Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
from the make-better-laws,-lawmakers dept
Revenge porn laws generally aren't built to last. When crafting these laws, legislators tend to lose sight of the Constitution. Everyone agrees revenge porn is bad, but simply being in agreement isn't enough when rights are on the line.
Minnesota passed a revenge porn law in 2016. The law barely made it three years before being found unconstitutional by a state court. As usual, the legislature's inability (or refusal) to narrowly craft a speech restriction has come back to haunt it. KARE 11 reports the state Court of Appeals has undone the Constitutional damage caused by the state's poorly-written law.
Minnesota's law against revenge porn is unconstitutional and infringes on First Amendment rights, the state Court of Appeals ruled Monday as it reversed the conviction of a man who circulated explicit photos of a former girlfriend.
The court ruled that the state law was such a broad violation of First Amendment free-speech rights that it couldn't be fixed by a ruling limiting its scope.
The case deals with Michael Casillas, who used the victim's passwords to access her accounts to obtain her sexual photos and videos. Casillas threatened to release them. And then he did, sharing one video with an unknown number of people by posting it online.
Casillas was charged and sentenced to 23 months in prison. He appealed, challenging the law that put him there. He has succeeded for now. (The state is already planning to appeal this to the state's Supreme Court.) The appeals court doesn't like Casillas, but it also doesn't like the law. And when it comes to the Constitution, personal distaste for a person's actions is no excuse for violating free speech rights.
The decision [PDF] says the law is too broad to remain on the books.
In sum, Minn. Stat. § 617.261 covers a wide range of expressive conduct. It covers the dissemination of a sexual image with knowledge that the person depicted in the image did not consent to the dissemination and that the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it also covers the dissemination of a sexual image even if the disseminator did not know that the subject of the image did not consent to the dissemination, did not know that the image was obtained or created under circumstances indicating that the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and did not cause or intend to cause a specified harm. Given the statute’s application to the latter set of circumstances, its sweep is broad.
The state hoped to salvage its conviction by claiming that the image distributed non-consensually was obscene -- something laws can target without troubling the First Amendment as much. The court disagrees.
The state appears to argue that any image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way if the image is disseminated without the subject’s consent. Although we agree that such nonconsensual dissemination is offensive, that is not the test for determining whether a work is obscene.
The state also tried to claim the law actually regulated privacy, rather than speech. Wrong, says the court, even if -- for the sake of argument -- we pretend that you're right.
The state also contends that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 does not implicate the First Amendment because it is a privacy regulation. But privacy is not one of the recognized “delineated categories” of speech excepted from First Amendment protection.
The court agrees the state has a legitimate interest in deterring the distribution of revenge porn. But a broadly-worded law that criminalizes certain conduct without requiring the government to prove intent is highly-problematic. It's not enough to say someone should know this speech would "harass" or "frighten" other people. The state has to prove the person engaging in this speech knew this would happen and did it anyway. The state's revenge porn law does not do that. The court notes similar laws covering "disturbing" speech have been struck down in the past by the state's top court, both because the intent clause wasn't limited enough and requirements the state show the victim had suffered actual harm nonexistent.
There's no inherent expectation of privacy in sexually-explicit images, says the court. Just because they're explicit doesn't make them private. The court points out demonstrators and activists have often pushed for the distribution of their own sexually-explicit images to make sociopolitical points. The wide open give-and-take of internet communications makes it impossible to draw a bright line on expectations of privacy -- something the law takes for granted by saying that if it's explicit, it's private.
An observer of an image on a publicly available medium that depicts a person in a sexual act, or whose intimate parts are exposed, would be wise to refrain from further disseminating that image or risk criminal prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 617.261 based on a prosecutor’s subjective belief that the image’s content should have caused the observer to know that the person depicted did not consent to the dissemination and that the image was obtained or created under circumstances indicating that the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. And that risk exists even though such images are often present on publicly available mediums with the consent of the people depicted
The government's evidentiary duties are pretty much removed by this law, making it far too easy to punish protected expression while still following the letter of the law.
