Gothamist: Roman Polanski Wins Libel Case Against Vanity Fair

Polly Baguette

Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:50:11 -0500

Well Rina, did you?? I certainly can't surmise from what you've written. But apparently Graydon Carter and the rest of the Vanity Fair crew didn't for sure. I guess they just write about boffing teen Greek royalty on huge boats, they never did it themselves. Pity.

la_depressionada

Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:38:35 -0500

poor rina -- never had wild and misspent youth. tant pis.

dar

Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:42:33 -0500

Tim :) France and UK are in a union Im told. Clinton testified by video for blowjob trial. VF is a multinational company. Polanski is interesting artist. Polanski is nympo. Potential sex + qualudes = youth unimportant. Indian brides often below 13 yrs young. French say: Old enough to bleed Old enough to breed.

dar

Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:42:33 -0500

bob denver

Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:30:16 -0500

The British judicial system screwed up. They shouldn't have allowed this case to go forward. The Vanity Fair editorial office is in the U.S., the incident in the story took place in the U.S. RP is in France. Then to cap off the nonsense the Brits allow RP to testify via videolink for the first time in Brit. history. The Brit judicial system really bent over forward for Uncle Roman.

Untitled

Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:37:34 -0500

What I find utterly irritating about the man is his repeated claims of fear of returning to the United States. He has put off what would be a vastly easy trial case (victim forgives him, his wife was murdered by the most famous cult leader in America...) for the plain hysterics of it all and he is less capable of fulfilling a jail sentence than ever. Any pleas for due process by him should be taken with a brick of salt.

bob denver

Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:51:03 -0500

Chinatown sucked too. Always did. Always will.

Tim N.

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:20:46 -0500

Again, not to excuse RP, but did anyone know that the victim in this case, who is now a housewife in Hawaii, said that RP should be pardoned? That she was a star-struck kid and that she forgives him? Check out: http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html Despite what Bob may think of me, I am not in the habit of doing 13-year-olds (not since I was 14 anyway)nor am I in the habit of defending those who do. But the facts are the facts... something Graydon Carter should remember.

Tim N.

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:06:50 -0500

Bob... um... no. Go back and re-read, please.

bob denver

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:04:32 -0500

If only you were thirteen year old girls you could go celebrate vindication of character with uncle Roman.

Tim N.

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:52:16 -0500

Dar... couldn't have said it better myself.

dar

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:37:32 -0500

A magazine which said he propositioned a woman shortly after his wife was murdered in 1969. Mr Polanski had been libelled "for the sake of a lurid anecdote". The magazine unsuccessfully argued the incident did happen.Polanski won. I'll certainly not argue with anyone over RP's character. But that doesn't make it okay to do things against him that you wouldn't want to see done to others. Two wrongs don't make a right!!!

Jake Giddes

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:09:12 -0500

Not being an expert regarding either, it still seems to be a matter---as someone points out above---of the difference between ethics/morality and the rule of law. Capone murdered, destroyed businesses, sold alcohol illegally..and what did they get him on...tax evasion. This doesn't excuse Polanski, but the 70s were a far different time than today...particularly in Hollywood. For those who haven't...skim "Hollywood Babylon" to see how Tinseltown has played by a different set of rules since it was first founded...

LR

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:25:36 -0500

I think the point is, that RP is choosing when and how the law can work for him, and ethically this is what is questionable and under scrutiny; VF should not (and arguably does not need to) fabricate or mislead readers with inaccurate information about RP, however, why should VF be fanancially libel to RP? How about a retraction or correction in an upcoming issue?

Rina

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:51 -0500

No, it doesnt give Carter a free pass to publish smut. BUT, at the same time, a person unwilling to observe a judicial system certainly shouldnt be allowed to then depend on it once he deems it necessary --it is completely hypocritical. If Roman can't respect a court than no court should respect him. The judge shouldn't hand over money to Roman until he himself plays by the system and agrees to own up to his own actions.

Tim N.

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:09:14 -0500

First of, we all know Roman's a scumbag. So that we're clear on that. But was this case about what he did or what VF did? With all the things Polanski's done in his life, why did VF have to make something up? And because RP is a bad guy, does that give Graydon Carter (not a rapist, granted, but no saint himself) the right to say anything about him that's juicy in print? I'll certainly not argue with anyone over RP's character. But that doesn't make it okay to do things against him that you wouldn't want to see done to others. Two wrongs don't make a right.

bob denver

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:59:04 -0500

whoa, Tim N. - little easy on Roman aren't ya.

bob denver

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:15:31 -0500

Mia has a soft spot for child molestors. Graydon understates giving a quallude to a 13 year old then violently raping her when he describes that Polanski "slept with a 13 year old."

Tim N.

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:14:58 -0500

Whoa, Gothamist! Little rough on ol' Roman there, ain't'ch'a? The magazine told a lie. He caught them. He won. What that has to do with a 36-year-old-case escapes me. Except to say that a man's three-decades-plus conviction does not give VF the right to publish things about him that they have since acknowledged aren't true. He's done a lot of scummy things in his life, but good for Polanski for suing and winning.