The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 20, 2009 16:13:49 GMT -5
Girl: No mom, I swear, he learned how to copy my handwriting perfectly, then made that fake list. My parents couldn't tell the different between my handwriting and another person's if I tried to make it look legit. It's not like he has anythign else to do. eh, I guess its just in my family, everyone had distinctly different handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 20, 2009 16:26:15 GMT -5
My parents couldn't tell the different between my handwriting and another person's if I tried to make it look legit. It's not like he has anythign else to do. eh, I guess its just in my family, everyone had distinctly different handwriting. Maybe, but if he was concentrating on copying it, I bet he could do a decent job. I bet he could also get one of his friends at school to do it.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 20, 2009 16:38:26 GMT -5
eh, I guess its just in my family, everyone had distinctly different handwriting. Maybe, but if he was concentrating on copying it, I bet he could do a decent job. I bet he could also get one of his friends at school to do it. yeah, he probably could. I was always a super lazy kid(never know it by looking at me), so i never put that much effort into revenge(and, thanks to the kind of person my sister was/is, I never had to).
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Dec 20, 2009 19:41:35 GMT -5
file this one under "disproportionate retribution". kid got grounded for doing something he shouldn't have been doing, then he does something aruguably worse. people's sex lives are supposed to be private. unless they make it public themselves, I don't care what they did. girl didn't deserve this.
|
|
|
Post by dragonfire53511 on Dec 20, 2009 21:12:25 GMT -5
I wouldn't be getting my legal advice from Wikipedia in the future. Child pornography doesn't have to be visual. Literature is subject to the same laws. If you went out and wrote a story about raping a child, it's considered child pornography. Granted, it varies from state to state, but it doesn't have to be photos to be child pornography. First why would I need legal advice I don't plan on doing anything illegal in the first place, I was only using it to show you the common sense verison and defintion of the term of Child porno. I'm not going to argue with you because personally I dispise people that harm children and belive they deserve to ride old sparky if they ever act out on those fanasty. But the fact that written stories that depict underage people having sex or being sexually abused will not get you landed into jail. It may make you a social outcast or make the law look at you a little more but the first amendment protect a person from prosecution when it comes to the things they chose vocalize or write about under the protection of freedom of speech. Proof of this that people in Hollywood aren't being carted off to jail for writting script that got movie like "Hound Dog" and "Towelhead" made and they both depict underage girls being sexually assualted in them. So by your logic the writters and everyone invouled with pictures like those need to go to jail for child porn. Allong with the people whom purchase those movies on DVD after all it simulated child porn. Long story short I see some very large gaps in your logic when you say written work equal it but it time for me to degress before this rant get this locked. But I got one question about this for you to answer; Using your logical view on this which person should be charged with the crime ? The brother for scanning it or taking a pitcure of it then posting it on-line or The sister whom wrote it in the first place sense she wrote it out and made it or maybe both but in that case the D.A probally have trouble proving ethier did it because I think they stick together as they have a common goal not going to jail.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Dec 20, 2009 22:44:17 GMT -5
Good. Little tramp can deal.
Not saying he's right, but you know, forget tramps.
|
|
|
Post by Time Lord Soundwave on Dec 20, 2009 23:21:34 GMT -5
I harbour an intense hatred for the term 'eat me out/ate me out'. Squick. OT, the fact she kept a list is kind of petty and childish. {Spoiler}I keep a book {Spoiler}All I have is a Post-It.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Dec 20, 2009 23:21:42 GMT -5
I hope his sister gives him his comeuppance. I have to think super glue would be involved.
|
|
Thrillho
Dennis Stamp
0 Days since last "incident"james.anderson1989jamesandersonmusicJimBillAnderson
Posts: 3,740
|
Post by Thrillho on Dec 20, 2009 23:28:33 GMT -5
I harbour an intense hatred for the term 'eat me out/ate me out'. Squick. OT, the fact she kept a list is kind of petty and childish. {Spoiler}I keep a book {Spoiler}All I have is a Post-It. {Spoiler}I have a bus ticket
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Dec 20, 2009 23:40:07 GMT -5
{Spoiler}All I have is a Post-It. {Spoiler}I have a bus ticket {Spoiler}I got a rock.
|
|
|
Post by heyguesswhatidid on Dec 21, 2009 1:10:59 GMT -5
So she blew a few guys and gave a few handies, I've gotten those from different girls and it doesn't make her a bad person.
