No, he was caught jerking off in a porn theater and charged with public indecency. In my opinion the whole thing was blown out of proportion and a stain on his legacy that doesn’t deserve to be there. People just hear “sex crimes” and “children’s performer” and come to that assumption. (No shade to you, its a fair assumption. I more have a problem with how the media handled it at the time)
You should probably continue on with the quotes a bit longer.
“That mischaracterizes the art collection seized,” Reubens’ lawyer, Blair Berk said Friday. “If that means a black-and-white tintype from 1901 with a young man of indeterminate, 17- to 19-year-old age, laying on the beach after having gone skinny-dipping … then they got it.”
“It was clear from the start that we, along with the many distinguished art experts supporting Paul’s art photography collection, vehemently disagreed with the city prosecutor’s view of what constitutes art,” Berk said.
IIRC he never claimed to not own CP; He was charged and there was legitimate evidence of dozens of CP materials. His legal defense was that he buys bulk lots of kisch art and wasn’t aware the offending material was in there.
He would later in 2004 (after charges were dropped in exchange for a obscenity charge) claim that he was aware of the CP; but he only owned it for as he also collected vintage Erotica; and he further claimed the CP was “innocent nudes” and in no way pornographic in nature.
Not being charged doesn’t mean he didn’t actually own the offending materials.
No, he was caught jerking off in a porn theater and charged with public indecency. In my opinion the whole thing was blown out of proportion and a stain on his legacy that doesn’t deserve to be there. People just hear “sex crimes” and “children’s performer” and come to that assumption. (No shade to you, its a fair assumption. I more have a problem with how the media handled it at the time)
deleted by creator
You should probably continue on with the quotes a bit longer.
“That mischaracterizes the art collection seized,” Reubens’ lawyer, Blair Berk said Friday. “If that means a black-and-white tintype from 1901 with a young man of indeterminate, 17- to 19-year-old age, laying on the beach after having gone skinny-dipping … then they got it.”
“It was clear from the start that we, along with the many distinguished art experts supporting Paul’s art photography collection, vehemently disagreed with the city prosecutor’s view of what constitutes art,” Berk said.
From the same article you linked.
I don’t care about the wanking, but the CP possession charge is hard to ignore.
It’s easy to ignore when it was dropped. Charges are not convictions.
IIRC he never claimed to not own CP; He was charged and there was legitimate evidence of dozens of CP materials. His legal defense was that he buys bulk lots of kisch art and wasn’t aware the offending material was in there. He would later in 2004 (after charges were dropped in exchange for a obscenity charge) claim that he was aware of the CP; but he only owned it for as he also collected vintage Erotica; and he further claimed the CP was “innocent nudes” and in no way pornographic in nature. Not being charged doesn’t mean he didn’t actually own the offending materials.