Given the ease with which impermissible disseminations under the statute may be further disseminated without the intent to harm necessary to proscribe expressive conduct without violating the First Amendment, we conclude that Minn. Stat. § 617.261 has the potential to reach a substantial amount of protected expressive conduct.
The law can't be salvaged. It has to be stricken from the books and new legislation crafted to replace it -- legislation that actually respects the First Amendment. This doesn't excuse Casillas' behavior. But the court isn't willing to sacrifice the Constitution to punish someone for being an asshole.
Our holding in no way changes our view that Casillas’s conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.261—of which he was convicted—is abhorrent. Nor should it be read as failing to appreciate the significant harm that the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images causes. The state legitimately seeks to punish that conduct. But the state cannot do so under a statute that is written too broadly and therefore violates the First Amendment.
You hate to see jerks win. But that doesn't mean anyone should be willing to punish a whole bunch of people just to ensure jerks can't escape justice. Separating people from their rights isn't justice. The state can still seek to punish people who traffic in revenge porn. But it will have to be whole lot more careful how it does it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, minnesota, revenge port
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now if only people who oppose voting rights restoration for felons would catch on to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: voting rights restoration for felons
How do you feel about taking away people's right to travel?
To live where they want?
To leave a given building?
We do all that to convicted criminals. It's called "prison".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: voting rights restoration for felons
Yes. And then once they leave prison, those rights are restored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless they live in a state where they don’t get back their right to vote after leaving prison, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think perhaps you either missed OldMugwump's comment or the point of my reply to it.
He pointed out that when we send people to prison, we don't just take away their right to vote, we also take away their right to travel, live where they want, and leave a given building.
I responded that all the rights he mentioned are restored upon release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Rights are restored to prisoners on release...]
--- in many cases, but there are exceptions, eg
(1) parole, which may or may not be restrictive, or
(2) a sex-offender registry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"--- in many cases, but there are exceptions, eg
(1) parole, which may or may not be restrictive, or
(2) a sex-offender registry.
Parole is time-limited, i believe.
And a registry only means "This man served time for xxx" which may or may not be death on his odds of getting a job or a social life but sure as hell doesn't keep him from voting or traveling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: voting rights restoration for felons
"We do all that to convicted criminals. It's called "prison"."
And once sentence is served, the convict is considered a "free man", not a subhuman second class citizen. We call that "human rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: voting rights restoration for felons
Yeahhhh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#United_States_2
It's not true all the time. It depends on where you live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: voting rights restoration for felons
"It's not true all the time. It depends on where you live."
That, I believe, was the point. OldMugWump tried to use a false analogy (imprisonment, time-limited) to justify why permanent disenfranchisement should remain a thing.
I commented that removing, permanently, someone's citizen's rights to partake in the politics of the country in question is a BAD idea more often pursued in dictatorships than in free countries.
It's pretty ugly if, for instance, an unjust law also ensures you never get to participate in having the law changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell that to every “free man” on a sex offender registry because they pissed on the side of a road or had sex at the age of 17 with a 15-year-old girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’m not completely opposed to sex-offender registries if they’re restricted to very specific cases (in other words, when in doubt, err on the side of not including them in the registries), and especially if they’re time-limited. Peeing in public or having sex with someone within a few years of your age should not qualify.
Of course, I’m aware of no jurisdiction that has such a restriction on sex-offender registries, so as-applied, I lean more against sex-offender registries, at least right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell, in Georgia, they can now require you to register as a sex offender for anything. Burglary, extortion, reckless driving, doesn't matter. The court can order to you register as a sex offender.
https://www.wired.com/2010/03/sex-offender-databases/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Hell, in Georgia..."
...I wish I could say I was surprised. There are times I just wonder why the US doesn't just build a wall around the bible belt and call it a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Tell that to every “free man” on a sex offender registry because they pissed on the side of a road or had sex at the age of 17 with a 15-year-old girl."
Cases where not only the US system of disenfranchisement alone could stand a change, wouldn't you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If our rights are defined by the quality of the people exercising them, then they are no longer rights but permissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bang on the money, Norahc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Casillas threatened to release them"
I am not a lawyer but ... (lol) - this looks an awful lot like extortion. I am curious but too lazy to look, what did he want in return for not posting the pix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put Him in Prison Anyway
Not sure why this jerk has to win. Seems like they could get him on computer intrusion, theft, and extortion. Probably could put him away for longer on all those charges combined than they would have under the revenge porn law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Theft could be tricky. What did he take?