In fact, it makes her a really good person and if I was that one guy, I'd definitely be at the barber shop right now.
|
|
|
Post by tehoh1 on Dec 21, 2009 1:32:15 GMT -5
In fact, it makes her a really good person and if I was that one guy, I'd definitely be at the barber shop right now. Wouldn't that be indecent exposure?
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,009
|
Post by nate5054 on Dec 21, 2009 1:49:55 GMT -5
I wouldn't be getting my legal advice from Wikipedia in the future. Child pornography doesn't have to be visual. Literature is subject to the same laws. If you went out and wrote a story about raping a child, it's considered child pornography. Granted, it varies from state to state, but it doesn't have to be photos to be child pornography. That is absolutely incorrect. Child pornography by definition is visual. You cannot prosecute someone for child porn if they wrote a story. This lady was brought up on charges for writing a story about a child getting raped. She was not charged with being in possession of child pornography. She was charged with violating obscenity laws. Huge difference. abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4222798&page=1
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Dec 21, 2009 2:02:00 GMT -5
{Spoiler}I have a bus ticket {Spoiler}I got a rock. {Spoiler}I got a ROCK LOBSTER!
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,009
|
Post by nate5054 on Dec 21, 2009 2:31:26 GMT -5
I was about to prove that I was right, but all the cases I'm finding that prove my point are in Canada. So, i'm not technically wrong. And according to my research, it's legally protected in the United States, until and unless it is ruled obscene, in which case we are arguing legal semantics, in the same vein of "is it driving while intoxicated" or "driving under the influence." Simulated images would likely get a stiffer sentence than written, because of the classification. As such, I'm not conceding defeat here, only that I wasn't absolutely correct. And, since I did the research, he's one of the cases I found Nevertheless, a lower court recently jailed an Ottawa man simply for possessing stories he himself had written about sex involving teenaged girls. The accused man reportedly made no attempt to distribute the material and an assessment found him to be a low risk to hurt real children. Since this law prescribes a minimum sentence, the judge jailed the accused for 14 days. Inexplicably, the prosecutors had proposed a sentence of three to four months. www.thestar.com/comment/article/736239If Canada was your argument, you should have said from province to province ;D
|
|
|
Post by lemonyellowson on Dec 21, 2009 6:49:55 GMT -5
legandary
|
|
|
Post by Unaffiliated on Dec 21, 2009 6:54:58 GMT -5
Can't stand the guy emphasizing on his parents being Asian, as if that doesn't make him one himself.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Dec 21, 2009 6:58:57 GMT -5
Legen... wait for it... ...DARY! Fixed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Time Lord Soundwave on Dec 21, 2009 10:49:56 GMT -5
Can't stand the guy emphasizing on his parents being Asian, as if that doesn't make him one himself. Maybe he was adopted.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,868
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 21, 2009 14:46:28 GMT -5
I was about to prove that I was right, but all the cases I'm finding that prove my point are in Canada. So, i'm not technically wrong. And according to my research, it's legally protected in the United States, until and unless it is ruled obscene, in which case we are arguing legal semantics, in the same vein of "is it driving while intoxicated" or "driving under the influence." Simulated images would likely get a stiffer sentence than written, because of the classification. As such, I'm not conceding defeat here, only that I wasn't absolutely correct. And, since I did the research, he's one of the cases I found Nevertheless, a lower court recently jailed an Ottawa man simply for possessing stories he himself had written about sex involving teenaged girls. The accused man reportedly made no attempt to distribute the material and an assessment found him to be a low risk to hurt real children. Since this law prescribes a minimum sentence, the judge jailed the accused for 14 days. Inexplicably, the prosecutors had proposed a sentence of three to four months. www.thestar.com/comment/article/736239If Canada was your argument, you should have said from province to province ;D It doesn't take much to prove in Canada that your collection of child porn (assuming one had one) is "art". I remember a few years back Pee Wee Herman getting busted for his antique porn collection, which for some reason had kids in it or something. Don't remember all the details on that one.
|
|