i mean it depends on the defense, right? the 'defense' here was: "this person was 12 years old at the time of wrongdoing and has expressed remorse." whether the age factor is exculpatory and whether the remorse is genuine is a judgment call. (i called it no/not really!) https://twitter.com/ms_creilly/status/1297955579596607490

it's sad that the defining theme we've decided to go with in our era is 'cancel culture', because the overarching theme is actually 'anti-intellectualism.' the total rejection of complexity, ambiguity, and nuance -- on the right and the left -- is full-tilt anti-intellectualism.

the fact that the response to this tweet will be 'hurr hurr okay i see so revenge porn is a """"complex"""" issue' is unfortunately proof positive. this case, involving a 12-year-old perpetrator who has since apologized, is complicated. i still ruled against the kid.

but i don't think anyone who was persuaded that he ought to be forgiven based either on a principle regarding juvenile crimes or on the basis of his apologies is necessarily dishonest or morally defective. in complicated cases, reasonable people can and do disagree.