Computer intrusion -- it depends on the applicable statutes. I'm only familiar with laws that criminalize access of specific types of government-regulated data, like state secrets or HIPAA, but I find it reasonable to believe that there could be civil laws about using someone else's credentials to access data that you were otherwise not authorized to access. Possibly related to identity theft and/or trespassing?
Extortion needs an "unless". "Casillas threatened to release them, unless..." If there was such a "way out" being offered (which I imagine there must have been) yeah, seems like a slam-dunk for a blackmail case, honestly. Maybe Minnesota has a really weak blackmail law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Data, the pictures. Data is a thing of value. Plenty of people have been rolled up for data theft over the years.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1029
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
"Plenty of people have been rolled up for data theft over the years."
But in those cases the crime is not "theft." Theft has a legal definition that includes deprivation of access. This is why copyright violations are not theft. "Data theft" is a colloquial term for something different from theft.
The relevant laws in this case are in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has no provision for "theft."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
"Data, the pictures. Data is a thing of value. Plenty of people have been rolled up for data theft over the years."
Copying still isn't theft. Nor should it be.
I'm far more on board with the idea that he performed an unacceptable intrusion and trespass in order to obtain said copies.
And I find it incredible that intrusion and extortion wasn't the core of the case against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
That’s what I don’t understand. This isn’t like a lot of revenge-porn stories, where the acquisition of the sexual content wasn’t technically done without permission (even if done under duress) or knowledge of the person depicted, and they post it as revenge without bothering to make threats about it. In those cases, the expectation of privacy would be diminished, and it wouldn’t be extortion because the victim could do nothing to prevent it after the culprit obtained the material.
In this case, it is unquestionable that the culprit did not obtain the photos in any legitimate manner, so he shouldn’t have had the photos to distribute to begin with. And there was also a threat to release the photos.
Based on these facts, there was no good reason not to include intrusion or extortion in the charges. Why limit the charges like that? This guy was in the wrong before he distributed anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
"Based on these facts, there was no good reason not to include intrusion or extortion in the charges. Why limit the charges like that? This guy was in the wrong before he distributed anything."
I can think of only one, very cynical reason. Some DA wanted to litmus test the revenge porn law, possibly thinking it was a slam dunk case.
Intrusion and extortion may have required more background work and not be as beneficial for a future election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
If true, that’s bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Regarding theft, to my knowledge, every relevant statute defines theft along the lines of “taking something with the intent to deprive someone else of the item”. Unauthorized taking of data doesn’t really deprive the original owner of that data.
As for crimes like extortion or computer intrusion, I do believe those should be applicable. At the very least, based on the facts as we know them, they should apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
I was thinking the same thing.
Instead of grandstanding these politicians should do research to determine if law(s) that currently exist cover this type of violation before passing yet another law.
This guy is a piece of shit who might get away with it because of some lazy, poorly crafted law. Out of all the many, many, many laws there's probably an adequately vetted stalking, harassment, computer crime, blackmail law that he's violating.
For some reason regulation is bad for their corporate buddies but the general population are monitored and controlled from cradle to grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
The state doesn't get to change the charges just because his conviction was overturned. The jerk wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Yes.
That's what We the People get as punishment for electing idiot legislators, most of whom are trained attorneys, so stupid that they enact laws that are clearly unconstitutional and will obviously be thrown out by the courts.
Next time vote more carefully, people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Double jeopardy would not apply because he wouldn't be tried for the same crime twice.
The first time he was charged with revenge porn.
This time he'd be charged with computer intrusion.
Two different crimes. No double jeopardy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lawyer could make a argument that any hypothetical charges related to the account intrusion can be considered part and parcel of the charges related to the revenge porn distribution. Since jeopardy has clearly attached to the second set of charges, the lawyer could argue that jeopardy should also attach to the hypothetical ones since they were part of the broader criminal act for which the defendant stood trial. That argument might not necessarily work, but it could at least be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lawyers make all sorts of ridiculous arguments all the time. It's what they're paid to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
So... you're OK with the government repeatedly trying to convict someone of the same action until something sticks, as long as they don't use the same law twice in different attempts to convict him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
If he has caused harm, why not?
