• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

good news for perverts in America!

Doesn't the fact that she's 16 somehow make the law workable against him?
F'ing weird...
 
Bet he's an illegal, too.
 
I'm proud to be a perv, but the fact that this dude got away on a technicality is disappointing. I have no patience for dudes that basically molest people against their will like this and particularly young girls.

jag
 
It seems to me like the fact that she's wearing clothes, which, when it comes right down to it, is something humans do expressly to 'cover up', imbues her with a certain amount of privacy with respect to what's under that skirt, and that efforts by anyone to reveal what's under the skirt without her consent would be criminal in nature, ESPECIALLY given that she was a minor.

What the hell is the world coming to?
 
It seems to me like the fact that she's wearing clothes, which, when it comes right down to it, is something humans do expressly to 'cover up'...[etc].
I wear clothes to stay warm, and because it's the law out in public. :huh: Otherwise, I'd be naked all day long. :yay:
 
"the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy,"
:huh:
Does this mean that people can walk around naked in public now? The fact that she's not doing that means that she's guarding the privacy of her private parts. That statement didn't make sense to me at all.

Bet he's an illegal, too.
:huh: :huh:
Is that sarcasm? I am really bad at detecting sarcasm.
 
In January 2007, Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert ordered Ferrante's felony charge dismissed. That was based upon a determination that "the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy," according to the appellate ruling issued last week.
Being at a big Rock concert by a mosh pit, there is no reasonable way that you could expect not to be touched by someone else, so I guess it's cool if guys go to concerts and fondle 16 year old girls there? :huh:
 
I wear clothes to stay warm, and because it's the law out in public. :huh: Otherwise, I'd be naked all day long. :yay:

That's sort of my point. It's the 'law' for a reason - to provide privacy to individuals and to shield others from having to look at private parts.

Plus, she's a minor. Surely, minors should be afforded additional protections against 'pervs'.

But I guess not...
 
That's sort of my point. It's the 'law' for a reason - to provide privacy to individuals and to shield others from having to look at private parts.

Plus, she's a minor. Surely, minors should be afforded additional protections against 'pervs'.

But I guess not...
It's sort of a one-sided law, isn't it? It's really interesting to think about.

Unless they're on private grounds, people aren't allowed to walk around undressed...not for their own benefit (they don't have a choice), but for the benefit of everybody else.

Well, clearly, this man waived his legal, "right," not to look at or be exposed to somebody else's private parts.

That's not to say the girl wanted to be looked at, but looking purely at the reasoning behind the laws, it's almost as though this is a logical loophole.
 
You bet he was black? Cause racism is awesome right? Someone ban this fool:cmad:

You need a Sarcasmatron 3000:

Toy-Robot-761127.jpg


jag
 
You bet he was black? Cause racism is awesome right? Someone ban this fool:cmad:
I don't think he was being serious. I think that his remark aimed to show how absurd Casey's remark about the person being illegal is.

Still not sure if Casey was being sarcastic though. My sarcasmatron 3000 hasn't been oiled in... years.
 
You bet he was black? Cause racism is awesome right? Someone ban this fool:cmad:
You have no way to detect sarcasm, even by context? Yeah, 'cause illiteracy is cool, right?

Someone ban this fool. :cmad:
 
call me crazy, but i'm going to play the bad guy and side with the court on this one.

we've all seen how a lot of these girls run around with skirts so short, they have another pair of cheeks to powder, and another pair of lips to gloss... and a lot of them without panties on.

if you don't want people to look, cover up. and i know what you're going to say "i have a right to wear whatever i want!" well, yeah, you do, but when you wear something out in public, people are going to see it, and i think not too many of these girls think about the perverts looking at them, only whether other "hott" teenage boys are looking at them.

and really, even if he did take a pic of her panties, that's not her being naked. it's the same as a bathing suit. if somebody goes out in public wearing something, they should kind of understand that people are going to look at them and see up their skirt or down their low-cut shirt or what have you... and in an increasingly digital age, that includes the possibility of someone snapping a pic of you.

there's a reason guys don't wear skirts... we don't want people peeking at our Mike Wazowskis.
 
You have no way to detect sarcasm, even by context? Yeah, 'cause illiteracy is cool, right?

Someone ban this fool. :cmad:

Sarcasm is expressed through the use of facial expression and/or tone of voice.

Neither of which you can show legitimately through the use of text.

So ban everybody:cmad:.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"