If so, could you be so kind as to speak to why you disagree with its unusually thorough and detailed legal analysis of the matter at hand?
The Shrek image may have been crude or vulgar. But in context, there is no serious argument Byrnes sent it to arouse anyone’s sexual interest, let alone that it satisfies the Miller test. Byrnes sent it to another adult, reportedly accompanied by political commentary describing Cirino as “Young Mussolini.” That’s protected political mockery, not obscenity.
Well, I did flash my dong to everyone in the gravy train explicitly to arouse sexual interest, which is the same reason I now turn the subject to testicular torsion. You’re gunna feel this. Brace yourself, and bless your heart!
Dicks are irrelevant. If you can genuinely look at the picture in that article and call it “porn” you’re even weirder than the fascist piece of shit it was sent to mock.
It damn sure wouldn’t meet any legal definition.
For someone who started off their diatribe by accusing everyone else of lacking critical thinking skills, you damn sure have t bothered to address any of the counterpoints or analysis anyone else has brought up. It’s almost like you lack critical thinking skills and are just reacting to vibes.
spreading rape apologia whether you know it or not.
Kinda rich coming from someone whose definition of sexual assault is so broad (and thereby so cheapened) that it includes sending cartoon dicks to politicians.
I wonder how this person would qualify me touching my junk at the urinal. Since it involves touching an exposed penis, I suppose they would classify urinal usage as “public masturbation” and “sexual harassment” if anyone else is in the bathroom.
Morally, I’m neutral about the act of sending the photo. It’s crass but was sent to a GOP politician, so big shrug.
Ethically, I think it violates the general principle of “don’t be a dick”, but see it as a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things.
Semantically, I don’t think it’s sexual (*in the sense of anyone getting their rocks off) in any way, shape, or form, nor credibly assault. I don’t think the photo as shown in the article is remotely distressing to anyone imaginable except a deeply-repressed GOP closet case.
Did you read the linked article?
If so, could you be so kind as to speak to why you disagree with its unusually thorough and detailed legal analysis of the matter at hand?
i can’t take an article or author serious when they argue shreenis is not titillating.
That bish hot mid type robo pussy. I really just want to bury my face in between some fat ladies thighs. I am all giddy.
Oh, the sides do orbit, know what I mean, brother?
Look, I didn’t flash my dong to everyone in the train to arouse anyone’s sexual interest so there’s no serious argument it was obscene
Well, I did flash my dong to everyone in the gravy train explicitly to arouse sexual interest, which is the same reason I now turn the subject to testicular torsion. You’re gunna feel this. Brace yourself, and bless your heart!
deleted by creator
Dicks are irrelevant. If you can genuinely look at the picture in that article and call it “porn” you’re even weirder than the fascist piece of shit it was sent to mock.
It damn sure wouldn’t meet any legal definition.
For someone who started off their diatribe by accusing everyone else of lacking critical thinking skills, you damn sure have t bothered to address any of the counterpoints or analysis anyone else has brought up. It’s almost like you lack critical thinking skills and are just reacting to vibes.
Don’t call a dick dicker a fascist. Like, these ain’t the same lasagna, hunny
deleted by creator
Kinda rich coming from someone whose definition of sexual assault is so broad (and thereby so cheapened) that it includes sending cartoon dicks to politicians.
I wonder how this person would qualify me touching my junk at the urinal. Since it involves touching an exposed penis, I suppose they would classify urinal usage as “public masturbation” and “sexual harassment” if anyone else is in the bathroom.
Hell, according to them you’re probably already a rapist for writing the word “penis” without getting consent from everyone in the thread.
By god, you’re right! Off to the gulag with me.
deleted by creator
Ha! People who can’t tell morals from ethics will argue with lawyers and claim the lawyers are fake, all day. No one knows more than a YouTube grad!
Wym?
Morally, I’m neutral about the act of sending the photo. It’s crass but was sent to a GOP politician, so big shrug.
Ethically, I think it violates the general principle of “don’t be a dick”, but see it as a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things.
Semantically, I don’t think it’s sexual (*in the sense of anyone getting their rocks off) in any way, shape, or form, nor credibly assault. I don’t think the photo as shown in the article is remotely distressing to anyone imaginable except a deeply-repressed GOP closet case.