SearchVoatBot ago

This submission was linked from this v/ProtectVoat comment by @theoldones.

Posted automatically (#40110) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

SearchVoatBot ago

This submission was linked from this v/fuark comment by @Octocopter.

Posted automatically (#38821) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

SearchVoatBot ago

This submission was linked from this v/ideasforvoat comment by @Octocopter.

Posted automatically (#38679) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

SearchVoatBot ago

This submission was linked from this v/nsfw comment by @Octocopter.

Posted automatically (#34525) 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

@puttitout @cynabuns

Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.

fuark_auf ago

it's from a mainstream movie -> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115633/

Octocopter ago

Does not matter, entire subverses have been disable on voat in the past for violating the user agreement. I don't give a shit what drawings you like but you posting real children after your fetishist rape porn means you deserve to die.

fuark_auf ago

fine i'll delete it if it bugs you that much. but i suggest you go online and read about this. jena mallone herself came forward and said she was never abused during the production of the film. that's not real sex. it's called stimulated sex. this isn't a video of a real girl getting abused or something.

Memorexem ago

You've been acting alright here, so far, but I guess we're gonna have to have this talk:

No children, simulated or otherwise. There's other subs that deal with movies, if you feel you must post this.

fuark_auf ago

cool i'll keep that in mind. and thanks for showing some sense here. other guys here are really a pain in the ass to deal with

Memorexem ago

Man. I'm trying. I don't judge what you post here based upon what you post other places, but that's a step over the line.

I'm under a lot of pressure to just ban you outright, but I view banning as a last resort. The lines here are pretty common sense, I think you are the only person to cross one in recent memory. Just stay behind it. Rule of thumb: If you question whether it should be posted, it probably shouldn't.

fuark_auf ago

noted

larryhuston ago

Well of course we are, towards perv slime like you.

Octocopter ago

No what needs to happen is you getting banned for sexualizing a real living minor, with a rape fetish no less.

You even posted it to NSFW while you are on a spree of posting rape and loli porn clearly posting it for sexual intent.

turtlesarepureevil ago

Mens reas is not enough to prosecute. What illegal act was committed?

Octocopter ago

Except Mens Reas is enough to convict based on the Miller Test. Which would decide if the content is indecent upon reviewing his possession of questionably clothed children and the said video of a child being raped stored and transmitted along side lolicon while he was posting such content for sexual gratification.

Even if the state does not criminalize explicit lolicon images the images of real children can be deemed indecent by a jury thus gaining his a child porn conviction for the real media and possibly the lolicon.

Just like people who posses and create photos of naturist children even if not posed can still be judged indecent via Mens Reas / Miller test and lead to a child porn conviction. Context is key with internet history and the content stored together helps the jury decide intent and merit.

Octocopter ago