The main stream of the men’s rights movement is not worried about men’s sexual freedom. Notable exceptions are the antifeminist and sites linked in his right side bar.
The following post is about the internal rift between the father’s rights main wing of MRA, and the few true men’s rights activists that want to free men from persecution for normal male sexuality.
Google "Paul Elam jury nullification" 1 2.3 4 6 7 You find Paul Elam at avoiceformen would want all of these forcible rapists set free, because in today’s climate they can get no due process. I thought he was pretty courageous to suggest jury nullification, because really, men can not get due process when accused of rape. Most likely Paul wants to make a provocative statement, to cast light on unjust *rape laws.
But I wonder:
Does Paul Elam’s Jury Nullification apply only to violent sex offenders?
The rest of the sex offenders also suffer from lack of due process . Rarely their "crimes" are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Non-forcible *rape, or child abuse, reported long after the fact are hard to prove with good corroborating evidence.
I just wonder if Paul Elam would also want to nullify their juries. After all, *rape is rape is rape, even in Paul Elam’s view.
Would Paul Elam want to free only the alleged violent rapists through jury nullification, but
- help all underage statutory rapists who have sex with *consenting girl friends nullifying juries?
- suggest jury nullification for Stuart Hall and Jimmy Saville, if that were possible?
- protect alleged child abusers with jury nullification, like in “The Hunt”: false accusation of child sexual abuse. A movie review (Disclaimer)
- imprison all men who merely possess child porn. Do they enjoy due process, that it needs to be proven that they actively downloaded CP, that they actually looked at it? Of course, the voodoo theory need not be proven:
Alleging child abuse has become fashionable in divorce (SAD, sexual abuse in divorce). Child abuse hysteria has ruined many men and women’s lives, due to elicited uncorroborated accusations by little children. Would Paul Elam actively protect these people?
Is jury nullification only for those accused of violent sex crimes?
Probably, Paul Elam at avoiceformen is concerned with non-violent *consensual date *rapists of over 18 year old college girls.
But not with those accused of non-violent victimless sex crimes. Human-Stupidity was banned from avoiceformen for pleading mercy for young men facing a decade in prison for having sex with their 16 year old girlfriends #4, #5.and for pleading mercy for men imprisoned for child porn like in these cases
- Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them
- Jailed for possession of video of himself masturbating when he was 12. Another victim of child porn laws faces minimum 2 year jail
The most enthusiastic consent of a 15 year old girl would not sway avoiceformen or other men’s rights activists to propose jury nullification to help the boyfriend escape his fate in prison for *consensual *rape.
Paul Elam’s jury nullification is only for forcible rapists not for those who are accused of non-violent victimless sex offenses like teenage sex or mere possession of so called child porn.
9 thoughts on “Paul Elam’s Jury Nullification applies only to VIOLENT sex offenders?”
Could you do me a solid and look for any time here where I’ve ever said something bad about a fellow anti-feminist (not counting Eric who, as you can see, has a man-crush on me)or another anti-feminist blog?
I’m sure you can do a search and find comments I’ve left on here 3, maybe even 4 years ago. Make up your own mind – I personally think this Eric dude has mental issues.
This is an old story.
Anytime anybody challenges the AVfM party-line, Clarence the Troll immediately pops up on their blog and tries to derail them and sow dissension among the commenters. It’s a pattern he’s followed recently at the Antifeminist, Men-Factor, Eivind Berge’s Blog, and elsewhere.
The guy’s a lying shill: just ignore him.
Probably Paul Elam’s policy to avoid such problematic topics?
That’s most of the reason (and only partly defensible)why I feel you were banned.
That is, you seemed to bring the topic up in almost every thread that you were on including threads that didn’t seem to have anything to do with it. Now, I might be wrong – I’m only going with my impressions. But yeah, I think there was a legitimate political calculus made that trying to handle some of the stuff that you were talking of is currently a no-go, at least in the USA and might hinder some of the stuff they are doing that is important like fighting false restraining orders and the overuse of such. Personally, I think most of your opinions are spot on when it comes to this stuff and SOME of them could be worked on now but A Voice for Some Men isn’t about to expend any capital on this whatsoever.
The other reason you were banned was you got on Paul Elams oversensitive nerves, I’m sure.
I was banned for daring to mention that maybe it wasn’t kosher to try and use the Boston tragedies to gin up some kind of ‘disparate impact’ argument about how there are too many male terrorists in the USA arrested.
I’d participated on many threads and either been supportive, silent, or passed information along, but apparently this one thread where I dared disagree and the fact I had disagreed with some parts (not all) of one of Typhonblue’s videos(wherein the woman tried to argue that for their entire 500 year plus existence the Jannisaries did nothing but serve the Sultan and HE did nothing but serve the harem) was enough to get me branded an enemy.
Whether this is because Elam got a panty shoved up his asscrack (he descended into that thread wherein I was banned to call me names) or because I dared criticize one of the ladies (and actually for those who hate the “lovely sheilas” I will say the only attractive one is JudgyBitch, though I think GWW used to be a bit above average and I have respect for her and JB) I cannot say.
The place has a bunch of people with limited patience for even the slightest dissent and a few commenters who like to act like any dissenter is a fifth columnist.Ironically, those who are the quickest to accuse are often the ones who are really interested in starting trouble for the movement, or, who at best want to use it solely for their own ends.
