client help to keep her firm in business. I don’t blame Dakota or her family for this. They, in essence, hired Mzz Osbrink’s expertise in such matters; none of THEM being Hollywood insiders.

Steve on April 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
____________________________________

No, Celina! You’re a darling!! I was happy to find you some promising websites and I hope you’ll find a lot of good kids to talk to. I honestly enjoy talking to young people on the internet. It’s refreshing conversation and it’s good to know what Generation Y is thinking and up to!

Steve on April 28th, 2006 at 7:19 am

_______________________________________

Steve i read your comments on some of the web sites on dakota fanning and you said that this grl named liby had your email address and i personall think that would be disrespectful wat did they say and if you dont want to tell thats alright to but i thought liby didnt like dakota? i dont no well talk to you later oo and i put a comment to on the on saying liby had your email address so if you want you can look at it it has foul languag in it though . but i have a point i think lol and i was mad at the time but noe IM ok and i think libby probably got your email address by clicking on your name cuz i did that to mine and my emial showed up so……. but IM not sure or positive you no IM not her so i wouldnt no but hope you have a good or great weekend

Celina on April 28th, 2006 at 7:29 pm

_____________________________________

Although I will talk to my mom about it and say that you’r not like other guys perverted guys and see if I can talk to you and Michelle again so ill see you soon hopefully

celina on April 29th, 2006 at 6:51 pm

___________________________________

Dear Celina: I was a little heavy on the subject, I admit. Nor was I trying to get into THAT subject, either. Like you say, you’re both thirteen! I was just trying to say that boys that age tend to be a little awkward where girls are concerned and need a little patience sometimes until they grow out of it.

Steve on May 5th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

___________________________________

Your modesty complements your sweetness, Celina. Rene sees that and admires it… which speaks well of him. By the way: Girls your age ALWAYS worry excessively about their looks.

Steve on May 12th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

_________________________________

WHY DO YOU SPENT SO MUCH TIME TALKING TO 12 AND 13 YEAR OLD GIRLS?

Steve

Because when they get older they get dour, erratic, selfish, spiteful, treacherous, deceitful... and ugly! Then they start to smell! Like you, Cynthia!!

Then, of course, I might just be the implacable pedophile that you've been desperately trying to portray me as all over cyberspace! I'll take that as your intellectual surrender. I've been as straight-forward as possible when I've spoken to young people. In that, I differ profoundly with those of your philosophical bent.

By the way, folks. Cynthia (who obviously has gourds of time on her hands!) was quoting passages from the "justagirlintheworld" blogsite on a thread that dealt with the April 10th Dakota Fanning "death hoax" If you're not familiar with it, I'd refer you to Ray Richmond's column of that time period. I mentioned that on the "Nosy Snoop" blogsite that Cynthia frequently haunts. She apparently followed the threads!

You might notice that I was talking to a boy named Michael. Michael was so distraught over the possibility that Dakota might have died that he was threatening suicide! I was trying to calm him. You NEVER take that kind of talk from a young person dismissively. I was patrolling that site and about four others like it for six weeks until Dakota finally put in a public appearance. I was VERY angry at Cindy Osbrink, her agent, for what I considered then, and do now, to be an act of utter callousness toward her little client's fans.

Celina is a 13 year old girl who was likewise concerned. When someone made an unkind remark to her and she became upset, I called her "charming". Almost everyone on the site thought she was, too.

I offered her a list of the Dakota fansites where I figured she would find a lot a new, like-minded kids her age to talk to. I also (foolishly) left her a list of those to avoid... specifically "advertisingwithoutpity" and the notorious "Dakota Countdown". Naturally, she went right there and saw the foul-mouthed punks and perverts that I'd been fighting with since March!

If I became too familiar with Celina, it was only because I was so flattered when she started asking me advice on school, homework, boyfriends, etc.!! I answered her as honestly as I could because I realized what a pivotal time being thirteen is. I remember it well! Also, Celina's insights into the thinking of kids these days was likewise educational for me.

Let me say this: There was never any doubt in Celina's or anyone else's mind on that site, young or old, as to who I was or why I was there. I also insisted that Celina's parents know about me when we came to converse a lot. I am VERY careful in my dealings with kids on the internet. For my protection- yes- but primarily for their's. My main message to children online is to never give out personal information and to never assume that you know the person who you are talking with. It's necessary to remind them a lot and to follow it up (as always!) by personal example.

Enough on this. If anyone has any doubts about this, I will direct you to every site I have ever commented on and let you judge for yourself. Nothing out of context, that way.

Cynthia, that was a really sorry thing for even you to try. I wouldn't have done something like that to you. Deceitfully accusing someone of pedophilia is about as low as it gets. Is you little crusade worth this?

Cynthia

"she is a prostitute, a street corner tramp, a whore, a cheap hussie, someone that should be in reform school, put into foster care, removed from her parents, and the her mom is a pimp, her mom should be arrested, and her mom belongs in the deepest part of hell."

Is you little crusade worth this?

Let's not forget all the rumors and lies.

Cynthia

Just for the record I never said you were a pedophile. I asked why you spent so much time talking to kids (who obviously has gourds of time on his hands considering he can be found on dozens and dozens of blog sites dating back to MARCH!)

Why did the webmaster close this thread?

http://justagirlintheworld.com/2006/04/11/dakota-fanning/

Let's not forget the infamous Dakota countdown site. It made me sick when I found this one that you have been chatting on for over SIX Months.

http://www.dakotacountdown.com/index.php/2006/so-i-found-dakotas-address/

I'm not accusing you of anything. Just asking why so spend so much time on these sites chatting with little kids?

I guess it's ok for you to accuse Joy of pimping out for kid in a manner that she sexually exploited her without even watching the movie or hearing the first review but I can't ask a simple question why you spent so much time talking to kids online? That doesn't seem fair.

