Quote:
Originally Posted by Duppin  Did I pretty much sum up what I missed?
You might want to actually read what the Miller Test that you keep referring to is actually about. It is strictly a test of whether the First Amendment applies to a particular set of speech, and thus whether it can be regulated or not.
This particular speech is pretty clearly obscene, so whether it passes the Miller Test isn't even in question. What is in question, at least among us non-paralegals (I'm trying to see if I can mention that more times than you did, it'll take some doing) is whether this qualifies as pedophilia, which it's pretty clear that it isn't because there are NO ACTUAL CHILDREN INVOLVED.
As people who have read Vanguard threads can tell you, it takes a LOT to get me to agree with Twobit about anything, but you're dead wrong on this, and it's clear that while you accuse him of having an agenda (helpful hint: if Camerous is backing you up you might want to re-evaluate your position) with the clear implication that he's a closet pedo himself, it's pretty clear to me that YOU have an agenda of some sort yourself and are very emotionally attached to this issue.
Which is fine, I'm pretty queasy about this shit myself, but the fact still remains that until there's evidence of actual children being solicited here, there isn't anything illegal happening that has a chance of being prosecuted for. |
It's really simple, Duppin. People can't throw out their First Amendments rights, nor say that the Federal level supercedes the State level if they know nothing about how the USSC tests obscenity. Once established that obscenity exists, State laws are enforceable. But you start with the Miller Test and you work your way down the ladder from there. So what exactly am I "wrong" about now? I quote facts you even agree with and then turn around and arbitrarily say I'm "wrong on this". Amazing!
As for the agenda, I'm not the one who posted this concern to FoH. In fact, I never even read a thread at WoW or knew about it until I read it here first. But I did go read it over there to see what was up. So did you from the looks of it. As others pointed out, it is true that threads were deleted alleging minors were in fact involved. I read it myself. You must have missed it. Obviously others read the same, but for that, it's now labelled an "agenda".
Maybe if Twobit didn't constantly poke at everything I wrote, I wouldn't have responded to clarify and ultimately conclude he's the one who has the agenda. Ever think of that? Of course not.
I never said the FBI was going to come crashing WoW's party tomorrow. I said, repeatedly, (because he's so dense), that if these perverts get caught with a bonafide minor, they're going to jail. The fact that this interest group even has the audacity to pubically recruit in front of children what they are doing, is questionable considering the ESRB label. Partly because even recruiting the practice of obscene sexuality in front of minors would not pass the Miller Test and what is "obscene" is the first thing that's tested. I also noted it's partly because it wouldn't pass even Blizzard's own EULA. AT has done that already at LEAST on the forums and I read it. So all that screaming on the WoW forums (and here) that they have First Amendment rights is bullcocky. It's also bull when Lilith screams she's not meeting minors in real life so she can do "whatever she wants". Not according to the EULA and not according to the law if she happens to pick the wrong "ERP'er".
I even gave you examples of cases where it's been shown this does happen in WoW, even with people who are prior sex offenders. Yet some scream nothing has happened with minors. In really BIG BOLD letters, so it must be true. Wrong. It has been done. I didn't write those news articles.
My posts are researched and I try to give examples in every fact I state. If it's my opinion, I say it's my opinion. I just don't throw out insults smothered in inane bullshit just to make myself sound intelligent in an effort to smack around the people I don't like who post on this board because they have an opinion I don't share. I also don't harbor hatred for past subjects I didn't share their opinion with just because I didn't get over it like some people around here. And lastly, I don't post just for the sake of hearing myself think.
I said the word "paralegal" once in this thread. Maybe twice the entire time I've ever posted. So much for your count of things. Yet you say nothing about how he accused me about having a personal "crusade" FIRST, which prompted the explanation of why I even thought the subject matter was of interest to me.
Does that sum up everything I said? Yeah, I think it does. Not what you wrote though.
