You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

MinorLeakage ago

Posting sexualized images of minors is literal pedophilia and is illegal in the US. Fuck off with your bullshit, faggot. You and /u/Aged both deserve to die in a fire.

Dortex ago

Nope. Perfectly legal. There's no argument here. You're not into it so you want him gone.

MinorLeakage ago

You are absolutely wrong. Which State are you licensed to practice law in, faggot?

18 U.S. Code § 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

You clain there is no argument, but that's because you're fucking moron, and you have no argument. It is illegal, and contravenes Voat's rules. He should be banned. You are allowed to defend him, and don't deserve to be banned. You just deserve to die in fire for defending abusers of children.

Dortex ago

You are absolutely wrong. Which State are you licensed to practice law in, faggot?

None. You?

18 U.S. Code § 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

I see your citation and raise you an Ashcroft v Free Speech Association. Twice, for good measure.

MinorLeakage ago

Now suddenly it's a nuanced argument, that required the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue? Not to mention, that is an older case from a different law than what I linked. And that case only deals with drawings, whereas /u/Aged also posts suggestive pictures of actual real children.

This is not a "canary in the coal mine" for freedom of speech. That is a specious argument. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is not either. These are crimes completely unrelated to speech.

This isn't about your little recent squabble with him and /v/gaming. The dude is a literal pedophile, who could be banned for the illegal content he posts, simple as that. Just because no law enforcement agency has had the time, money or motivation to stop him specifically, does not mean that what he does is legal by US law.

Dortex ago

Now suddenly it's a nuanced argument, that required the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue?

The Supreme Court weighs on issues of constitutionality. Of course they would be involved in this. And they ruled against your position explicitly.

And that case only deals with drawings, whereas /u/Aged also posts suggestive pictures of actual real children.

So you mean to tell me he has posted naked children in sexually suggestive poses? That's a pretty serious allegation.

MinorLeakage ago

You are completely incorrect. You responded to nothing substantive because you know you're wrong. Then you act incredulous about the only thing this conversation has ever been about.

Yes, pedophilia is a serious allegation. At least you're finally waking up.

Dortex ago

You are completely incorrect.

So he's not posting naked kids in sexually suggestive positions?

Help me here, man. It seems you think this counts as child porn. Which is so hilariously wrong, I don't know that you'd be physically capable of understanding laws in general. You honest to God may not be found competent to stand trial if you were ever arrested. What is the legal definition of child pornography?

Also, no. This conversation has never been about child pornography. It's ostensibly about Aged "spamming" the gaming sub with fan art. But it wasn't spam. Putt didn't quite get what was happening, so he gave a knee-jerk reaction he had to fix. But everyone in "the know" knew that was only an excuse. You don't like Aged. So you want him gone. Fuck off to Reddit. This place isn't for you.

MinorLeakage ago

Also, no. This conversation has never been about child pornography. It's ostensibly about Aged "spamming" the gaming sub with fan art.

Then we are having two different conversations. I couldn't care less about the recent ban, related to spam. This is about literal CP, not drawings.

/u/Aged has been posting literal CP. That's my only point, and the only reason I stopped by.

Dortex ago

I asked if he's been posting naked kids. You've ignored the question because it's an obvious "no". You have no idea what "child porn" even is. Are ypu going to answer the question, or you going to keep rationalizing?

MinorLeakage ago

The answer has been an unequivocal yes each and every time. Yes. He posts literal child porn, illegal under US law, in contravention of Voat's rules.

Dortex ago

The answer has been an unequivocal yes each and every time. Yes. He posts literal child porn, illegal under US law, in contravention of Voat's rules.

I asked a specific question. If there are naked kids, in sexually suggestive poses, then we have a crime on our hands. But we don't. You're just not into the stuff he posts.

MinorLeakage ago

Just stop trolling already. You say the same thing every time.

The only argument you have in your favor is that the US Supreme Court has previously ruled that drawings are not children. I am happy to concede that one detail.

That is not the only thing this poster posts.

We may well disagree about where the legal limit is, but the user in question purposely attempting to blur that line of legality. My opinion is that they are well beyond it, and we shouldn't be risking this place defending actual pedophiles on principle.

If you seriously cared about this issue or free speech, you would actually engage any of the people who called this out. Instead you just play dumb, pretend to misunderstand the point, then insist on answers to inane questions that don't pertain to the question at hand.

Dortex ago

We may well disagree about where the legal limit is, but the user in question purposely attempting to blur that line of legality.

None of this is important. Pictures of clothed, pubescent minors are not illegal. Any complaining past this point is moralizing.

My opinion is...

Worthless. You're not a judge, a lawyer, part of any active Jury in any case related to this, or a lawmaker. Your thoughts on the legality of these pictures is as relevant as your thoughts on the legality of drawn lolis.

You know there are no naked children in sexually suggestive poses. Hell, i doubt Aged has posted naked children period, even though that would fall squarely within the bounds of protected speech.

You want me to engage you, but the core of your argumentation is that you feel ways about pictures of clothed minors and that these feelings translate to some kind of legal statute or precedent that suddenly makes all this illegal.

Well guess what: I don't care about your feelings. Im literally too Autistic for this shit. So either answer my questions, or shove your feelings up your ass so nobody has to hear about them anymore.

MinorLeakage ago

You are the one who started this thread, crying your little eyes out. Go back to doing it alone now, faggot. Or with your pedophile buddy.

Dortex ago

I think you git my point. Take your moralizing back to Reddit. They banned these subs ages ago.

MinorLeakage ago

You really are dumber than a pile of shit.