Once again let me remind you of some of your statements:

"she is a prostitute, a street corner tramp, a whore, a cheap hussie, someone that should be in reform school, put into foster care, removed from her parents, and the her mom is a pimp, her mom should be arrested, and her mom belongs in the deepest part of hell."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22steven+mark+pilling%22&btnG=Search

Check it out if you don't believe me. Some of the blogs have closed down but most are still online.

It's not fun being on the recieving end of a personal attack is it?

Steve

Once again, Cynthia, you have taken a lot of words (and not all of them mine!) completely out of context and pasted them together. That's propaganda, Cynthia, and cheap propaganda at that.

Why did "justagirlintheworld" close down the thread? It was dealing specifically with the Dakota "Death Hoax". The hoax had been dispelled. The thread had turned into a chatsite for those of us who had been regular commentators and had become acquainted. It was taking up bandwidth!

The "infamous Dakota Countdown". MY characterization- remember? Yes, it WAS sickening. It was, as I said, loaded with foul-mouthed punks and roving perverts. They were harassing the good kids who had come there; either to defend Dakota or on the mistaken belief that it was a fansite.

I saw those good kids in danger; morally and physically. Predators were trying to coax information out of them. When the punks cursed at them, the kids picked up their language and started using it themselves; either in retaliation or because they thought that it was cool. The webmaster, a shady and still-notorious individual who calls himself "Hexium VII", would just encourage the mayhem with a written or visual prod here and there.

One of these "prods" was to publish a satellite photo proporting to be that of the Fannings' neighborhood and to encourage stalkers to go there. It's still there and still bearing bitter fruit. Remember what happened to Anthony (alias "Google") when he foolishly followed the clue?

If you had read the site carefully, you'd have noted that, in late March, I demanded that he take that picture off the site. When (predictably) he failed to, I contacted LAPD through a website that a monitoring detective had provided me with on another hatesite that I was also patrolling. I also attempted to email Steve Fanning with the same advice I gave to John on the "Nosy Snoop" site (and for the very same reasons!), although I doubt that he received it.

I like to think that maybe some of the less-innocent characters than Anthony were stopped early because of my warning. Anyway, it was my obligation to do so. And not just for the Fannings' sake, either. The entire neighborhood was imperiled.

Which only further illustrates why I spent so much time there. That's where the help was needed! I wasn't there for the chit-chat! I was worried about those kids and the dangers they were facing without realizing it. Most parents (as I was) are ignorant of the internet and don't supervise their children's activities there. Now, I couldn't be "Big Daddy" to all of them, certainly. But I couldn't walk away, either, as others had before me.

For the record:

1. I never called Dakota a prostitute. I said she had been "visually prostituted" by heartless adults on the set of "Hounddog". I meant it fully.

2. I said those "Gap" advertisement photos made her look like a street corner tramp. They do. I didn't say she WAS one.

3. Reform School...IF it turns out that she's been corrupted to such a point that she willingly and with no coersion did sex scenes before a camera with grown men at the age of twelve.

4. If her parents- willfully and with complete foreknowledge- placed her in a cheap sex film, then they are worse than pimps. They should be arrested and face jail time. What else?

5. And yes, if they did this maliciously and for profit, they deserve what they get. If unrepentant as well... I say there are few worse crimes than this. I said before that there must be a special place in Hell for those who would do things of this nature. I was illustrating a point by speaking figuratively. The power to condemn others to Hell is God's, not mine.

Here's the big difference between you and me, Cynthia. You have entered into this with a preconceived viewpoint- one which you will go to any lengths to support. If it means deliberately twisting words, facts and events to fit that vision... so be it. This is called "progressivism".

I take the basis of my beliefs in right and wrong. Then, I evaluate the evidence as skillfully and honestly as I can to find the truth. And, once again, the truth is an absolute, not an abstract. I evaluate... and let the chips fall where they may.

You have tried to challenge me intellectually and factually... and failed. An honest person would simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. No hard feelings. Instead, you have resorted to trying to discredit me. You have called my morals and motivations into question with doctored quotes and misrepresentations.

No, Cynthia, there is no moral equivalence between what you have done and what I have said about the principals of "Houndddog". My opinions were derived honestly, based on evidence from sources I deem reliable (like this site!) and evaluated from a standpoint of common decency.

You cannot say this.

Steve

Oh, yes. I need to point this out to the other correspondents. If you follow Cynthia's thread to "Dakota Countdown", you will notice that some of the quotes attributed to me are profane and perverse. Those remarks were NOT mine. I was in a running feud with the aforementioned "Hexium" and some wildman from Darwin, Australia who called himself "Oscar". They often enough posted these things in my name to discredit me... ironically, in much the same way that Cynthia has.

Please bear that in mind. Also, you will find me on other related sites posting as "Steve" or "Steven". On the "IMDB" website under "Hounddog", you will see numerous threads posted under the movie name (called "Untitled Dakota Fanning Project") and under the names of some of the cast... her's in particular. I was posting there (and by accident!) under the name "geneos".

There's more fodder for you, Cynthia! Just remember this; I've provided my name and whereabouts without any attempt at duplicity. I have never and will never hide in the shadows. Those that do are the enemy. Now, how about you?

P.S. If you go to "Countdown", check out some of Oscar's rants! He's the guy who posts in all capitals.

Cynthia

"You have tried to challenge me intellectually and factually... and failed."

