showing someone porn is a felony in the US :O

It seems to me that he's mainly being prosecuted because he defeated the white Democratic party power base in South Carolina -- including a local judge.

How can he be expected to get justice under circumstances like that?

 

I think he is being prosecuted because he broke the law, in quite a creepy and invasive way.

 

I bet that if I posted porn to this thread I wouldn't be prosecuted and threatened with five years in prison.

 

1. probably not. But if you done what he done you'd likely be arrested and charged.
2. He isn't being threatened with 5 years in prison. 5 years is just the maximum sentence for the crime he committed. It's not a threat, it's a statment of fact.

Do you concede that he committed a crime in showing this teenage girl obscene images against her will? If yes, do you concede that the maximum prison sentence for that crime, depending on the circumstances, is up to 5 years in prison?

 

Now she's not a college student, she's a "teenage girl." It sounds like another black person is being railroaded through the white man's justice system.

He's actually being threatened with eight years in prison, five for one charge and three for another. I guess he's just lucky they don't lynch him.

If the prosecution shows the women in the pornography were white women, maybe they will lynch him!

 

Do you concede that he committed a crime in showing this teenage girl obscene images against her will? If yes, do you concede that the maximum prison sentence for that crime, depending on the circumstances, is up to 5 years in prison?

You don't seem to be willing to argue the facts here. Why is that?

 

I don't concede any of that. In America we have this thing called "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

Well, we did. We don't seem to any more.

 

I'm going to drag this out of you will regardless how much you kick and scream, so you may as well answer. I'll reword it, slightly, just to give you less of a pedantic hole to hide in.

Do you concede that, if the allegations are true, he committed a crime in showing this teenage girl obscene images against her will?
If yes, do you concede that the maximum prison sentence for that crime, depending on the circumstances, is up to 5 years in prison?

 

You know I'm fond of you Will, but I totally agree with StOx here, and frankly I'm happy about his stance on the matter.

Showing anyone, especially someone still in their teenage years, porn that they don't want to see, deliberately, is pretty damn wrong. Finding crap on the internet is par the course for being online - but that's to be expected. A person should be able to feel safe - especially in a school.

 

Little willy got owned

 

if he said to the teenage "hey want to see something?" and the teenager willingly goes over to him to see is that unwilling?

 

edited above: relevant parts to the thread


Is there a smoking gun indicating more than just being a dumb ass? not really. The girl by the way is White and overweight and looks the type for what she is doing - seeking attention.

Not in the Article but Greene initially said because he has no record the court would normally allow for pre-trial intervention for what he refereed to as his mistake.

More needs to be discovered but the episode really does not seem to amount to a hill of beans.

 

I wonder if she consider to turn her face away or to close her eyes or get up and walk away?
If she continued to watch without taking any actions to stop it, then what is illegal about that?

I don't know if you can make somebody watch something without applying some sort of physical pressure.
As for example push her eye leads open while putting her head in headlock and tie her up to the chair.



fastreplies

 

Yeah fat white girls shouldn't be allowed to be offended and seek legal redress when filthy perverts show them disgusting images...

I'd actually like this pervy little weirdo to use that defence in court. It wont happen though, because in real life people tend to have too much dignity to allow themselves to say something that cretinous.

Really? Or are you just pretending to not know because you think it gives credibility to your argument?

If, for instance, i held out a picture of my penis in front of your wife and said "look at that" id be completely blameless and the fact that she looked at it would be evidence that she wanted to? No? Didn't think so.

I love how the arguments from the people supporting this retarded sexual predator rest entirely on their feigned inability to understand how it's possible to make someone see something against their will. How weak is that.

 

A crime, possibly. Lots of things are crimes. Being an Atheist has been a crime in many places at many times. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Nope. He's actually looking at a maximum of eight years in prison.

But neither of these are really the issue. He's been railroaded because he's a black man who challenged a white Democratic judge in South Carolina. This is not the American standard of blind justice.

Look at the charges:

1. disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity
2. communicating an obscene message to another person without consent

Why isn't Janet Jackson in prison? Oh yeah... because she has money and she's not in South Carolina.

If I tell you to "Fuck off", I've just violated the second law. Oh wait.. I've just violated it now by communicating that obscene message to every reader of this thread without their consent. Haul me off to prison! Oh wait... I'm white and not in South Carolina.

These charges won't stand up in court -- outside of South Carolina. The locals will try to get Greene to drop out of the race in exchange for a plea bargain, or they will send him to prison for long enough that he will be forced to drop out of the race.

These laws are unAmerican and they very likely violate the First Amendment. The courts may or may not have the cojones to state that to an unwilling electorate. Probably they won't, the American courts have a poor history of support for the Constitution.

Once again, a quote from Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

This story is not really different than the current scandal surrounding Rand Paul, except Rand is rich and white and has the ability to defend himself in court or out.

 

So odd to see the Atheist Morality Police. Once again, the rabid left giving atheists a bad name.

 

Will, don't try to paint this as a civil rights issue equivalent to compulsory religion. It does your arguments no favours. He has no right, legally or morally, to deliberately expose someone to obscene images against their will. I'd agree that he almost certainly wont go to prison, but how is it a bad thing that showing someone something obscene against their will is illegal?

If someone was showing your wife obscene images against her will would you want the law to be powerless to stop them? I keep asking this question, and you guys keep ignoring it. Would your so called vales still apply if it was your wife being preyed upon by this filthy little sexual predator or do you only hold these values when it suites you?

 

If not for the left there probably wouldn't be any atheist period. It is not the left giving atheist a bad name in the above arguments.

That quite possibly should read - who challenged a white girl because if she had been black the S Ca Court would have never accepted the case.


Very bad in taste but trivial in substance - for a single event.

 

As usual, you are delusional.

Two gay guys kissing on the street. Obscene? Arrest those "filthy little sexual predators"? After all, my wife may have witnessed such an obscene act against her will.

Do you have any idea how much porn spam I get? Granted, I hate spam as much as the next guy, and I most definitely do not have any option but to read enough of the email to determine it is both spam and obscene in order to delete it. Felonies for the spammers? I'm afraid you've got you severely misguided sense of what is and is not a civil liberties issue.

 

Not unless either of them objects. Your wife isn't "asked" to watch, "deliberately shown" it and kissing isn't something anyone could really define as "obscene". Unless it's obscene because they are gay, in which case your wife is a homophobe.

Does the woman who was preyed upon by this filthy little retard not have civil liberties? Does she not have the "right" to not have some disgusting predator deliberately show her obscene images against her will?

Again.... if i showed your wife images of my penis against her will should the law be unable to prevent me? Your reluctance to answer this question defeats your argument in a more profound way that my words ever could. it demonstrates that you don't actually believe what you claim when it is applied to your wife, only when it's applied to others. That's called hypocrisy, you're a hypocrite.