Bad Causes Attract Bad People: Now That the ‘Free Kate’ Narrative Has Collapsed …

Posted on Comments

Accused sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt was sent to jail after an August hearing.

“A few days from now, Jim and Laurie Smith of [REDACTED], Vero Beach, FL, are going to be murdered by Lycere Freemartin Cunningham for their involvement in the Kaitlyn Hunt case. Mr. Cunningham has learned that Mr. Smith has caused new charges to be brought against Kaitlyn that revoked her bond and landed her back in jail just the other day. He didn’t have to do that to her. It was a deliberate malicious act. He turned her in to the authorities. He and his wife will pay with their lives for [thinking] it is okay to sic law [enforcement] on people.”
— e-mail sent to SupportHonesty.net, Aug. 26

There hasn’t been much actual “news” in the Kaitlyn Hunt case during the several weeks since her violations of the “no-contact” order sent Kaitlyn to jail in August, but my Twitter timeline has remained a constant source of updates on the behind-the-scenes arguments involving the “Free Kate” movement. Matt Ross yesterday reported this death threat against the parents of Kaitlyn Hunt’s victim. I am unable to determine if “Lycere Cunningham” is a real person who actually made this threat, and whether it should be taken seriously. (You can Google it yourself.)

What made the Kaitlyn Hunt story newsworthy in May was the appearance of a “mainstream” groundswell of sympathy, created through fictions and half-truths that misrepresented the ages of both Hunt and her victim, and sought to portray Hunt as the essentially innocent victim of anti-gay prejudice. This victimhood narrative had snowballing momentum when I first noticed the story on May 22, but by early June, the facts of the case had been made sufficiently clear that the liberal media dropped the story, and even most gay-rights organizations distanced themselves from the “Free Kate” movement.

However, while the movement lost its mainstream appeal, there was still a sizeable hard core of Kaitlyn Hunt fanatics remaining, but even that crew of misfits, kooks and weirdos was winnowed down pretty seriously after August, when it was revealed that Hunt had flagrantly violated the “no-contact” order of her pre-trial release.

Whatever misplaced sympathy (or twisted affinity) had led people to support the “Free Kate” movement quickly lost its rationale.

Not only did the violations put the original charges in a new and unfavorable light — Kaitlyn Hunt’s interest in her (still) underage victim seemed to be a sort of perverse obsession — but the new charges of transmitting material harmful to a minor looked to be a slam-dunk conviction. What’s the purpose of rallying in support of someone who is almost certain to go to prison no matter what?

Alas, there are kooks beyond reach of any rational argument:

You may remember Rachel Carson Zerbe as author of what Matt Ross called a “jailbait manifesto” in defense of Kaitlyn Hunt. In accusing me of “hate,” Zerbe links to an article at a liberal site called Political Freakshow: “#SmearKate: The Kaitlyn Hunt Saga Has Now Become A Talking Point For Republicans To Push Their Bullshit ‘Pedophilia Is Being Normalized’ Theory And Their Constant Homophobia.”

The problem? That article was written in May, before the truth was widely known, when the belief that Kaitlyn Hunt was a victim of homophobia was still quite widespread. For that matter, contrary to the headline by Political Freakshow blogger Drew Childers, the effort to normalize pedophilia is not a “Republican theory.” It is not “bullshit.” It is very real, the “Free Kate” movement was part of it, and many people are now on the alert for this dangerous tendency.

You keep on, Rachel. Keep on ranting about how Kaitlyn Hunt is a victim of “hate,” and I’ll keep calling attention to sick freaks like you.

UPDATE: Kaitlyn Hunt Gets Another Plea Offer.

 

163 comments

  3. What does this have to do with Hunt seeing a 28 year old? Nothing.

    Quite the opposite.

    As RSM titled this… “Now That the ‘Free Kate’ Narrative Has Collapsed …”

    Here you are, touting the collapsed narrative. As if we don’t know the rest of the story – and ignoring that we obviously do.