You still have not provided any answers to the questions I asked on the other site and you have never provided any credible sources to back up any other claims. Your efforts to convince people that the movie makers violated the law have failed. The fact remains that the movie has artist value and does not show minors in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene. So much for your endless rants that the movie makers, parents, and actors should or will be going to jail because it will not happen. Your twisting of the facts have only proven you do not know as much as you think you do. I was very ammused to read the post about the director breast feeding her son during the rape scene. I believe her son is around five years old. Your favorite twisting of the facts, the media black, explain how this indie film maker has been able to control the entire media and prevented any news from being reported? You keep talking about this "other" rape scene like it could be true only because "you" haven't been able to prove otherwise when multiple people have posted that it wasn't true and no other sources have released information about this. You have created all kinds of theories about what you "think" happened and to support your position you insist you have compiled all this "evidence" that proves the film makers broke the law or exploited the minors. To this day you haven't provided one credible source to support or confirm any of your theories. I'm not even going to get into the personal attacks because it's clear in your mind that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. You think that because you know everything that happened that you are justified in your attacks because there is no doubt that "they" are all guilty.

You want to know the facts? The movie was already filmed, edited, completed, is ready to be distributed, no one is going to jail, the film makers did not break the law, Dakota was not harmed because she was prepared for the role and her mother provided support throughout the entire filming process, the film makers, parents, and actors did not do anything illegal and the movie is perfectly legal to be distributed, displayed, viewed, and owned.

Prove me wrong!!

You want to know about me? I live where the movie was filmed. I have talked to people who were on the set and witnessed everything with their own two eyes. I have been assured no one was harmed, no one was ever nude on the set, no one did anything that was illegal, the parents provided emotional support to the minors the entire time they were on the set, nothing they filmed was obscene, the director who you have attacked in your endless rants was trying to bring about a vision of a little girl who is abused and raped to bring attention to the issue of childhood abuse. I saw this reported on the local news and like you was outraged at the thought of a film like this being made but quickly realized most of the information was not correct and people like you were attacking the actors and parents without justification.

How many people have you talked to that were on the set? How many people have you talked to in local law enforcement that have investigated the film makers? Who is the source to confirm all your claims that they sexually exploited these minors? What did you personally see being filmed? How many times have you spoken to Dakota or her mom? Have you ever read the entire script? Do you know anything about this movie other than what you have read on blog sites?

I'm getting tire of beating this dead horse because it's clear you don't want to know the truth. You want to believe they did something wrong so you can continue your crusade and you somehow think you are going to change the world with your efforts.

Steve

Cynthia:

"Art" is a Hollywood term used for decades now to describe what most others would consider "pure filth".

Kampmeier's son was about 15 months old at the time.

I don't keep talking about this "other" rape scene. You do. This only leads me to suspect that there MAY be more to it than I thought before.

Your idea of "obscenity" and mine are obviously in considerable variance. So is your idea of a "credible source".

Dakota's "preparation" for this role and her mother's "support" are pointed issues in this whole sordid affair.

No (again, ad infinitum) this old , dilapidated excuse of "raising awareness" is a red herring. Depravity does not cure depravity. It only leads to more and worse.

Another red herring is the old "were you there?" refrain. Of course I wasn't. Neither were you. I follow the evidence I trust. Your "testimony" is culturally biased and therefore suspect.

That "director", who was also the writer and a producer, has a history of darksome and twisted plots and film projects revolving around child sex, senseless violence, anti-Christianity and, now, all of these combined with a savage anti-Southern prejudice. Deborah Kampmeier's own background only lends further credence to the witnesses' claims.

And I DO want to know the truth. All of it. It's you who are desperately attempting to obfuscate it with trite slogans, distracting on-the-side non-issues and personal attacks. You want to enable a sick agenda and will go to any lengths of intellectual dishonesty to do so. I want the whole truth and to protect our children from a new, developing threat to their lives and spirits.

Cynthia

"While making “Virgin” Kampmeier’s 15 month old daughter Sophia was on set at all times. As well as Dowell’s 8 month-old son."

I think we both got that one wrong but I'll check. Can't believe she had a 15 month old daughter on her first movie and a 15 month old son on her second movie.

("Art" is a Hollywood term used for decades now to describe what most others would consider "pure filth".)

That's your opinion not a fact.

"I follow the evidence I trust."

Evidence you get from blog sites? Only a fool would believe anything that's posted on these sites.

"So is your idea of a "credible source"

That's because you fail to provide a credible source only relay what you read online or on blog sites. It's clear these sources are not credible.

"film projects revolving around child sex, senseless violence, anti-Christianity and, now, all of these combined with a savage anti-Southern prejudice."

Where have you been for the past thirty years? Most of the movies and television shows produced have senseless violence, anti-Christianity, and anti-Southern prejudice. Lot's have also dealt with issues regarding child sex. Ever watch Lifetime channel? You really think your little crusade is going to change anything? Look around, no one cares, even Tre and Marc no longer post comments, no one does. This movie is getting released if you like it or not and nothing you do is going to change that.

The least you can do is stop your pointless attacks against the people involved because it only proves that's your only method of convincing people that they did something wrong. The fact is they didn't do anything illegal and no legal action is going to be taken so get over it.

It's clear that I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine. You think you know what happened from what you have read on blog sites and I think I know what happened from information provided by the people who were there. Only time will tell which one of us is right.

Steve

I've been right here the last thirty years, Cynthia. And longer.

As sorry as "Lifetime" tends to be (from what I've seen of it) and trite besides, I've never seen them show a graphic portrayal of child molestation. I've seen them deal with it and in a manner that I (like you, apparently!) found disgusting enough. But not this bad!

No, it's not "pointless". The point is that if films like "Hounddog" can be made with impunity, then the sexualization of children will continue at a greater pace than ever. If we allow child-porn to go mainstream, what will the social fallout be?

If you really cared for children as you claim, then you would be concerned as well. You'd be concerned about the crimes committed daily against children and how the popular culture has historically driven the level of those crimes. Instead, you rejoice in the degradation of a child you claim to care for and how her moral downfall is somehow uplifting.