The end of some of our double jeopardy laws here have seen murderers, etc., put away. I did a spot of research to ensure I didn't get a "But look at these abuses!" response. The criteria for retrials are very narrow to ensure the process is not abused to victimise a person the Government doesn't like.
I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the first case hadn't proven that he did the deed he was accused of. He only got off because he was charged against a law that shouldn't have been on the books in the first place. For that reason it's reasonable to hold a new trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
No, I'm in favor of the government holding people to account for every crime they commit and not giving people a free pass on three serious crimes merely because the court overturns the law on a fourth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
I understand that it's frustrating that some people get away with crimes because the state picked the wrong things to prosecute or failed to convict someone who was clearly guilty.
The problem is when the alternative also goes far. OK, you make sure that a guilty man can be tried for different offences until something sticks, but you ensure the same for innocent people as well - and we're all guilty of breaking some law. History is full of people being railroaded, especially in places where the innocent still pay huge legal bills.
It sucks that prosecutors sometimes present a bad case to the courts, but is letting them present a laundry list until they convict or bankrupt a defendant actually better? I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
I absolutely agree, but in this particular case, there is a colorable argument that double jeopardy wouldn’t be an issue.
The law he was convicted under (and was overturned) was solely for the act of unlawfully distributing the porn. An intrusion charge would be for the act of unlawfully obtaining the porn. So you’re not being charged for the same act twice, even if they occurred under the same set of facts.
Basically, imagine a prosecutor first charging a guy who abused and raped his girlfriend, and then later killed her, with first-degree murder. If that charge falls through because the jury finds the murder wasn’t premeditated, the prosecutor couldn’t try again with second-degree murder, manslaughter, or anything like that. However, perhaps they could try to get him for the abuse and rape that occurred prior to the murder.
Also, while this wouldn’t lead to jail-time, double jeopardy wouldn’t prevent the victim from filing civil claims against the culprit.
I could be wrong about future criminal charges, but I’m just theorizing on that. I’m actually more upset with the prosecution for not leveling other charges to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
If her friends should appeal this case to Judge Lynch, it would not bother me in the least.
"There are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge"-- Arthur Conan Doyle in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
— Frank Castle, The Punisher (2004 film)
I can quote shit that “justifies” vigilante violence, too. Doesn’t make it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed. The trouble with vigilantes is they often hit the wrong target. Even if they hit the right target, we have to maintain order. Imagine a society in which vigilantes ran around dishing out street justice and got clean away with it. Not okay.
For this reason I think it's fair to see if it's possible to bring new charges against the offender. This, in order to ensure fairness, should be done only once and not repeatedly. It's up to the prosecutors to make the case watertight. It seems to me they fouled the last one up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
And that is exactly why these revenge porn laws are so fundamentally bad. There were plenty of ways to bring him down that could have potentially been better. But the state chose to prosecute under this one shaky law, and now he's free. There is nothing the state can do about it other than appeal or desperately try to file new charges (unlikely).
