Twice now he has posted content that is illegal per USA law which Voat is under and he posted these to common nsfw subs, he is only here to hurt the site.
It was a video clip of a real living breathing child being beaten and raped, he posted this to /nsfw minutes after posting rape and loli drawings. Under USA law he can be arrested and charge with possessing and distributing sexually explicit material of a minor.
Modlogs dont show self deleted posts. Things he deleted because of fear of getting banned. https://voat.co/v/nsfw/3171007 You can even ask him, he admits fully to posting it.
I dont give a fuck what drawings and fake media people like, when someone crosses the line into real children which he has done twice now he needs to get a bullet in his head. BTW what he posted is illegal because of the way and place he posted it. Just like pictures of nudist children are legal, if the cops find you with them stored right next to your porn and loli drawings they become CP. Pedos really need to learn obscenity laws, or not, since it make it easier to lock them up.
So... He broke no laws, did you a personal favor by deleting the post when he didn't have to, and you're still bitching? I'm leaning towards the "all of the above" option now.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
He did break the law, go ahead and find that clip and post it to pornhub with an account using your full name and address and see if the feds wont come knocking on your door since you "broke no laws". Hint you wont because that is against the law, the same would happen with videos containing nudist children, even while legal alone become illegal based on context of possession and distribution.
So here you are defending someone who shared his fetish for the rape of a young child and you defend him?
Is it not the place/duty of every "we only like drawings, and drawings are not real" person to distance themselves from the real pedo fucks who fetishize living children? or are they just lying? Yet time and time again the lolicon defenders on this site jump to the defense of those who lust after real children.
As long as you like only drawings I dont care, and long as you like drawings and are willing to shun and hate real pedos like fuark I dont care that you like drawings. When you defend a real pedo like fuark I will consider YOU a pedo regardless of what art you like.
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
Which he didn't.
He did break the law, go ahead and find that clip and post it to pornhub with an account using your full name and address and see if the feds wont come knocking on your door since you "broke no laws".
The full movie is on Youtube, was in theaters, and hasn't once been banned anywhere, to my knowledge. I know your point is that somehow the sub it was posted to makes this illegal, but I'm going to need to see what case law you're getting this precedent from.
So here you are defending someone who shared his fetish for the rape of a young child and you defend him?
Unless you can point to something illegal, then yes.
Is it not the place/duty of every "we only like drawings, and drawings are not real" person to distance themselves from the real pedo fucks who fetishize living children?
No. Who the fuck are you to decide what duties other people have? That's some leftist bullshit.
As long as you like only drawings I dont care, and long as you like dr...
I feel like you're under the impression anyone cares what your personal feelings towards people are. That only works for non-autists who know you in real life. None of that applies to me.
Posted automatically (#42082) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
Are really trying to tell all of Voat that a video of a real child being beaten and raped that was posted to a porn collection does not qualify as "sexually suggestive content involving minors" ? You really are a sick pedo.
The full movie is not the same a specifically cut segment only showing the violence and rape against a little girl being posted to a collection of pornography, you and other pedos lack of understanding obscenity laws is amazing.
Its clear now you are just trying to run defense for a real pedo, probably because you are just like him.
Fans of lolicon are forever plagued by pedos like you who try to defend other pedos hiding behind "we only like drawings" when you refuse to call them out when they cross that line.
Are you really trying to tell all of Voat that a video of a real child being beaten and raped that was posted to a porn collection does not qualify as "sexually suggestive content involving minors"?
That is correct. The best you can argue is it was a depiction of abuse being posted in a suggestive sub.
The full movie is not the same a specifically cut segment only showing the violence and rape against a little girl being posted to a collection of pornography
Regardless of what you feel, it passed the Miller Test ages ago. Now we're just arguing about where it's been posted. I'm still waiting on that case law where the test stopped being the measure of what classifies as obscene content.
Fans of lolicon are forever plagued by pedos like you
I don't feel plagued.
you refuse to call them out when they cross that line.
Again: Who are you to impose duties on me? That's not a rhetorical question.