Not much has been said recently because there is nothing new to work with. The news blackout continues. It will not always remain that way, though. Even if the lawyers and producers edit that film down to legality and release it without being prosecuted, the fact of what occurred on that set remains.

There will be accountability. Loopholes in the law will be closed. Citizens will demand that Hollywood's immorality no longer be allowed to put our children in peril. If we can't prosecute them for "Hounddog", then we'll use it's example as our case-in-point. And, in the process, we'll never let those directly responsible for it rest on their tarnished laurels. It will follow them constantly. I, among others, will see to it.

Cynthia

"I've never seen them show a graphic portrayal of child molestation."

Bastard out of Carolina was a made for tv movie displayed on Lifetime Channel. I suggest you watch it. The rape scene is very graphic.

"There will be accountability. Loopholes in the law will be closed. Citizens will demand that Hollywood's immorality no longer be allowed to put our children in peril."

FINALLY something we agree on. There are plenty of things to use in your condemnation of the movie. Using unproven information and attacking the actors isn't needed. I suggest you research the movie Tin Drum. All you need is one cop to arrest a theater owner and force the issue to be debated in front of the Supreme Court forcing them to set guidelines about what can and can not be in a movie. Most likely it's too late because as you said they may have edited it down to be legal.

Christoph is an 18 year old boy, he is just as innocent as the rest of the minors and as you say a victim. Your personal attacks against him pissed me off. I wanted you to feel the same pain and unfounded accusations. Leave the boy alone and I will leave you alone. Deal?

Steve

Dear Cynthia:

I've never seen "The Bastard Out Of Carolina" (or "Pretty Baby", for that matter), but I've read reviews on both. At least "Bastard" (which was also filmed near Wilmington!) didn't have child nudity. What happened on those sets in the process may be another story, as it was on "Hounddog's". "Hounddog" was not the first example of child sexualization in mainstream films. It is merely the latest and worst... and a harbinger of even worse to come.

By the way, "The Tin Drum" was a degenerate German film. It was pornography disguised with an anti-fascist message to give it an ovetone of legitimacy. In other words, an "art film". Like "Hounddog".

I wish I could take you up on your deal, Cynthia. Unfortunately, I can't. Like you, I don't consider an eighteen year old to be a true adult, whatever the legalities. However, the fact remains that Sanders was old enough to simulate sex on a fully lit and staffed movie set, for multiple takes and with violent abandon on the person of a twelve year old child.

Anyone who could do such a thing, an act only a small step away from the actual deed, is someone who is capable of anything and utterly dangerous. Every time I think of him (that cocky, sneering picture...!) sitting around with his college buddies, drinking beer and laughing about how he initiated sweet, little Dakota into "life's mysteries" for a paycheck...

If I was Dakota's father, I would never be able to rest knowing that he was running around free. I would make it a personal mission to see to it that the man who defamed my child in such a manner wouldn't be boasting about it anytime soon... if ever again.

Unchristian? Perhaps... but what loving father could do less? There comes a time when the most devout of us must reach for the sword with one hand and the Old Testament with the other. This is likely the most bitter of those times.

I find the fact that Christoph Sanders is not in jail on mutiple felony indictments (along with David Morse, Robin Wright, Deborah Kampmeier and the agents and parents of those children involved) to be a pathetic reflection of the legal and moral abyss that this country has fallen into. Sorry if that sounds a bit stilted, but it's true. Once again, somebody needs to be held accountable. No one should be able to profit from something like this and, thereby, encourage more of the same from others.

Cynthia

You are truely delusion and your obsession with this is unhealthy. Don't take this the wrong way but you need to seek proffesional help. I want you to call this number (713) 798-4856 and tell the doctor exactly what you just told me and relay to him the other statements you have made regarding the actors, parents, and film makers. I'm sure they will want to setup an appointment to deal with your anger management problems and delusion thoughts about this 12 year old girl and the other people in her life. The legal authorities who have looked into this did not find anything illegal and nothing he did on the set caused any harm to the actor playing the part of the victim. Your obsession has caused a warped view pertaining to the life of this girl and you have no idea how she will handle this experience. I agree the movie is a little distasteful but nothing to get this excited about. Before you try to turn this around and make out like the one who is delusional just remember I'm the one that keeps saying wait until more details are made available before making judgement. I truely believe your statements are harmful to her character and she or her family will not address you directly. I have maintained from the beggining that not enough information has not been made available to form the opinion that what they did was in any way harmful.

Call that number and tell them how you feel and repeat some of your statements and I am sure the experts will agree with me that you need help.

Steve

Dear Cynthia:

Thank you for your warm feelings of compassion as to the state of my mental health... but I'm afraid that I'm just too delusional to accept!

Unfortunately for your theory, other child and adult actresses have suffered lingering psychological troubles stemming from scenes less depraved (and from fewer of them!) than what this twelve year old girl was exposed to on that set. There is every reason for concern. Common sense alone should make that plain. Children are just not equipped to draw a firm line between on-screen characters and real life... especially when it comes to graphic sexual situations. I'm afraid for her; personally, if not professionally. Just like I would be (and am!) for any other child so exploited.

I would call other readers' attention to some other sites that, along with "Blue Line Radio", best explain the anti-"Hounddog" position:

1. "A Minor Consideration" (minororg.com): Paul Petersen's three-part essay, along with those of guest columnists, give a great summation of the pertinent facts, and from the standpoint of a dedicated child advocate and former child star. Paul understands better than most about Hollywood's "sexualization" of children and the dangers that "Hounddog" poses.

2. "Demand Justice For Child Sexual Exploitation in Films" (thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755): Robert Lacey is an activist from Spring Lake, North Carolina. He has put together many legal facts along with his personal summation. Please consider signing his online petition, directed at the State Attorney General.

