So you’re not aware then that this is someone whose descriptors match someone accused of constant returning/evading and who has been proven wrong.
Comment on Is there any other way to interpret these comments (convo between a 20 year old and 14 year old)
hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 1 week ago
What she is requesting is sexual depictions of a minor. Depending on how it’s drawn that is probably illegal in the US.
She could request anything, but she requests a sexual depictions of a minor, even though she probably knows that it’s most likely illegal.
If it’s unethical, there’s room for argument I guess. But this goes further, and usually if something violates a law, in most cases we’re past the ethical debate and straight into criminal prosecution territory.
TL;DR there’s no other way to view this.
shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 6 days ago
ShiverMeTimbers@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Funny you mention legality. The person the OP is slandering (as in it’s not true enough to be considerable), was actually taken to court and acquitted in all instances, because the people trying to target her with slander fall apart under due process. She wasn’t depicting anything NSFW about minors, she just used wording that missed a beat.
TL;DR Yes, there are absolutely other ways to view this, especially when you did not question the defense. Gullible lemmings, I see why this place is Communist now.
ItsJannnneee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 days ago
[deleted]ShiverMeTimbers@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Three reasons for that.
- Slander under law does not require it to be a lie.
- It is a lie. The context is different in both instances. Anyone who sees the whole thread knows.
- The channel you link to is known for being transphobic and not caring as long as it calls out people it doesn’t like as pedos, because that’s what it is, a slander channel.
I’ve been in tune to this for a while.
ItsJannnneee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 days ago
shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Maybe it’s worth acknowledging you’re an exact copy of someone who keeps returning.