Go ahead and believe what ever you want to about how the law works with that. Hope you dont have anything like that stored or listed sharing in that context if feds want to touch you.
view the rest of the comments →
MisterPills ago
How do people even stumble on this stuff? Been coming here for years and never have I seen one illegal image.
Octocopter ago
Twice now he has posted content that is illegal per USA law which Voat is under and he posted these to common nsfw subs, he is only here to hurt the site.
Dortex ago
Nope. Nothing drawn is illegal.
Octocopter ago
It was a video clip of a real living breathing child being beaten and raped, he posted this to /nsfw minutes after posting rape and loli drawings. Under USA law he can be arrested and charge with possessing and distributing sexually explicit material of a minor.
Dortex ago
Nothing in the modlogs or the sub. Either you're a moron, a liar, or both.
Octocopter ago
Modlogs dont show self deleted posts. Things he deleted because of fear of getting banned. https://voat.co/v/nsfw/3171007 You can even ask him, he admits fully to posting it.
I dont give a fuck what drawings and fake media people like, when someone crosses the line into real children which he has done twice now he needs to get a bullet in his head. BTW what he posted is illegal because of the way and place he posted it. Just like pictures of nudist children are legal, if the cops find you with them stored right next to your porn and loli drawings they become CP. Pedos really need to learn obscenity laws, or not, since it make it easier to lock them up.
Dortex ago
So... He broke no laws, did you a personal favor by deleting the post when he didn't have to, and you're still bitching? I'm leaning towards the "all of the above" option now.
Octocopter ago
"he didn't have to" https://voat.co/help/useragreement
Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.
He did break the law, go ahead and find that clip and post it to pornhub with an account using your full name and address and see if the feds wont come knocking on your door since you "broke no laws". Hint you wont because that is against the law, the same would happen with videos containing nudist children, even while legal alone become illegal based on context of possession and distribution.
So here you are defending someone who shared his fetish for the rape of a young child and you defend him?
Is it not the place/duty of every "we only like drawings, and drawings are not real" person to distance themselves from the real pedo fucks who fetishize living children? or are they just lying? Yet time and time again the lolicon defenders on this site jump to the defense of those who lust after real children.
As long as you like only drawings I dont care, and long as you like drawings and are willing to shun and hate real pedos like fuark I dont care that you like drawings. When you defend a real pedo like fuark I will consider YOU a pedo regardless of what art you like.
Dortex ago
Which he didn't.
The full movie is on Youtube, was in theaters, and hasn't once been banned anywhere, to my knowledge. I know your point is that somehow the sub it was posted to makes this illegal, but I'm going to need to see what case law you're getting this precedent from.
Unless you can point to something illegal, then yes.
No. Who the fuck are you to decide what duties other people have? That's some leftist bullshit.
I feel like you're under the impression anyone cares what your personal feelings towards people are. That only works for non-autists who know you in real life. None of that applies to me.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectVoat comment by @Octocopter.
Posted automatically (#42082) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
Octocopter ago
Are really trying to tell all of Voat that a video of a real child being beaten and raped that was posted to a porn collection does not qualify as "sexually suggestive content involving minors" ? You really are a sick pedo.
The full movie is not the same a specifically cut segment only showing the violence and rape against a little girl being posted to a collection of pornography, you and other pedos lack of understanding obscenity laws is amazing.
Its clear now you are just trying to run defense for a real pedo, probably because you are just like him. Fans of lolicon are forever plagued by pedos like you who try to defend other pedos hiding behind "we only like drawings" when you refuse to call them out when they cross that line.
Dortex ago
That is correct. The best you can argue is it was a depiction of abuse being posted in a suggestive sub.
Regardless of what you feel, it passed the Miller Test ages ago. Now we're just arguing about where it's been posted. I'm still waiting on that case law where the test stopped being the measure of what classifies as obscene content.
I don't feel plagued.
Again: Who are you to impose duties on me? That's not a rhetorical question.
Octocopter ago
Go ahead and believe what ever you want to about how the law works with that. Hope you dont have anything like that stored or listed sharing in that context if feds want to touch you.
I am pretty much done here arguing with you.
Dortex ago
We were arguing? Felt more like you were telling me about how you feel while I was asking a series of questions you couldn't answer.