3. "Blue Line Radio" (crime.blogs.com/tre/2006/08/...there are five threads on "Hounddog".) Check them all. Read Tre's commentaries, the attendant remarks (mine in particular!) and drop Tre a message on his "email me" icon.

4. Me!! I'm in this, too. Like most of us, I'm just one man alone, but there are very many of us out there who care about kids and the dangers they face from the culture of today. If enough of us contact enough friends, family and neighbors who care as well, things can happen.

Best wishes to all.

Steve

Dear Readers:

When referencing "A Minor Consideration" (minorcon.org), be sure to pay particulat attention to these columns:

1. "Pretending Leads to Reality"

2. "The 'Rape' of Dakota Fanning" (Parts 1,2 & 3)

3. "The Ethics of Show Business Kids" (by Jack Marshall)

Click "contents" on the home page. Also, please review Tre's remarks on the five threads on this site dealing with the "Hounddog" situation... as well as Rob Lacey's on "thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467880755".

Cynthia

Take a look at some REAL child molesters who molested REAL children. Cops, teachers, day care workers, priest, doctors, ect.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/25/DDGDQLUMCM1.DTL

A former priest molested kids in California parishes. Now he talks in a chilling documentary.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200661118025

A Macon County man will spend at least 61 years in prison for having sex with a boy and forcing the child to have sex with dogs.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4773729

We found more than 40 convicted sex offenders from San Jose on MysSpace when we cross-checked it with the Megan's Law list of rapists, child molesters and flashers. As you might imagine, the profiles on the two sites are quite different.

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/cgi/cover_story.pl?record=230

Coaches who molest: predators & opportunists

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-clohessy_06edi.ART.State.Edition1.3e1ded8.html

Stop pedophile priests who are fleeing from justice

http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2006/11/4/85842/9711

The Watchtower has a Pedophile Database with over 23,000 names on it. Due to laws protecting Religious organizations from squealing on members, they are not required to turn this database over to authorities.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/NEWS24/611100351/-1/NEWS

The State Board of Education plans on Tuesday to revoke the teaching certificates of five current or former priests who have been disciplined by their respective Roman Catholic dioceses following child molestation allegations.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/15809485.htm

Priests preying on children — a that story gets rudimentary coverage in the press, but rarely is investigated with the big picture in mind.

http://starbulletin.com/2006/10/20/news/story07.html

Honolulu Catholic Bishop Larry Silva is one of 178 American bishops named in a lawsuit that seeks disclosure of the names of 5,000 Catholic priests identified as child molesters.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/061027/indicted.shtml

‘Pastor’ indicted on molestation charge

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/oct/23/barron_collier_band_director_faces_15_years_sex_st/?local_news

Branson was the Barron Collier High School band director. The encounters online — there were several, the boy and later Branson told investigators — led to encounters in person.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53004

Now it's the principal's wife having sex
29-year-old woman allegedly had contact with male student on school trip

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/16035658.htm

Ex-teacher pleads guilty in porn case

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/16012145.htm

Former substitute teacher arrested on child molestation charge

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061107-9999-1m7carlos.html

Ex-music teacher to stand trial on molestation charges

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061104/NEWS/611040315/1006/SPORTS

Ex-teacher gets 12 years in two molestation cases

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/16047502.htm

After a three-year delay, a court has opened the way for pretrial investigations to begin in more than 100 lawsuits filed by people claiming they were sexually molested by Roman Catholic priests.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5141758,00.html

Archbishop Charles Chaput offered a settlement process to the 29 men and one woman who have filed lawsuits alleging they were sexually abused by priests employed by the archdiocese.

http://www.neoshodailynews.com/articles/2006/11/19/news/03court.txt

George Otis Johnston, the pastor of Grandview Valley Baptist Church in Granby, will be arraigned on eight charges Tuesday morning in McDonald County, including two first degree statutory sodomy counts, five second degree statutory sodomy counts, and three charges of child molestation.

http://www.sundayherald.com/58764

A US paedophile priest scandal that erupted in Boston in 2002 spread to almost every Catholic diocese in the country, with several priests being prosecuted and multimillion dollar payments made to scores of victims.

US church files have also revealed that some bishops repeatedly transferred priests accused of abusing minors to other parishes rather than reporting them to police.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/16/news/sandiego/10_03_0211_16_06.txt

More than 175 Catholic bishops named in child sex abuse lawsuit

________________________________________

Sexual deviants are allowed to molest children under the cover of the church, politicians molest children, cops molest children, teachers molest children, daycare workers molest children, and your biggest concern is acting out a rape scene in a movie? Seems like your priorities are not in the right place.

DEMAND JUSTICE FROM THE CHURCH AND PUT THESE REAL CHILD MOLESTERS BEHIND BARS!!!!!

Steve

Cynthia:

All you're doing is proving my point. Of course I'm aware of these things and, like you, utterly appalled by them. I am firmly in favor of prosecuting verminous child predators to the fullest extent of the law. When adults use their position of authority over children to perversely victimize them, they commit the most despicable of all crimes. Haven't I said this enough?

And just where do many of these creatures come by their perverted whims? From where to they derive their inspiration to "creatively" despoil the young and the helpless. Bad company? Poor parenting and guidance?

Yes. That, of course. But there's much more. In this day and age, with so many new forms of communication, parents find themselves overwhelmed by and/or ignorant of the many ways by which their children can be corrupted and exploited for profit. This evil has always been with us, but the opportunities for pursuing it by the perverse and unscrupulous have never been greater.

