If we are translate this from hatespeech to rational statements what you are saing is that you believe Samantha and not Polanski in this case. That's fine, everybody is entitled to have an opinion. I will not try to convince you as it is almost impossible to change other's disposition on moral and religious topics.
But I as well have my opinion on this matter. Samantha was not passive victim. She made a photo session posing topless, her mother knew this as well, but she still went for the second session. So we have a mother and daughter who are not particularly prudish on the one side and a middle aged man who is brimming with financial and career prospects on other.
Southern King's previous post truly reflects my sentiments after reading this. Your views are simply so morally abhorrent I don't even know where to begin. But I guess I'll just say this:
First and foremost, regardless of why this 13 year old girl was was in Polanski's custody, regardless of whether her mother knew what she was doing or not, and regardless of whether Polanski even raped her or not, she was still a 13 year old girl and Polanski DID have sex with her. 13 year old girls are below the legal age of consent in most nations, including the United States, and it was thusly illegal for Polanski to have sex with her. They are below the age of consent because we as a society have deemed that they are too young to make responsible decisions for themselves. Polanski, as an adult, needed to make the responsible decision to not have sex with her. It simply doesn't matter whether she seduced him or not in the grand scheme of things. The fact that he had anal sex with a 13 year old girl is undeniably, unquestionably, and entirely wrong.
Secondly, if she
was there to take topless photos, Polanski shouldn't have been taking them. If the girl's mother knew, she's also at fault. If the girl
were trying to seduce him in order to advance her career, Polanski shouldn't be furthering her objective. Either way, Polanski, under no circumstances whatsoever, should not have had sex with her. To think otherwise is moral turpitude. Polanski, as an adult, should not be perpetuating a system of abuse and exploitation for aspiring actresses.
Next, you, as a sexist pig, make the assumption that she, as a thirteen year old girl, seduced him and then accused him of rape in order to make money. You have indicated that this is normal for women. You are sexist and your views on this issue are just shockingly wrong. This isn't a matter of Anglo saxon propaganda or whatever the hell you think, you're just wrong.
And lastly, with consideration of the evidence, it appears quite likely that not only did Polanski have sex with a minor, he raped a minor. He drugged and raped her, simple as that.
Snorrius make independent thinking to be fun when he state some obvious conclusions from some obvious facts when formers go against automaton's neuronal patterns laid by watching TV and not reading books.
But seriously -- false rape charges are not fun. It is only your young age (which is somewhere about 8-9 yo based on your command of English) and inability for independent thinking which excuse you.
"What we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
His command over English is just fine, the only person here who lacks command over English is you. Most of your posts, including this one, are downright confusing and require multiple reads before one can fully grasp their horrid meaning. I was willing to let that slide since you're from Russia, but now that you're making an issue out of it, I'm taking the time to point it out.
And way to accuse people of being brainwashed by the media when you have no where else to fall back.