Anyway, it’s not a dishonor to be banned from A Voice for Men and it doesn’t mean much of anything. Also it was real shitty that they don’t even link to your blog anymore, at least that I could find. They still ‘mention’ Angry Harry from time to time in the comments and such – he hasn’t been totally ‘disappeared’ and isn’t totally hated – but they don’t link to him either.
I’ll support them when it comes to things like restraining orders but I’m going to be very careful about any help I give them that seems to be helping the abuse industry. Most of the rest of the heavy lifting is going to have to be done by other MRA’s and activist organizations, esp. when it comes to male sexual freedom. They might eventually be good for the “child porn” aspects of it as they are mostly against censorship, but I doubt they’ll be of much use in anything else from offender registries on down.
AVM bemoaned the lack of unity, the fight between MRA. I dared to point out that exactly AVM and Paul Elam were the cause of disunity. They actively fought MRA that defend men’s sexual rights and liberty. That defend men against arrest due to arbitrary feminist anti-male laws.
Paul Elam himself actively fights a group of MRA that includes Human-Stupidity, the Antifeminist, some Pickup Artists and a few more reasonable people.
And at the same time he publishes an article pretending to be in favor of unity of MRA.
This is just pure deception and falsehood. Paul Elam himself splits MRA, bans those MRA that agree with most of Paul Elam’s topics of fathers rights, but that also want to protect men against arrest for possession of their own videos (when they were 12 years old and took indecent videos of themselves). Or against arrest for sex with consenting willing teenagers and future spouses (well, after 7 years in prison).
So this was a thread where my comments were totally befitting. Maybe most did not even understand that my topic was exactly to the point. Paul Elam’s reaction proved my point. He himself divides the mens rights movement. He protects only certain men: fathers.
He does not protect sexually active men who don’t want to check ID and do background checks on any sexual partner that looks under 30 years old.
Thank you for giving me your perspective on what happened.
Maybe it’s just that it’s Paul Elam’s Toybox and he doesn’t like anyone disturbing any of his crumbly intellectual or political sandcastles.
I don’t know though about ‘actively fights’? What do you mean by that? Doesn’t he just ban – as he did you and me? Far as I know he only ‘officially expelled’ (snark) that one dude… I think Chris Keys. I haven’t seen him go other places and diss , say, Angry Harry, and like you and theantifeminist he’s had his issues with the redditers.
Oh well, his personality is not as important as what activism he does – and what activism he and his organization refuse to do.
Anyone from AVM will comment?
Only those banned at avoiceformen care to reply?
Probably Paul Elam’s policy to avoid such problematic topics?
Wow. This post sure didn’t get many comments. Just Eric the Awful.
Here’s a clue, Eric. “Nullification” is done at INDIVIDUAL trials when one or more jurors refuses to convict DESPITE the evidence or lack thereof. Jurors don’t ever formally ‘nullify’ laws, BUT if enough jurors in individual cases refuse to convict laws can sometimes be informally nullified in that way in that prosecutors will sometimes refuse to bring charges if they know they are unlikely to get a conviction.
I’m amazed you don’t even understand the concept of jury nullification. Maybe you aren’t American. In any case, I recommend the Google for you so you can inform you rather feeble brain about what Jury Nullfication actually consists of. I wouldn’t want you to take MY word after all.
Now as for cleaning your filthy mouth of lies and slanders, well, momma shoulda used the soap long ago.
P.S. By the way, I was banned at A Voice For Men. I’ll leave you to continue to imagine me and Paul Elam being some kind of ‘really close’ buddies if you get my drift. I’m sure it gets you ‘hot’ at night and makes you a bit less lonely.
Clarence the Troll writes:
“I’m not going into any detail about why you were banned at AVfM…it would only derail things”
Here we go again. LOL
You and Elam are both living in a fantasy world. When was the last time in US history a jury actually nullified a law? It doesn’t happen, and won’t until a Constitutional Amendment allows for it.
I’m not going to get into why you were banned at AVFM, because I only partly agree with you and it would be a derail.
What I will say is that I agree with you that Elam’s policy is a bit backward IF he is talking about jury nullification for violent rapists and yet allowing people to be imprisoned for consensual sex with teens, or because they have drawings of underage sex.
Here’s what I’d do:
A. I’d never apply a ‘jury nullification’ policy to ‘real rape’ trials. Now I’d lean acquittal in he-said/she-said things as I’m well aware of how rape shield and other such laws can be misused. But if the defendant was caught in a lie or if there was physical evidence of force outside sex then I’d probably convict.
B. Most of the rest of the stuff , short of making visual (photo, video) porn of pre-adolescents having sex would be nullified by me, provided the norms of good sex as laid down in BDSM (safe,sane consensual) were followed. Certainly I’d send no one to jail for fictional drawings or illustrations no matter what.
I’m esp incensed at 4 things:
1. The fact most sex laws are ‘strict liability’.Good faith is always a defense in my book.
2. Any laws that criminalize teenagers having sex
3. Laws about ‘sexting’.
4. The vast overdefinition of ‘child porn’. And I should add that no matter the age of the child/teen mere nudity would NEVER be enough ‘proof’ of ill-intent for me.