"Hounddog" is symptomatic of this. It stands on the vanguard of an ongoing movement in the popular culture to sexualize children and, thereby, profit from the desires of the depraved. Unfortunately, this sort of thing also encourages that behavior in real life. It acts not only on the already twisted minds of adult predators, but on the impressionable minds of the young who thereby derive a warped view of "normalcy". Thus, the problem snowballs. It has been thus for the last forty years.

Now we arrive at the ultimate spectre... the virtual legitimization of child pornography in the "mainstream" cinema. This film represents a bold step in that direction, not a "baby step" as has occured so often before. If it succeeds and if it profits (as all cheaply-made sex films will), then the unwillingness of legal authority to uphold even the existing child protective laws of this country will be starkly revealed. More of the same will follow and in all venues. In fiction... and in real life. The history of crime in this country since the legalization of pornography is plain and clear on this point.

And this is the especially heartbreaking significance. They couldn't have done this without Dakota. No other child actress had anything approaching her prominence. For that reason alone, people (and children) will find their way to seeing it; not just the punks and perverts. Her name will attract children like honey. And what will they see? What conclusions will their developing minds draw?

Yes, Cynthia, my priorities are definitely in order. I'm just one man alone. I can't attempt to correct every isolated outrage committed against the innocent. What I CAN do, however, is direct what resources I have at a fundamental source of the overall problem. In other words, I believe in digging out the roots of the weeds, not just mowing the tops.

The sexual exploitation of children as a root cause of depravity is a subject that is "politically incorrect" and thereby far too little addressed, much less acted upon. Certainly, it's not by vested Hollywood interests and the anti-traditional politicians who take their money. That, however, means nothing to me. Here I can, just possibly, make a difference (and, with God's help, a big one) for the moral and physical safety of American children.

The game is won by checkmating the king, not by taking out a few pawns. The pawns, however, help. Therefore, Cynthia, I encourage you to direct your attentions in the directions you have indicated and may God bless your endeavors. Every little bit helps. Allow me to pursue mine, though. The lives and spiritual health of three child actors is important too, as is those of so many other kids whose lives stand to be jeopardized through the heartless and obscene exploitation of Cody, Isabelle and Dakota.

May God protect those three children and, through them, all the rest.

Cynthia

The legal authorities determined it was not child pornography. It will have artistic value and is not obscene thus what they did was in no way illegal. The legal authorities did their job by upholding the film makers right to free expression even if it violates your paticular moral judgement.

Religious people want to dictate what others can see on television and movies, what others can read, what others can do with their life, and how others should live. Sounds extremist and down right fascist, doesn't it? Yet these are the things you hear the Religious Right denouncing and attacking every day. What they really want is control and power over everything we see, hear, do, and think. They pass it off as "protecting children," or "keeping us morally upright," or some other nonsense. They actually believe that we already are a christian nation, when in fact we are supposed to be a secular one. The thing they all seem to forget is this country was founded by secularists: The first 6 Presidents of the United States weren't even Christians, they were Diests. One of our most beloved Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, didn't believe in the Christian God at all, he merely paid lip service to it because he had to as President. All "organized religion" does is add fuel to the fire of an already corrupt and damaged system.

There is a danger to all people in this country if religious people are allowed to control what can and can not be in movies, on tv, in books, or in the media. For way too long the organized church has had control over these aspects of our lives and this has lead to the overall deprivaty that is rampant in our society. The church has been covering up abuse and keeping it out of the public eye. It's time to bring awareness to abuse and the people responsible.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.


Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Everybody must have a fair chance to state his or her case. This refers to criminal cases as well as civil disputes, as when one person sues another. A public hearing is one in which the defendent is present and the evidence is presented before him or her as well as his or her family and community.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This covers the press, but it also covers the way you express yourself. Whether on TV or radio, movies, in books or the internet, you should not be censored, should have access to information and should be able to share your ideas and opinions with others.

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. You have the right to share in your community’s arts and sciences, and any good they do. Your works as an artist, writer, or a scientist should be protected, and you should be able to benefit from them.

Becky Singleton

Cynthia all your rights point to what? Means what?

Here is what my right is, if someone comes into my house and threatens me I can shoot and kill them, no trial, no hearing, no defense lawyer, my word against a dead man's.

I also have a right to protest and speak out against anything I want for whatever reason I so choose. If enough people agree with me then I can make up my own laws and Bill of Rights.

Dakota Fanning can do all the movies she wants, take off her clothes, star in a XXX version of the Wizard of Oz or dress up like an alterboy and give a priest oral sex I don't care. But arrogant know it alls like you make me want to smack the ever living crap out of you. At least Steve has some Christian based spiritual reason for his stand, you seem to be just saying crap to hear yourself talk. Why is that? What's in it for you?

Cynthia

If someone comes into your house and threatens to cause harm of course you can protect yourself. That was a stupid comparison and had nothing to do with the conversation. The problem with this whole debate is the people FORCING their beliefs on others and using it justify the spreading of rumors, lies, and making personal attacks against the people involved. Steve has yet to provide a credible source to confirm that these film makers have done anything illegal. The fact remains that they did not break the law and as American citizens are entitled to due process and protection from the types of baseless attacks by Steve and others. If people don't stand up to the minority that thinks they can control everyone else then we as Americans will loose all of our rights and will be controlled by just a few. Steve is an arrogant know it all that thinks he knows what others are thinking and how others will be affected emotionally.

You should read some of the things he has been saying on blog sites. Pointless accusations, rumors, and some down right lies. What gives him the authority? Because he is a christian he can say whatever he wants?

"If enough people agree with me then I can make up my own laws and Bill of Rights"

That's the problem. People like you and Steve think you can make up your own set of rules and laws but that's not how it works in this country and people like me will stand up against you every step you take. It's the duty of every American to stand up and protect the rights we have been given or they will all be taken away.

