McCain to seek pardon for Jack Johnson!!!

[klompton]

Johnson was not the first person ever convicted of this crime. Thats more ridiculous bullshit from people like Max Kellerman who think the law was written for johnson specifically which it wasnt. Before you start talking about facts you should actually GET THE FACTS.

[dan1030]

Johnson was not the first person ever convicted of this crime. Thats more ridiculous bullshit from people like Max Kellerman who think the law was written for johnson specifically which it wasnt. Before you start talking about facts you should actually GET THE FACTS.

It's true that JJ wasn't the fisrt person convicted under the Mann Act. However, I'm reasonably sure he was the first person convicted who was not actively involved in transporting women across state lines for the purposes of prostitution, which was the original intent of the "for immoral purposes" wording of the law.

[klompton]

Sorry Dan but wrong again. The first two men convicted of the Mann act where two young white men who had taken their girlfriends across state lines for a romantic weekend getaway. Furthermore if Johnson had taken the woman across state lines from a whore house (which was alledged) then he was hardly innocent of the prostitution part of the law. It takes two to tango.

The thing people arent realising about this law is it wasnt solely for the purpose of stopping prostitution. It was an invasive, conservative law which much like prohibition ten years later was a way of regulating peoples personal lives. The two laws are very much connected and arent as simple as black and white (pardon the bad pun).

[harley_man]

Klompton, you're either unbiased or you're not. You're arguing that law is objective while calling Johnson an asshole and Carter - exonorated by the courts - a lying so-and-so. Common denominator here seems to me to be the fact that they are black.

Johnson deserved it because it was the law? Ok, I hope you're the first in line to demonstrate for Native North Americans in their land claims with US and Canadian governments. Guess what? A lot of nation-to-nation agreements - treaties - were broken by the white governments of the day - illegal then and now. Or did the injuns have it coming, assholes that they were. Imagine, living here first.

A pardon for Johnson might be meaningless to him but its symbolic value for a nation that struggles with a history of racial bias and cruelty cannot be overlooked. Except by those inclined to perpetuate the racism of another day.

[Eric the Viking]

Sorry Dan but wrong again. The first two men convicted of the Mann act where two young white men who had taken their girlfriends across state lines for a romantic weekend getaway. Furthermore if Johnson had taken the woman across state lines from a whore house (which was alledged) then he was hardly innocent of the prostitution part of the law. It takes two to tango.

Here's from a reference I found about the Mann Act:

June 25, 1910

Congress passes the Mann Act, also known as the White Slave Traffic Act, in one of the strangest attempts to enforce morality in US history. The law actually had little to do with slavery; it was aimed at stopping the supposed problem of innocent girls being lured into prostitution.

The outrage over "white slavery" began with a commission appointed in 1907 to investigate the problem of immigrant prostitutes. Allegedly, women were brought to America for the purpose of being forced into sexual slavery; their presence was corrupting the nation and bringing about its "moral degradation." The Congressional committees that debated the Mann Act apparently found it impossible to believe that a girl would ever choose to be a prostitute unless she was drugged and held hostage. The law made it illegal to "transport any woman or girl" across state lines "for any immoral purpose."

This last clause may not have seemed important to the drafters believing that they were striking at prostitution. However, "for any immoral purpose" began to take on a much greater meaning. In 1917, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of two California men, Drew Caminetti and Maury Diggs, who had gone on a romantic weekend getaway with their girlfriends to Reno, Nevada. Following this decision, the Mann Act was used in all types of cases: someone was charged with violating the Mann Act for bringing a woman from one state to another in order to work as a chorus girl in a theater; wives began using the Mann Act against girls who ran off with their husbands.

The law was also used for nefarious purposes: Jack Johnson, heavyweight champion of the world in boxing, was prosecuted simply because he was black and his girlfriend was white. The most famous prosecutions under the law were those of Charlie Chaplin in 1944 and Chuck Berry in 1962, who took unmarried women across state lines for "immoral purposes." Chaplin was acquitted but left the country under FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's threats. Berry was convicted and spent two years in the prime of his musical career in jail. After Berry's conviction, the Mann Act was enforced only sparingly and was finally removed from the books in 1986.