Thanks, state. This awful person gets to walk free because of your idiotic law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Exactly right: when the state fouls up, the people pay for it. Not okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Yes, indeed. I spy with my little eye a CFAA violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start with negligence and work up
Start with a negligence standard and work up. Copyright law says that every image has a copyright owner and that no person has any right to disseminate that image without permission from that copyright owner. If you don't know who the copyright owner is, or you don't know if they've given permission, then the law says you can't legally disseminate the image because you can't have gotten permission. So write the law to avoid the whole obscenity issue and simply make it a crime to disseminate images where you don't have a clear right to do so under copyright law and a reasonable person would find that the images displayed the subject in a sexual act or displayed their intimate parts (those parts that would cause the subject to be charged with indecent exposure if displayed in public). Intent would be irrelevant for the first part because the way copyright law is written the person disseminating the images would've been negligent in not getting permission first. Then add a second class of offense with a greater punishment if the prosecution can show intent, not mere negligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Start with negligence and work up
The problem with a copyright based law is that the owner of the copyright is the taker of the picture/video. If someone recorded their "fun times" with the permission of their partner and then the relationship fell apart, the one who took the picture or video would own the rights to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Start with negligence and work up
Not quite. The model has certain interests in the photographs and the photographer needs to deal with that to obtain any right to disseminate the photographs. That's why all professional photographers insist on a model release being executed before they'll proceed with the shoot. What I proposed targets exactly the sorts of photographs that a subject would have the most expectation of privacy in and would suffer the most damage if they were publicly disseminated, making for the easiest case that the photographer was infringing on those rights. These are also the sorts of things it's easiest to make the case for that a reasonable person would know they were not to disseminate those images without permission, which is essential to meeting the negligence standard instead of having to prove intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Start with negligence and work up
That doesn't pass strict scrutiny under the first amendment. There are lawful ways to disseminate information without copyright permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Start with negligence and work up
Not a problem I think because most of those grounds aren't ones someone posting revenge porn would want to use. They mostly amount to fair-use defenses, and we've seen how hard fair use is to use as a defense in so many copyright-infringement cases. And if this law would run afoul of strict scrutiny, then all copyright law would as well because it puts the disseminator in the same position of having to use the fair-use defense against a criminal charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Start with negligence and work up
^This. Using copyright law to handle abusive situations feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Start with negligence and work up
Gonna have to stop you right there. Copyright law says neither of those things. And even if it did, you're talking civil issues, not criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Start with negligence and work up
What John Roddy says. Put the sledgehammer away and use the right tool for the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unconstitutional law is unconstitutional.
In my opinion, revenge porn can already be prosecuted under obscenity laws and harassment laws.
It is obscene to do that to someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You must have missed this bit:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
I could understand this issue if yer woman had been subject to unauthorised recording and photography, but to store them online, perhaps with a view to sharing them with...whoever?
ALWAYS assume that if there's a photo or video, someone may find it.
ALWAYS assume that if it's online, someone will find it.
These cases keep coming up and nobody's learning the lesson? Why not? No one is immune to jerkery. Someone will be a jerk to you sooner or later, so limit the ways in which they can do that. NEVER put images or videos online that can be used to humiliate you if the "wrong" people see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
Exactly! As the court put it:
Remember, if two people know a secret, it's not a secret anymore. If you don't want the entire Internet getting ahold of information, and intimate details about what your body looks like certainly counts as information, don't share it with anyone. The second you let someone take that picture (or take it yourself and send it to them) you're rolling the dice, and if it comes up 1 and ends up posted publicly, it's your own fault for being so dumb.
Sad, but indisputably true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
While I agree, in this case it doesn’t appear that the access was authorized.
I don’t like saying, “It’s your own fault for being so dumb,” though, as that feels like blaming the victim. However, I agree that this would make any legitimate expectation of privacy rather minimal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
And don't spread them on line without the consent of the subject. (Consent can be waived if the subject cannot be identified (eg face not visible, face altered, etc.)) Without consent, personally identifiable sexual photos and videos should be given the same Constitutional status as child pornography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
I disagree, but only because child pornography is pretty much banned without exception, so I feel that the comparison is inapt. Well, also because privacy and consent aren’t recognized exceptions to the FA, and they don’t change whether or not something is obscene.
I agree with the principle, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minnesota is the asshole of the universe
That state is very much on record as being “totally full of disreputable, corrupt, stupid cunts. ”
3M. which had control and oversight of the CHRI Database, allowed foreign nationals from Syria access to that database, as the FBI (and its hench -thugs in corporate security ) watched on, and did NOTHING
The Jordan Daycare Scandal
Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnons 1980s Lesbian anti -pornography crusade against Kermit Alexander
the ADL affiliated takedown of Senator Keith Ellison, based on.the slander of a DVIC allied prostitute
FBI /Etalphabet targeting and harrassment of Muslims, and especially Somali men
etc.
Pardon my French .
But it aint the French behind that shit (Hai, Israel, and your Mossadi jihadis!)
