Ik this won’t be a popular take because, as evidenced by this very comment section even, critical thinking isn’t popular, but this is sexual harassment. Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment. Yes, even when the person you’re sexually harassing a piece of shit themselves, is that seriously a hard concept to grasp?? This dude is a piece of shit too if he thinks it’s okay to send someone porn without consent.
No, this is constitutionally protected political speech, as any court in the country will find when this winds up in front of them.
Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment.
Questionable, but even granting that, public figures like politicians are a legally distinct kind of people who have to meet a much higher bar to claim communication is harassment, and this is a huge nothingburger. Larry Flynt is laughing from his grave.
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.
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.
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.
Ik this won’t be a popular take because, as evidenced by this very comment section even, critical thinking isn’t popular, but this is sexual harassment. Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment. Yes, even when the person you’re sexually harassing a piece of shit themselves, is that seriously a hard concept to grasp?? This dude is a piece of shit too if he thinks it’s okay to send someone porn without consent.
EDIT: Harassment not assault.
No, this is constitutionally protected political speech, as any court in the country will find when this winds up in front of them.
Questionable, but even granting that, public figures like politicians are a legally distinct kind of people who have to meet a much higher bar to claim communication is harassment, and this is a huge nothingburger. Larry Flynt is laughing from his grave.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Sexual harassment, not assault
True, edited the original comment to reflect this.
deleted by creator