    The 28 year old “other” girlfriend doesn’t have anything to do (that we know of) with the crimes, directly.

    But it punctures the “Narrative” that was originally promoted, that this was consentual, romantic, and “love”.

    Her behavior afterward was stupid

    It was felonious.

    Not stupid, but criminal.

    Tampering with/threatening a witness – also putting the lie to the entire original story – and coincentially demonstrating a classic case of grooming and abuse.

    But that’s something we learned later, after the narrative had collapsed.

    Which demonstrates who was correct about the case, and it wasn’t the Hunt apologists.

    but again the younger girl also corresponded with her to the tune of over 20k texts which makes her absolutely culpable.

    Not legally, ethically, or morally.

    For someone who’s “doesn’t care”, you sure seem to have some strong opinions that run counter to known facts, legal requirements, and common sense.

    Why? Why are you commenting in support of a molester and abuser? Why are you blaming the victim?

    Or, let me guess. “She was asking for it?”

  5. it’s because of cases like this which will now take an 18 year old girl and stick her on a sex offender registry in Florida and ruin her life an over what? A little dilly dally with a former classmate who is lower than the age of consent?

    Again, that’s the old, busted, demonstrably incorrect narrative.

    Why are you repeating it?

    Had Hunt taken the first plea bargain – no jail time, no registry.

    Had Hunt obeyed the court orders and common sense, the 2nd plea bargain – no jail time, no registry.

    Only after she shunned the plea bargains and her continued, deliberate and more egregious felonious behavior did her initial assaults, abductions, and other transgressions have the possibility that you sneer at as unfair.

    Talk to the Hunts, for they are the reason that the “unfair” result is likely now. Not the victim. Not the police. Not the state of Florida. Not the prosecutor. Not the victim or her family.

  6. Jailed Sebastian teen Kaitlyn Huntcould avoid being a felon and not have to register as a sex offender if she accepts a conditional plea offer extended Tuesday by the State Attorney’s Office.

    Not to say I told ya so…

    But told ya so. 🙂

    Betcha the Hunt’s FINALLY take the plea and wait until after Dec to amp up the lies.

  7. “Whew” indeed… Y’know I was actually relieved myself in those few minutes when I thought I had fucked up!

  8. A lesbian 18 year old is treated exactly as a straight male 18 year old would be treated and they are claiming it is unfair? Isn’t the whole homosexual movement goal to have them treated as equals? Oh wait it isn’t.

  9. Here is good example. She is claims to be a victim. It was Rachael who has posted her daughter photos all over twitter and Facebook and as her Icon. The very first post exposing Rachael’s lunacy has her daughter as a icon. Not one word word from her. Now she complains?

    And yet she can post horrific lies about me then dox me and that is OK. The kind of lies she says about me could send a deranged person to my home.

  12. There you go, trying to limit peoples choices of free expression and love. ( :/sarcasm mode activated )

  16. No, I’m not a “Free Kate” supporter and feel her being gay or bisexual has no bearing on the case.

  21. Well, now, that’s the truth — you wouldn’t be such a jerk if you loved children.

    And thank God you are removing yourself from the gene pool.

  23. That would be non-consensual(she was passed out) hence it’s rape. Hilarious that the party that supported a shitbird canidate who claimed that rape is god’s will and there’s “legitimate rape” would actually accuse a democrat of such a thing. Fuck off, bagger.

  26. It doesn’t. Regardless of sexual choice, male or female (the law makes no distinction), statutory rape is illegal. The people of the state of Florida have determined what the parameters of that specific law are and if you violate them, you are a criminal. End of story. All the conflation by the Hunts, all the faux emotionalism does not change that central fact! Kate is a criminal, a statutory rapist.
    Now go play in traffic …

  27. No it doesn’t. There was no informed consent given and therefore it was a crime. It becomes obvious you don’t understand the difference between informed consent and consent. There is an incredible importance in understanding the value of informed consent when we are speaking about protecting children. You are missing the context in ignoring the emotional and developmental age of the younger girl.