If you, Steve, or anyone else wants to boycott the movie, protest the theaters, contact your elected officials and get new laws enacted then I'm with you 100%. If you think you can take the law into your own hands and make the determination that you know what is best for the rest of us then others will stand up and fight back.

This started out as a stupid debate about a movie and the fact that most of what was known was unproven. Gossip and rumors without any credible evidence of wrongdoing but it's grown into a debate about rights and protection of our laws. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you people have eyewitnesses willing to tesify in court, credible evidence that a law was broken, and clear indications that the film makers exploited kids then present your evidence and debate the issue in a proper public forum such as a court where the accused can defend themselves. Until then they are entitled every protection set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and should be protected from your attacks. If you don't agree with me then you shouldn't consider yourself an American.

Steve

Dear Cynthia:

In a nutshell- tripe!

1. Those presidents you mentioned were not deists. That is becoming an old, worn-out lie. Their own writings prove they were not. Read the Federalist Papers.

2. Depravity stems from a lack of Christian morality, not from it.

3. I'm not a lawyer and this is not a courtroom. I'm pursuing justice as a private citizen who believes in protecting the innocent. The evidence is there. The will to pursue it is not. That's where we come in. Those children deserve justice and it is being denied them.

4. The Constitution was never intended to protect degenerate behavior, especially that which is exploitative of our children. Cloaking it in the spurious claim of "artistic freedom" is an old dodge and is without moral basis. It has long been a euphemism for depravity and rightfully so.

5. It is not a matter of my forcing my personal beliefs on anyone. That's all on your side. I'm defending the existing one against those who would pervert it. The Bill of Rights also entails the responsibilities of free citizens in it's exercise. This is what secular progressives would deny. A society based on "rights" without attendant moral responsibility- toward each other, toward their precious young and all in the Grace of God- is one that is descending into decadence... and ultimate extinction.

Standing up for truth, justice and the protection of our children IS American. It doesn't get any more American than that. To allow our nation's debasement at the hands of manipulative corruptors is not.

Steve

Dear Becky:

I agree in general principle. However, it must be remembered that Dakota is a twelve year old child and under the guidance and authority of adults. That those adults have horrendously misused their perogatives is the basis for this quest of justice.

It's only a small step from her "performance" in "Hounddog" to the one that you describe. Indeed; should that movie be released, what other kinds of roles will be available to her? What a dismal conclusion to a life and career that once held so much promise for her and inspiration for so many of her young peers!

Cynthia

Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

____________________________________________

The Federalist Papers do not specifically address the religious beliefs of the founders. That's your own interpretation.

"Depravity stems from a lack of Christian morality" OK explain how so many priest, preachers, and pastors have been molesting kids for hundreds of years and why the church has covered up the abuse and protected them from punishment? This is not something new and has been going on in the church for a long time. Only recently have people come forward to expose this abuse.

"I'm pursuing justice as a private citizen" Making unfounded accusations, determining the mental state of people you never met, and making the judgement you know what is best for others is your idea of justice?

The Constitution is intended to protect everyone in this country. You made the judgement that it is degenerate behavior and you made this judgement without viewing one frame of film.

"The Bill of Rights also entails the responsibilities of free citizens in it's exercise." I agree with this statement but it also protects people from the type of attacks against their character and honour. If they were charged with a crime then I would support your crusade but no one has been charged with any crimes have they? That means they are innocent of any wrongdoing, doesn't it? Moral judements don't hold up in a court of law.

To be guilty of a crime a jury must view ALL of the evidence, listen to eyewitness accounts, and be instructed on the laws in question. Until this happens they are innocent.

You know I'm not going to back down until the movie is released and everyone knows you have been making a mountain out of an anthill. I hope it gets released soon and more people start talking about child abuse and more people like me look at the abuse at the hands of the church and more of your religious leaders find themselves behind bars. That would be true justice in my eyes....

Steve

Dear Cynthia:

By calling Jefferson a "Christian deist", you're hedging your bets. He was an Episcopal and founded the University of Virginia under Anglican auspices. As to any personal, non-Scriptural ideas or beliefs, that's open to interpretation. That out-of-context quote you offered might have been something that I wrote!

The ongoing liberal attacks on the Catholic Church for the terrible depredations of a few is getting tiresome. The greatest reason that it happened in the first place is (with grim irony) that the American Catholic Church is one of the most "progressive" branches worldwide. When you court favor with avowed homosexuals (this being the politically correct thing to so, Scripture notwithstanding) then this is what you can expect.

You don't put children under the authority of known perverts of any stripe. When you do, you risk tragedy. The Boy Scouts realized that... and were lambasted by the media and struck off the list by United Way. Remember the 2000 National Democrat Convention?... when a BSA color guard was booed off the stage?

Ironically, that was also Dakota's first appearance on national TV! You've probably seen that picture of her doing a fluffy dance routine with some other kids. That was, of course, before she joined the Girl Scouts. They, by the way, have no problem with deviants as scoutmasters (mistresses? genderbenders?). It's only a matter of time before some American Catholic-style scandal erupts there. Tragedies are probably ongoing as we speak.

Naturally, I have not viewed anything of the film. Nor has anyone beyond the bowls of Full Moon Films' editing room. Once again, I emphasize that the greatest concern is one that you seem fundamentally unable to grasp. What happened on the set in the process of filming is the reality... not the edited film and the "finished product". What children were led to do and what was done to them in that process IS that "fundamental". And to this, I DO apply moral judgement.

You speak of character and honor. To a good American and to Christians, those words mean something. To the people you refer to- nothing. Their previous deeds, their own darksome pasts, bespeak of this. "Honor" is a word that progressives sneer at. The philosophy of moral relativism that they follow rejects any such notion. In Hollywood, no other following is allowed. "Hounddog" and the defamation of children as recorded on that heartbreaking screenplay was the inevitable result.

