United States | News & Politics

7120 readers

661 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

187

Moms for Liberty hires convicted child sex abuser to handle religious outreach (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 10 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Moms for Liberty (M4L), the anti-LGBTQ+ “extremist group” that constantly vilifies LGBTQ+ people for “sexualizing kids,” hired a registered sex offender who allegedly had oral and anal sex with a 14-year-old boy to handle the religious outreach for its Philadelphia chapter.

The offender, Phillip Fisher Jr., was convicted in 2012 for the aggravated sexual abuse of a 14-year-old boy, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. He pleaded guilty to one count of “aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor between the ages of 13 and 17” in the case, even though a grand jury indicted him in 2011 for 12 counts of sexual assault and sexual abuse. Despite his guilty plea, Fisher “insists that he did nothing wrong,” the publication wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is it still "allegedly" if they've been convicted of it?

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I get what you mean. But I think that yes. Lots of people plead guilty to things they didn't do. And plenty of people who have done the crime plead innocent and get absolved for technicalities or lack of evidence, procedure errors, etc.

So the allegedly is not for the benefit of the person being talked about but for the journalist's legal protection. Because guilt can only be established by a judge by proper court proceedings and appeals and all of that. Like, how the only person who can legally say that someone died are medics and judges.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am not a lawyer: A guilty plea is an admission of guilt, so I believe you're wrong about that, thankfully. Provided the specific crimes being discussed are the same ones that were plead to, I don't think there is an issue here

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't know, that's up for the journalists to sort out. They're the ones using the "allegedly" language here.

[–] subignition@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

I mean considering any normal person is basically going to be bankrupted by a non frivolous lawsuit, I wouldn't blame them for erring on the safe side even if they're sure they're in the right