  28. Nan: when an adult has a sexual relationship with a child below the age of consent, a crime has been committed. It doesn’t matter if it was consensual as the child is deemed too young to consent.

    I understand that.

    No, you don’t. Or you do and you’re lying.

    The context of this case states otherwise. Next.

    Let’s restate what you say you understand.

    Nan: But when an adult has a sexual relationship with a child below the age of consent, a crime has been committed. It doesn’t matter if it was consensual as the child is deemed too young to consent.

    You say you understand that.

    Then you say the “context” – an adult, over 18, had sexual relationship with a child 2 years below the age of consent – states “otherwise”.

    What context “states otherwise” that a adult may not have sexual contact with a child, because they aren’t able to consent?

    Or could you stop saying that you “understand” when you don’t?

  29. Hilarious that the party that supported a shitbird canidate who claimed
    that rape is god’s will and there’s “legitimate rape” would actually
    accuse a democrat of such a thing. Fuck off, bagger.

    I’d ask you what the hell you’re talking about, but it’s obvious truth and honesty aren’t your goals here.

  30. No, I understand the context perfectly hence why Im not freaking out about an 18 year old having a 14 year old girlfriend.

    Context: It is illegal for a 18 year old to have sexual relations with a 14 year old.

    Context: It is legally presumed that anyone under the age of 16 isn’t mature enough, or capable of understanding, in order to consent to sexual relationships with adults.

    Context: Kaitlyn Hunt, 18, had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old. (That should have been reported to the police by numerous mandated reporters.)

    Context: You claim you understand that, but it doesn’t matter and it’s not the case.

    Ok, ignoring the original case, what’s your explanation for the later abuse and mental anguish and pornography?

    Is that also “Contextually” understandable?

  32. Even if you wanted to give “Joey00001” the benefit of the doubt – and presuming knowledge beyond what’s in the public eye – about the original sexual contact…..

    Even if. We’ll just presume that the victim is a hypnotizing Lolita and Kaitlyn Hunt was a pawn in her hands…

    How does that possibly explain Hunt’s later behavior, abuse, witness tampering, sexual contact, kidnapping?

    I’d love to understand how that “in context” changes. Please enlighten me, Joey*.

  35. No, those are the rules. Context is this wasn’t forcible rape, non-consensual(realistically and not in the abstract), or molestation. It was a relationship between two teenagers who went to the same school, played sports together and probably even showered together since they were on the same team. The younger girl traded 20k texts with Hunt of her own volition. She wasn’t forced and bears responsibility for those actions. Hunt was simply stupid for violating a court order. I don’t care if Hunt is a good or moral person either. That means fuck all to me.

  36. Then I guess all you baggers are middle aged toddlers for whining about Obamacare and trying to blow up the government to stop it. You know, because it’s the rules, passed by both houses, upheld by the SCOTUS, and signed by the President?

  37. A moral dwarf? LOL! I’ll take that as a compliment. I have no desire to be moral in the sense that you are which is what Nietzsche would call “slave morality” or to make it easy for you “religious morality” or “morality of the weak”.

  39. Context is this wasn’t forcible rape,

    Which Hunt was not charged with

    non-consensual(realistically and not in the abstract)

    Legally impossible, and still illegal.

    or molestation.

    At best assumes facts not in public evidence. The indications are that it was a molestation/hazing. But that’s inference and extrapolation.

    The younger girl traded 20k texts with Hunt of her own volition.

    “Of her own volition” – I don’t think you understand the context here.

    Or how molesters “groom” their victims and try and make it look like it’s “of their own volition”.

    I, and others here, are aware of that.

    Even aside from that. Even if you presume that the victim was the “mastermind” (which is countered by the messages entered into evidence), Hunt was breaking the law with every text, much less with the porn videos.

