Reubens also definitely did not possess dozens of photos of child sexual abuse, for which he was arrested in 2002
Edit: The photos were classified by authorities as ｢child pornography｣, ｢obscene material improperly depicting a child under the age of 18 in sexual conduct｣, and most specifically as ｢people underage engaged in masturbation or oral copulation｣. Reubens denied all of these classifications of the photos, saying that the photos were just art and 100% not sexual. I wrote this comment under the assumption that Reubens was BS’ing, because I feel like the justice system would have no reason nor ability to arrest him and intentionally or accidentally describe his photo collection as worse than it actually was, and would on the contrary have every reason to let him off easy by accepting his plea bargain.
But I guess from the response to this comment that he was actually being truthful and I misunderstood/misrepresented the situation. As tends to happen when your only knowledge of a situation comes from Wikipedia. Sorry!
It could be that the type of Redditor who appreciates that type of transparency is also the same type of person who is most likely to migrate to a platform whose very code is based on transparency. I would get replies similar to yours whenever I admitted to mistakes on Reddit as well, and those types of replies always gave me mixed feelings, because something so bare-minimum really should be both mundane and expected…
Reubens did nothing wrong inside that theatre.
Reubens also definitely did not possess dozens of photos of child sexual abuse, for which he was arrested in 2002
Edit: The photos were classified by authorities as ｢child pornography｣, ｢obscene material improperly depicting a child under the age of 18 in sexual conduct｣, and most specifically as ｢people underage engaged in masturbation or oral copulation｣. Reubens denied all of these classifications of the photos, saying that the photos were just art and 100% not sexual. I wrote this comment under the assumption that Reubens was BS’ing, because I feel like the justice system would have no reason nor ability to arrest him and intentionally or accidentally describe his photo collection as worse than it actually was, and would on the contrary have every reason to let him off easy by accepting his plea bargain.
But I guess from the response to this comment that he was actually being truthful and I misunderstood/misrepresented the situation. As tends to happen when your only knowledge of a situation comes from Wikipedia. Sorry!
Weren’t they more just weird kitschy naked gnomes and cherubs?
Really?! Do you have a source for that? (Honest question)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reubens#2002_pornography_arrest
my first time hearing about it too
Thanks. So it wasn’t photos of sexual abuse as the poster above implies.
Wait what?
So far as I was aware he just started to jerk off in a porno theatre (like those things were for) before being popped in a sting.
Looked it up. Those charges were dropped.
Maybe it’s just the fediverse, but seeing someone admit they may have been misinformed is refreshing.
It could be that the type of Redditor who appreciates that type of transparency is also the same type of person who is most likely to migrate to a platform whose very code is based on transparency. I would get replies similar to yours whenever I admitted to mistakes on Reddit as well, and those types of replies always gave me mixed feelings, because something so bare-minimum really should be both mundane and expected…
Huh did he or didn’t I get the joke?