Part of the problem as observers here of course is, we have to rely on the media to tell us what’s going on. The media, who give us factual unbiased headlines like “cage the porn boy.”
So, you say “1) the offender was not let off – he was convicted and sentenced”; the newspaper article reads “The judge let the boy off with a three-year community order.” You’re right, of course, but the article is (presumably deliberately) worded in such a manner that your typical Sun reader won’t notice that.
2) the judge did not say that porn made the offender do it and did not say anything like it. The remark would have been part of a much longer sentencing statement.
Which remark? The one he didn’t say? (-:
We’re in danger of getting into a semantics argument here, but. The Judge said, “I believe you have become sexualised by your exposure to and the corruption of pornography… Your exposure at such a young age has ended in tragedy.” To me that reads like he’s blaming the porn (and by extension, society), but again, it’s difficult to know for sure out of context as you say.
