Are these two statements not related if not meaning the same thing?

Question

I tried posting this in another section with more details, but people missed the point.

A celebrity's "people" have said their client is being treated harshly in the court system because they are famous.

On the news an "expert came on and said "this person is not being treated harslhy beacause they are a celebrity. The judges are just under pressure to make an example of celebrities."

So if the person was not a celebrity wouldn't the judge not be trying to make an example out of them? And therefore not judging them quite so harshly?

Answer 1

Good point. It's just double-talk.

Answer 2

You are right. But that is why they are making examples out of them...because celebrities get away with murder (literally in some cases).

I see that you understand the point of the system putting celebrities to the fire. They are privileged and as such should be held to even higher standards than everyone else do to the number of people they influence. If they don't want that responsibility then they shouldn't be glamorous icons in our society.

Answer 3

They just canceled each other out. The only reason to play the "I'm a celebrity" card is to get off with a slap on the wrist. It is these incidences that created a precedent in courts.

Answer 4

i thought that a couple of answers addressed your question in the way you meant it. i intended to, but i ran out of steam, and never really answered it. i think it is a good example of political 'double-speak'. one would think that experts would have a bit better command of semantics, if they really wanted us to know what they're saying. i think most people only see/hear the words they want to, and the statement makes sense to them. but people like you see the discrepancy between the two parts of the statement. i hope i've said clearly enough, what i intended to say.