Cynthia

Why would you center your attacks against the Catholic Church? The links I provided included all different religions. It's not just a few it's THOUSANDS of church members that have abused children. It's not something that just started in the last forty years since movies have dealt with these issues. This problem goes back THOUSANDS of years since the church was first formed. It's not just Christian church members because it includes other religions in other parts of the world. This has continued because religions are allowed to keep these things secret. The movie The Boys of St. Vincent was released in 1992 and that lead to the end of the media blackout regarding abuse by the Catholic Church. Your church leaders tried to have that movie banned also for obvious reasons just as they try to ban any movie that brings into question anything bad regarding the church.

"Nor has anyone beyond the bowls of Full Moon Films' editing room."

Your wrong because the legal authorities that investigated this viewed all of the scenes in question and made the determination that it wasn't illegal, pornographic, or obscene.

"What happened on the set in the process of filming is the reality.."

That's where we have issues. It is still not confirmed that they did anything wrong. Go back up to the top of the page and read the comments by 4corners. Go back to the nosnoops site and read the comments by Kevin. Go back to all the other blogs and read comments by people who were there, the same ones you claim are unwilling to talk. They have been talking but you completely discount everything they have said. You only believe what Tre and Marc have reported but most of it was nothing but rumors and gossip. Most of the story they reported has turned out not to be true. Even you can't deny that. Most of the things you thought you knew about this have turned out not to be true. Don't make me bring up the "other" rape scene, if you believed that crap then you will believe anything.

My obvious attempts at distraction have worked because you haven't been posting the personal attacks like before. Even you have come to realize that wasn't getting anywhere. Give it another week or so and your theory of the media blackout will be broken. All of the key players in this drama will be making a public statement. Then you will see that you have been wrong about so much. Dakota will start promoting web in a couple of weeks and you will see she hasn't changed one bit. The premiere of the movie will be annouced and you will get to read reviews disproving all your other theories and have a better idea about the storyline and the elements of the film. Your going to find out why the media hasn't jumped all over this story because there wasn't anything to report. Sure there is still going to be controversy. More people are going to be talking about rape and child abuse. That's a good thing.

The film makers said it would bring awareness to child abuse. The movie hasn't even been released yet and it has already achieved that goal. The debate about the film makers or the characters did bring awareness to the issue and will continue to do so after it's released.

Steve

Dear Cynthia:

You're trying to misrepresent me again. I was not attacking the Catholic Church! The abuses that occured in certain dioceses were well publicized and the criticisms that I mentioned were made first by Catholic laymen. As a Christian myself (although Protestant) I look closely at those things when they happen to know the reason why.

Inevitably, unworthy (to say the least!) people can infiltrate the best of institutions for the worst of reasons. Here, the problem was compounded by the fear of negative publicity. That is an intolerable mindset when the safety of children, whatever the other consequences, should be paramount.

For much the same reason, this has happened elsewhere. In the public schools, for example. Right here in the Houston area, a pedophilic teacher was shunted off between four local districts; none of which passed on to the other that this man had a "problem". Then he was caught molesting a young boy. Only THEN was action taken.

Modern educators, like all too many clergy (and not all Catholic!) fear any criticism that might undermine their coveted positions. They especially fear any that deal with sexual deviance because of ideological peer pressure. Again; remember what happened with the Boy Scouts! A progressive must remain ideologically pure at all times or risk the wrath of his fellows. To this end, the lives and safety of children are too often seconded.

Once again, it is known that any local investigation into "Hounddog" has been half-hearted at best and for the reasons that I and Mr. Benson have already explained at great length. Yes, I'd believe Blue Line's information and give greater credence to their opinions then I would to any lone blogger who gives uncorroborated statements online. In particular; those who have already established their sociopolitical bias.

Blue Line has a public record. "Kevin" does not. "Alex", who presented the story of the David Morse molestation scene, had at least two backups, but they were dubious. In any case, because the story was so extraordinary, I put a higher standard of proof on it and still rate it only as "possible".

How many times must I tell you this, Cynthia? Why do you obsess on that story so much? Is there something to it after all? "Methinks thou doth protest too much."!!

Cynthia: There HAS been a media blackout. An outrageous one. We both know that. We both know, too, that the filmmakers and Dakota's handlers have not been idle all these months. Starting on December 8th, Dakota will sally forth on what will undoubtedly be the first of many promotionals on TV.

When she does, she will be mainly placed in controlled interviews where the mention of "that other movie" will be highly discouraged of the show hosts as a prerequisite. She will also be heavily coached... just in case someone slips, balks or if she's asked an impromptu question in public (as happened at the CMT Giants event). From that latter, we already know she's been prepared with a standard, short and dismissive answer. However, if someone balks "big time" and asks her some tough, pointed questions... well, we'll see.

As for that last part of your message, I can only say this. Cynthia; you are living in an impossible dream world of your left-wing views spurred on by an enormous conceit. Apparently you think that my whole life revolves around answering your increasingly insipid and deceitful commentaries.

I work for a living. I have responsibilities to my family, my neighbors and my fellow citizens. And the Holy Days are coming up. When I have the time, I spend it mainly on research. Time for commentary comes last.

I'm seeking the truth for the sake of endangered children. Your quest is for the ego embellishment and for the sake of your radical causes. I believe in kids before causes, Cynthia.

And that snide little bit about the filmmakers "achieving their goal" in "bringing awareness" only proves how intellectually bankrupt you've become. My awareness, like that of so many others, was already there. Why do you think I've spent all this precious time at it? I... and others?

We ARE aware. That's why we've taken up arms against "Hounddog" and the ongoing sexualization of children in the popular culture. These movie-makers are not a cure. They lie at the heart of the problem itself. For that reason, they must and WILL be brought to justice.

The comments to this entry are closed.