Broadway pianist arrested for trying to seduce 14 year old boy... — Page 2

Fan123 said: "But I think it points to something we should all keep in mind: (teacher voice) if you advocate to silence 'offensive' discussions which you think shouldn't be happening, even with the best of intentions, then sooner or later those same considerations will be used by somebody else to silence discussions which you think should be happening. I think a lot of people (not here as such, but generally speaking) are going to be experiencing rude awakenings about that in the coming years. Anyway, tangent over."

Very well said Fan123!

BJR said: "Brown mentioning in custody he was chatting with several underage boys, if true, kinda blows the entrapment claim out of the water."

Also, as mentioned in the NY Daily News, Brown initiated the conversation.

BJR said: "Brown mentioning in custody he was chatting with several underage boys, if true, kinda blows the entrapment claim out of the water."

I doubt this case will go away, but typically if criminality is found after bogus or lack of just cause, then it would be considered inadmissible. If you find drugs after a bogus traffic stop, you usually can't be tried for the drugs, etc., although most defendants screw themselves over without a clean enough case for dismissal.

It is only inadmissible entrapment if the defendant would not have otherwise engaged in the illegal behavior but for the police activity. It is much easier to use the entrapment argument for things like financial crimes where the lure of money and personal desperation can make a person do things they would not otherwise think of doing on their own.

The use of an online persona to identify predators is not, and has never been, an issue. It is frequently used in sexual and drug related law enforcement. It protects the public. And what would you have the police do? Get an actual 14 year old to do this? Of course not.

This is disgusting. Why would a successful young man even want to get with a kid so young? Gross.

If you are conversing with someone online, and they declare to you that they are under the age of consent... and you don’t end that conversation there and then, let alone actually travel to meet them for sex...

Something is clearly wrong and you deserve what you get.

Updated On: 9/9/19 at 05:32 PM

ArtMan said: "Luminaire2 said: "This is disgusting. Why would a successful young gay man even want to get with a kid so young? Gross.

If you are conversing with someone online, and they declare to you that they are under the age of consent... and you don’t end that conversation there and then, let alone actually travel to meet them for sex...

Something is clearly wrong and you deserve what you get."

This is a sickness of urges the individual cannot control. This type of behavior has been going on for decades. It's not just gay men. It's hetrosexual men and women also. As well as lesbians. Look at female school teachers who have sex with their students. In some cases get impregnated by them. We are just more aware of it now."



Thank you ArtMan. I was going to post something like this but I could not have put it better.

People jump all over these people for what they have done without thinking or understanding that a lot of these people can't control it and don't or can't seek help. This definitely does not condone their actions, but a lot of these people do need help.

Someone in a Tree2 said: "I feel only pity for Luminaire and others who have such a kneejerk reactionto folks who find themselves attracted to underage guys or girls. Whoa to Luminaire should they discover they themselves have some kink in their sexual makeup equally taboo to society at large. Once not so long ago, adult guys simply loving other adult guys was viewed with the same disgust you now display toward the unfortunate pianist.

Protect kids, sure, but also learn empathy. Everyone deserves some."



As a gay man myself, can I ask for clarity? Are you trying to imply that the gay rights movement is at all similar or somehow equal to adults who are “into” children? A 14 year old is a child. Is that some sort of kink that we should normalize and allow? We as a society have determined ages we deem appropriate for drinking, gambling, paying taxes, sexual consent, etc.



I don’t see how anyone can justify predators. Feel free to have sympathy if you deem him a victim somehow, but his actions result in consequences. Deservedly so.

Updated On: 9/9/19 at 08:43 PM

Following a discussion with our moderator and admin teams, we wanted to share an update on our position here and the scope of the permitted conversation on this thread, and others like it moving forward.

While we strive to give as wide a latitude as possible to all theatrically related topics — of course while keeping conversations in line with our rules — this thread has featured a number of discussions that we feel go against our views and values as a company, and therefore, we want to reiterate and clarify a few of our positions.

Our hope is to make this board a welcoming space for all theatre-related discussions in which all feel appreciated and accepted. As long a posts are made with that same consideration, that should eliminate a majority of problems.

However, any discussion about an individual’s psychology or mental health that is not specifically based on that person’s own admissions is not appropriate for our board. Even when they are, these types of discussions will be given much less leeway than others, as we consider making unfounded assumptions about mental health, and using someone’s mental health as a tool to belittle, as personal attacks. This also includes any undiagnosed explanations that posters believe might explain or rationalize illegal behavior.

Furthermore, opinions about the spectrum of sexual desires, and their societal and legal ramifications, are off-topic for a theatrical message board and are likely neither constructive, nor appropriate to be had here. We believe that in the future, those types of discussions are best served elsewhere, and will be considered other than the BWW board.

So, ultimately, comments which go beyond the scope of published reports and their implications — or arguments relating to those — will result in posts being removed. As always we welcome any questions at moderator@broadwayworld.com.

Despite my misgivings mentioned earlier, I do appreciate that the moderators are providing a lot of explanation and transparency here, and that the later round of posts has been left up (at least for a while) to provide additional context. That's really helpful.

I know this guy. And I feel no empathy for him, nor for anyone who thinks that child abuse is excusable. Shame on those who would liken a gay relationship to child abuse and endangerment.