Weren't you talking about him when you said:
. . .or were you just posting something off topic in your own thread?
There is certainly no evidence that he is a "criminal".
Lets get this straight for the record:
You are claiming that
(1) the Director of X-MEN, , although he was named a boy-molester
just like the thread title says, (which clearly means its an appropriate title)
is entirely innocent of boy-molesting.
This is quite different than "innocent until proven guilty" or
the
presumption of innocence for a particular crime, in a criminal case.
(2) You are claiming there is
no evidence against the Director of X-MEN,
even though there was clear evidence presented by the accuser,
which is legal evidence and was entered into the US court system in a lawsuit.
(3) You yourself are claiming I falsely accused him of child-molesting,
without any evidence. Suppose I had accused him of child-molesting:
That is precisely what both the civil and criminal courts allow
as perfectly legal, and exactly how charges and lawsuits are brought forward.
Its the ONLY legal avenue to open a case, unless the police
independently charge someone with an offence.
So I would say that since making an accusation to someone is always
the very first step for a victim or witness to perform in order to activate
the legal system, it can't be immoral or illegal to do so,
nor can it be illegal or immoral to report those events.
The legal system also allows accusers, witnesses and victims to stop at
any time, refuse to testify, or drop lawsuits independently and settle out
of court. Since this is legal, (and is the ONLY legal way to end a suit),
it can't be immoral or illegal to do so,
and it can't be illegal or immoral to report on it in the public interest.
Although accusing someone may open any accuser, witness, or victim to
counter charges or counter-lawsuits, which is also perfectly legal,
it can't be illegal or immoral to accuse someone of a crime.
It is only illegal or immoral to bear false witness in an actual court case,
or to commit some form of slander or libel against someone, if it can
be shown that the accusations were both untrue and damaging.
Since none of those cases apply here, I submit that:
(1) I haven't claimed
Bryan Singer was
found guilty in a criminal or civil court
of the charges (child molestation).
(2) I haven't claimed to be a witness in any allegations.
(3) I myself haven't been found guilty of slander or libel,
or any other malicious or false statements in regard to anyone.
(4)
You have no evidence at all that I have done anything immoral or illegal,
in reporting the facts and allegations and the EVIDENCE regarding this case.
-------------------------------
I also submit that:
(1) You don't understand the purpose and scope of the
"Presumption of Innocence".
(2) You don't understand the definition of
"evidence" legally and morally.
(3) You don't understand the definition of
"slander" or "libel".
(4) You don't understand the
freedom of the press and the
constitutional right to report to the public court findings and evidence
already in the public domain.
-----------------------
Finally,
are you seriously claiming that the accused Bryan Singer
in this case was actually innocent of the crimes he has been accused of?
Even if the accuser/victim has withdrawn both the suit and the charges,
and settled out of court or otherwise ended his personal pursuit of justice,
out of shame or terror, some
very DAMNING EVIDENCE remains:
(1) Mark Collins Rector, one of the group of pedophiles
that was accused of molesting this actor in question, was convicted
in 2004 of trafficking children across state lines for the purpose of sex.
He's now a registered sex offender
All the copious evidence so far available suggests that the child-actor
was telling the truth about the parties and the forced sex,
and the homosexual child molestation.
The fact that he abandoned the civil suit out of fear or shame is irrelevant
to
the large amount of evidence for the existence of the child-sex ring in question.
Finally, I'd say that obviously
Bryan Singer was a close associate of all the named child-molesters,
and that he himself has not denied that this is the case.
He and all the others have been named repeatedly in the criminal cases which
were carried out in court, and are part of the evidence entered into the public record.