Meanwhile, in Actually Breaking the Internet News:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-12-20/spiderman-hacker-daniel-kaye-took-down-liberia-s -internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Mike, quick question: Is there any way to disable the header code in Techdirt’s Markdown parser, or at least have the spamfilters catch it first? Because the abuse of the h1 element in comments from assholes like R/O/G/S is both annoying as hell and an accessibility/outlining nightmare.
(Also: Please, R/O/G/S, get some help.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only a total shitbag like NAMBLA subscriber Stephen T. Stone would criticize an activist who publicizes
the targeted government and police surveillance and harassment of the Somali community.
Or, any of the other highlighted topics.
You really are human garbage, Stephen T. Stone .
Please, go kill yourself.
Hey, Mike, can you please stop pandering /catering to the predominantly (glowingly? disgustingly? ) white, upper middle class armchair internet heroes, and stick up for actual activists who are out here doing the heavy lifting?
THANKS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I said before: I don’t take orders from mentally ill forum trolls. (Please seek professional help, R/O/G/S.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry to interupt your substanceless broken record bickering here, Mr. Stephen T. Stone -that is you, correct, sir?
But your NAMBLA dues are long past due.
Do you still use the same post office box, or have you fled that state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heel, boy, heel!
You piece of dogshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr. Stone?
Hi.
Are you Stephen T. Stone?
Your NAMBLA subscription fee is due.
Obviously, as long term subscriber in good standing since the.... (checking the docket )since 1973, we want to keep your business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mr. Stone?
That only amusing thing about this repeated "joke" - the only way it could make any sense is if you're admitting that you're far more involved in NAMBLA than he would ever be. You're calling yourself a profiteering paedophile in order to try and score points on him. I suppose somewhere in your broken mind that seems reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mr. Stone?
Hi, PaulT.
i appreciate your ongoing demonstration of the difficulties that people with Aspergers Syndrome face online, just trying to sound coherent.
However, its not working. The audience generally thinks you are a quibbling, bickering nutcase.
And that has deliterious effects on the rest of the Aspergers community, because you are putting them at risk for being slandered as Axis 1 or 2 personality disorders.
And that can have the unintended consequence of having their onlooker analysts and armchair therapists referencing the DSM 4, which will inevitably lead to said therapist mis-diagnosing them, and THEN saying “Oh, shit, the DSM 5 did away with all of those Axis of Mental Health slanders. ”
Why this matters, Paul, is because The Rain In Spain Falls Mainly On the Plain( or plano in the local case ).
And why that matters, Paul, is because you are full of shit, and plain old projection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr. Stone?
Whatever mental illness you have, it's not the one you just lied about. Did you try starting your meds again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lacan and Rorshak walk into a pharma bar
Lacan: What do you see in this mirror?
Rorshack: It looks like black and white ink blots.
Lacan: Agreed. But whats on the other side of the paper?
Rorshak: Theres nothing there. Its all blank.
Lacan: Oh, grow up already! Use your imagination!
Freud, bar tending : SoooOOOO, what can I get you two bipolars?
PaulT.: Here, let me buy these fine fellahs a round of thorazine with some benzis. It works for me.
Freud: Well, before you run your tab up, I should remind you, that NAMBLA subscription agent left a card here today, asked you to give him a call. Said something about dues....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lacan and Rorshak walk into a pharma bar
You are obsessed with NAMBLA, aren't you? Something you need to confess?
Oh, and it's Rorschach. Your random inconsistent assumptions at the way his name is spelt is as bad as your attempts at addressing reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lacan and Rorshak walk into a pharma bar
spelt
[spelt]
NOUN
an old kind of wheat with bearded ears and spikelets that each contain two narrow grains, not widely grown but favored as a health food.Compare with einkorn, emmer.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lacan and Rorshak walk into a pharma bar
It’s also an old spelling of “spelled”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mr. Stone?
I don’t think you understand what Asperger’s is, because it bears no relation to anything you just said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, but you do like taking orders, you shitstain munching Techdirt top commenter, dont you?