[klompton]

Its important to remember that in 1917 the supreme court UPHELD the CONVICTION of Caminetti and Diggs. They had been convicted much earlier.


This is what gets me Harley, you come on here arguing about my objectivity by saying: "

ou're arguing that law is objective while calling Johnson an asshole and Carter - exonorated by the courts - a lying so-and-so."

Ive got news for you, the courts have NEVER exhonerated Carter. He was set free on a technicality but he has never NEVER been cleared of the crimes he was convicted of and he has never even tried to have his record changed because he KNOWS that all of the evidence points to one person... HIM. Thus he will lose. I will ignore the racial jab you directed at me. My feelings on this subject have nothing to do with race. They are strong because misguided people like yourself attempt to try to rewrite the wrongs of history with using their harts and not the facts.

[harley_man]

Well you've made one valid point. "Exonerated" is a word often misused to refer to one whose conviction has been overturned. My apologies for perpetuating that misuse. Courts rarely declare a formerly convicted defendant innocent; they become simply not guilty by appeal of the conviction on the original charge(s). I guess this too is subject to subjectivity. Some see that as proof positive that a miscarriage of justice has been corrected; others as proof of a liberal bias in the courts.

I do wonder where you get your Carter info. You know, there are some of us who form our opinions on more than the Denzel Washington movie. Carter's case has been written about by many - not just the man himself - as an example of a racially biased judicial system. Not saying that's objective, where you are not. But I do wonder why you are so adamant Carter is guilty. I've got nothing invested in the guy, but I'd love to hear your reasoning, beyond the "evidence" that was laughed out of the appeals court.

[klompton]

This website has basically the same information why I think Carter is a guilty, lying, bastard. It a lot easier to have you read from this than have me spend several hours laying out similar or identical information.

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/index.html

[harley_man]

This website has basically the same information why I think Carter is a guilty, lying, bastard. It a lot easier to have you read from this than have me spend several hours laying out similar or identical information.

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/index.html

Interesting reading. Some info I haven't come across before. But point of view can quickly become propaganda, which we saw in Carter's favour with the Hurricaine movie. But some of the stuff on that site stinks as much as the movie fabrications. I'd definitely buy some of the stuff some of those writers say about Carter, though.

Some of it looks like an x-files epispode, though. "Facts" that sound compelling without a counter argument.

I'll stand by my Johnson pardon statement, though. Its symbolic value is important and certainly less harmful and divisive than the restitution and repatriation debates in the US.

[robert.snell1]

Good lord. First off Johnson was an asshole. Period. He was a great fighter but as a person he was a piece of shit. Even his friends agreed on this. Second, while it may not have been "fair" he was guilty of the crime he was charged with and fled the United States while awaiting trial. So you mean to tell me with the economy in tatters, the United States foreign relations in the toilet, an ongoing war on terror, a crumbling health care system and crumbling social security system, John McCain has nothing better to do than try to pardon a nearly 100 year old crime that resulted in a relatively short jail sentence??? Forget the fact that Johnson wasnt even convicted in the state in which McCain is supposed to represent. talk about complete and utter ignorance and a stereotypical republican ploy to detract attention from real issues during a campaign year. As stupid as this is even Johnsons golden smile must be the size of Texas right now.

On face value this does appear to be that you have a well known American politician being used to advertise a film about a guy, who the majority of the people being asked to make a decision will never heard of, and is in some way a victim of the law.
I could understand the case more if Johnson spent years in prison or the KKK tried to string him up, failed and got him in prison anyway.

Is it just by chance this is happening at the time when the US tries to elect a new leader. The last time the world was treated to the event it was better than watching the "simpsons".

Any moment can we expect Bob Dylan to start singing about this dire event ( Johnson not the election )

The who and why this started may prove to be far more revealing than the relative merits of Johnson being guilty, persecuted, or traumatised by the fact he got caught.