Forbidden intercourse by consent, of course involving exploitation of status.

I didn’t mean the viewing of porn itself (from the viewer’s side).
Rather, the absurdity is on the side of those who are making accusations.
For so many people who are accusing Golan, the industry of exploiting teenagers in porn bothers them less (with consent, but still minors). And it also seems that those same people are less bothered by the fact that watching this kind of material may produce more “people who have consensual sex with minors.”

What I mean is that someone who complains so loudly about Golan should also have been expected to come out against the problematic sections in porn. And I don’t see that happening.

There are also lots of other injustices involving various anonymous people, and those are a matter for the police. With Eyal Golan we’re talking about a specific, well-known person, the information about him is public, and he has public influence.

Shouldn’t public reaction also carry weight? Doesn’t the fact that all the tickets to his shows are sold out in advance mean that the public thinks the affairs were blown out of proportion, and that the attempt to revive them again is forced and self-interested?

I’m really not impressed by what the public says or does. I don’t have the information, and I explained the critics’ view. But if the information I had led to the conclusion that one should come out against him, I would support that, regardless of ticket sales. On the contrary, if he’s selling so much, the damage is even greater.

People who come (the overwhelming majority of them) to a Golan performance almost certainly do not support his past crimes, and therefore are not negatively influenced. That’s a reasonable assumption.

People who watch morally problematic porn are most definitely influenced negatively, regardless of whether some particular persona stands behind the site or not. The very fact that there is morally problematic content on a legitimate porn site, and there is no public outcry, is a serious problem. It becomes even more serious when you see that the public actually does care about these things (see Golan).

Eyal Golan himself also said that his conduct back then was improper and that he changed it, so what do they want from him? I don’t think he’s a worthy figure, but there is also weight to what the public chooses to say with its feet, as the Rabbi writes regarding an enactment that did not gain acceptance, and more. The public chooses to go to his performances, so apparently the public judges the story differently. And the attempt by all kinds of self-righteous people to squeeze this story by force and boycott him on the radio and in local authorities sounds artificial.