Possible Pedo charges against Phish bassist

New York Post ^ | 8/24/03 | Richard Johnson

[I_Love_My_Husband]

August 24, 2003 -- PHISH bassist Mike Gordon could be facing Class A misdemeanor charges for taking "art pictures" of a 9-year-old girl, but at least he's alive. The Hells Angels who jumped Gordon afterward not only beat him - they wanted to kill him. Gordon had whisked the child, daughter of an Angel, to a secluded boathouse during a Dead concert at Jones Beach. According to a witness, the father was ready to allow the musician to be summarily executed. After heated debate, it was decided it would be "bad press to kill him." The DA is still deciding how to charge Gordon, who has a Sept. 29 court date.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Where in the link does it say she was nude?

Nowhere. I_Love_My_Husband made that part up. Which constitutes libel, which is legally actionable. Abuse button hit -- FR doesn't need this.

[MaryFromMichigan]

"Possible Pedo charges against Phish bassist"

"Phish Phaces Phelony"

[I_Love_My_Husband]

First of all, it's not my spin, if you read the 2nd article.

Second of all, what do YOU think ART pictures mean with a little girl???? Please explain for everyone at Free Republic to see, as well as the lurkers.

[Gee Wally]

MTV.com story

Phish Bassist Arrested For Child Endangerment

08.19.2003

Mike Gordon

Photo: Elektra

A warning to aspiring amateur photographers: If you're inspired to take creative but harmless photos of a 9-year-old girl, make sure to get her parents' permission before whisking her away for a shoot.

Phish bassist Mike Gordon learned that lesson the hard way.

Last week at the Jones Beach Theatre in Wantagh, New York, Gordon was backstage taking pictures at a concert when he spotted a 9-year-old girl he wanted to photograph. So, he invited her to an enclosed boathouse behind the theater, an area only for use by state employees, state police said.

When the girl's parents realized she was missing, they alerted the authorities. Not long after, security officers found Gordon with the girl on a dock. The situation became even stranger when it was discovered that the girl's dad was a member of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. Displeased that his daughter had been led away without his consent, the father became irate and an altercation ensued between some of his biker cronies and Gordon. The bassist was intimidated and hit, but not seriously injured, said a source close to the band.

Gordon was arrested for child endangerment and trespassing into a closed area. The misdemeanor charge is punishable with up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Police said the girl was fully clothed when she was found, and a source close to the band insisted there was nothing inappropriate about the pictures taken by Gordon. Police have issued Gordon a court date, but the band source said the family has decided not to file charges.

"We have had several discussions regarding the situation," said Gordon and the girl's parents in a joint statement. "It is now clear to all involved that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding, and we look forward to putting this matter behind us."

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I guess you don't have your reading glasses on.

I did not write nude. I wrote From gossiplist.com, that's where they wrote nude.

Your attitude is not appreciated. Please read next time.

[cake_crumb]

For "libel", malicious intent must be proven.

[egarvue]

A peculiar, paradoxical morality seems to pervade the Hell's Angels. While they may reject convention to a large degree, they share a rigid code of acceptable behavior, and straying over that boundary results in the quick application of bruises.

I agree. I would love to see a study done on the Hell's Angels from an anthropological aspect - they are more like a barbarian tribe, complete with taboo behaviors and tribal customs. Fascinating that groups like this thrive in the midst of our 21st century modern civilization.

[Gee Wally]

When asked by WNBC-TV if there was any reasonable explanation for Gordon to have been with the girl at 1:00 AM in a secluded boat house, Maj. O'Donnell of the State Park Police said "I have no explanation for it."

Local6.com story

[Reactionary]

Oh, come on. "Art photos?" Anyone with any sense at all - or any experience in art school - knows what that particular phrase means.

[cake_crumb]

"The DA's office says the evidence is being evaluated. Regardless of whether Gordon has to face a judge next month, law-enforcement sources say unofficial justice was already delivered. The Hell's Angels, who detained Gordon for police, were not, the sources say, gentle with sensitive areas of the rock star's body."