    Hunt was simply stupid for violating a court order.

    Criminally. So you’re good with being prosecuted for criminally violating court orders, and laws, since she was stupid?

    Or are you excusing violators and criminals based upon the stupidity of their actions?

    I don’t think “context” means what you think it means.

  40. … And those “middle aged toddlers” Republicans who prosecuted the war against the Confederate states.

    Who were whining how slavery was the rules, passed by both houses, upheld by the SCOTUS, and signed by the Presidents?

    By the way, speaking of “the rules”… Since the ACA is a tax, per the SCOTUS, and originated in the Senate, what does that mean for the “rules” that all taxes must originate in the House?

  41. This comment shows your true colors and lack of intelligence. You call us ‘baggers’, a pejorative gay slur, and then proceed to demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Get a clue, no sitting Congress is bound by the acts of any previous Congress. They can defund O-care if they wish because they hold the purse strings, not the Senate and not the President. The House can posit a bill to overturn the ACA, vote on it and if there is a majority of yeas, it passes and is presented to the Senate where under Sen. Reid it will languish, just like a hundred other bills that have been presented. The roadblock is not the House but the Democrat controlled Senate.
    It is the right of the people to have their elected representatives overturn any law that the people feel is wrong. In spite of Senate. President or Supreme Court ruling. The people have the final word because all these people work for us, they are not our rulers, our lords and masters.
    Chickensh!t fool …

  43. No, “Bagger” is not a pejorative gay slur. I’ve never heard of a gay person referred to as a “bagger”. The only “baggers” are tea party members or “tea baggers” a name they self applied. Even if “bagger” was a pejorative for gays it shows you’ve never heard of semiotics and the free play between signs and signifiers. Something kind of delicious about applying a gay slur to a group of people who fear and loathe homosexuals. Deserving too.

    And 70% of Obamacare is mandatory so they’re not really defunding anything and rather Rafael Cruz is making his Presidential bid early. Sure they can over turn Obamacare with a majority but they don’t have a majority nor do they have the executive branch and in light of that know the gesture is futile. And as far as the “will of the people” is concerned we re-elected Obama even with Romney running on a repeal effort which means the people want healthcare reform. Is the new system perfect? NO. But it’s better than what we had.

    Have a nice day, f*ckface!

  44. No, “Bagger” is not a pejorative gay slur. I’ve never heard of a gay
    person referred to as a “bagger”. The only “baggers” are tea party
    members or “tea baggers” a name they self applied.

    Yeah. Maybe you shouldn’t use the word “context”.

    Ever. Again.

  45. Lies and more lies. Teabaggier has been a gay slur for about 25 years. Go to any ‘urban dictionary’ and see.
    Really? Better than what we had? I never had to go through a mandatory referral to hospice before! Wherein they said that the ACA mandates cancer patients be referred to hospice for end of life counseling and be offered the ability to self euthanize by waiving treatment and accepting a PCA of morphine to drift away.
    Never!
    Do you kiss your mother with that mouth you Homonormative Chimp™?

  46. Sorry, “tea bagger” is not a gay slur. Tea bagging is an obscure sex act that no one would even know about if not for John Waters and the Tea Party. Just because a douchebag like Brent Bozell and the lunatics over at Free Republic claim otherwise in order to defend themselves and shitheads like you believe it, does not make it so. And you have a problem with the terminally wanting to simply die by their own hand with less pain? Oh my God, you’re a fucking blight on society. I swear, there is no group of people in this society that I hold with more contempt than your kind. Fuck you and fuck your God. And “homonormative chimp”? What happened? You learned a new word and now think you’re being clever?

  47. Describes you to a ‘T’. Forcing people to be counseled on how to end their life regardless of their beliefs is draconian and patently illegal. Euthensia is illegal in all 50 states. More delusion and hateful speech from a fool.
    Where is Wombat with the banhammer? This rat keeps getting in where the adults are talking …

Comments are closed.