Interesting, heheheh. According to the Local 6 article, the parents issued a joint statement with Gordon that reads : "It is now clear to all involved that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding, and we look forward to putting this matter behind us"

Another interesting twist is:

"Later, in a conference call, the manager said Gordon's trying to 'make amends' with the family. The girl's father added that "muckraking journalists should put the story to rest.

"Both declined to discuss whether the musician is paying compensation."

The article indicates the DA may decide to prosecute anyway.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

After reading what you wrote, I'm hearing the Dragnet theme song! Dum dee dum dum!!

[GovernmentShrinker]

You used that line as a link to an article which contained no such allegation.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Nope. Details of libel law vary from state to state, but I don't believe malicious intent is ever a necessary element. The key issue is the damage done, and whether the accused libeler has a valid defense (and "I didn't mean it in a malicious way" doesn't qualify). It is possible to successfully sue someone for libel, even if the statement they made was TRUE (not sure if this is true in all states, but it is under historical common law, and currently in many states) -- in those cases, I would assume malicious intent would be a necessary element, since otherwise the statement would be protected under the First Amendment.

[cake_crumb]

"Details of libel law vary from state to state, but I don't believe malicious intent is ever a necessary element."

It can be a very necessary element. The NY Times recently got out of a libel suit filed against them by a judge because malicious intent could not be proven.

[garbanzo]

On a personal note, I agree with you. But too often here we turn personal suppositions into facts and it makes us look bad when real facts come out. Unless it's reported that the girl was nude or that he was encouraging her to undress, let's not say that as fact even if it is fairly evident from reading between the lines. It's like the neighborhood gossip who just knows so-and-so and so-and-so are messing around - even if they are, don't mention it unless you have really good evidence.

[garbanzo]

Police said the girl was fully clothed when she was found

Ok now this one explictly says she was dressed when she was found and that the pictures were not inappropiate. Not that it's ever a good idea to take photos of kids without their parent's consent.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Legitimate news reporting is valid defense, even if the statement turned out to be false, as long as the publisher reasonably believed it to be true. Showing lack of malicious intent could be a strong part of an argument that the publisher believed the statement to be true. If malicious intent were shown AND the statement proved false, the publisher would have a hard time convincing a court that it had taken reasonable measures to establish the veracity of the statement (if you're feeling malicious, how hard could you really have been trying to find out the smear against your eney was false?).

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yes, it was no accident that no legitimate news report had said anything about "nude". Which I why I object to using that line from some gossip list as a bolded, highlighted link to a story from a legitimate news source. If someone didn't bother to read through the whole linked article, but just clicked to see what the source of the "nude" allegation was, they'd be left thinking that "Local 6 News" of Central Florida had published this very serious allegation.

Given the rest of the details, I seriously doubt that this Phish guy would still be alive if the girl had been nude. The Hell's Angels ad hoc PR committee either wouldn't have bothered holding a meeting, or would have quickly decided that it would be pretty good PR for the dad to finish off Mr. Gordon. Under the "nude" circumstances, it would have been mighty tough to get a murder charge to stick -- dad would likely have gotten off with "involuntary manslaughter", and a slap on the wrist, while the public would be left thinking "we could use more dads like that Hell's Angels guy".

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Just out of curiosity, what do ART pictures mean to you? Especially with a 9 year old girl and a grown man taking these ART pictures.

What do you think the euphemism means??

Oh I know you'll try to squirm out of that one. You'll say "it could mean anything". Riiiight. I don't think so.

You, sir, are a troll. I have never seen you say one conservative thing. You are a liberaltarian. 'Nuff said.

[Reactionary]

It says she was dressed when she was found, not that she was dressed during the pictures. As to your second point, a "source close to the band" stated that the pictures weren't inappropriate. That is a far cry from the police saying so.