(Stone, cowering under a pair of shitstained underwear,beneath an actual 94year old Nazis ballsack now, both of them bilking British social services out of thousands of pounds per year m ’kay )
Techdirt loves old, ready to die soon, healthcare system milking trolls like you. Its riht in line with the whole “own the machinery, and old machinists ” model of bilkery.
And, its a good, solid old Hate Industrial Complex® business model, promoting Wurzweiler parrots like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you actually published evidence, that’d be one thing, but you didn’t, so here we are. All you did was mention a bunch of unrelated ideas without context or evidence. Come back when you’re capable of providing a coherent argument with supporting evidence, preferably without telling people to kill themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blue balls ss the asshole of the universe
That totally doesn’t look like what a crazy person would write bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blue balls ss the asshole of the universe
That totally doesn’t look like what a crazy person would write bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blue balls ss the asshole of the universe
That totally doesn’t look like what a crazy person would write bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blue balls ss the asshole of the universe
Assuming you’re not the same person as the other one who said that, this comment is redundant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minnesota is the asshole of the universe
This really has nothing to do with the article. The article has nothing to do with corruption, the FBI, Syria, Muslims, “Mossadi jihadists”, Hai (which I am unfamiliar with), the ADL, DVIC, daycare scandals, or anti-porn laws. This is about a state prosecution involving the application of a state law targeting revenge porn, which was overturned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional. These are very different things.
Regarding the first claim (about 3M), I’m not sure what you expected the FBI to do.
Regarding the second one (the Jordan Daycare Scandal), the third one (the anti-porn crusade), and the fourth one (the takedown of Keith Ellision), I’m seeing no connection to the FBI at all.
The fifth one (targeting of Muslims) is the only one where you specify the FBI at all.
I’m not sure why you’re blaming Israel for any of that either. I have issues with Israel, but those aren’t among them.
As for the article, it, too, has no relevance to the article. If you want to submit it for Techdirt to write about, there’s an option to “Submit a Story”. Use that, not the comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Minnesota is the asshole of the universe
Gah! That last part should be:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the brightest orb....
No offense, Hull, but "its all connected,”, most directly to the article at hand; but you have proven yourself not a fan of nuance, or even shown the ability to connect simple dots.
You have also allied yourself with ahistorcal revisionists, and the hard right here at TD, so its not looking good for your comprehension skills, but Ill try:
Loosely, it indicates a general ideological basis that provides background on that states neocon progressives (Fabian socialists, and fascist pseudo -feminists, actually ), who are ideoligically aligned with the hard right to pass shitty unconstitutional, speech crushing laws.
So, the revenge porn blahblah has ideological roots in the battle between international interlopers like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon and local porn king Ferris Alexander on Lake Street in that very city.
Without irony, its the pro -porn people who protect the first amendment, every time, and the ideological union between the police-state and so called feminists that kills it.
Then, theres a series of other bizarre “control the sex supply ” narratives, and the ant -sex worker Swedish Model sex -negative vibe there too, which I outlined above.
I left out another few shit laws, or attempts to pass them, like the “anti -ogling ” ordinance ( I actually knew, and interviewed the Ogler ) and the attempt by Dworkinites to pass other bad sex negative legislation, otherwise known as the Minneapolis Porn Ordinance
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=ulj
So, maybe do your own homework next time, but thanks for showing interest, unlike so many of the douchebags and derailers here who always ask for citations, but provide ZERO engagement with substance, then cry BUTTHERTZ when I call them on it .
As for mossadi jihadis, well, AIPAC and other right wing extremist/police state organizations(cloaked as the left ) have a strong presence in that state, and if you follow my postings for awhile, you will get it eventually.
But yeah, you busted me: I dropped that (somewhat ) related link in part, cuz it was easier than hitting the Submit /story button.
UGOTMETHERE!,despite your many attempts at imposing your own arbitrary rulesets upon, or otherwise limiting, circumscribing, and controlling my harmless speech on multiple occasions.
And so, in that regard, that link is in fact, necessary satire, and parody of first world problems itself; and so you are wrong, again, as its only your opinion that it doesnt belong here.
Everything is Illuminated, once you stop looking in darkness, bro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minneapolis Anti -porn Ordinance
Yeah, but this,seems relevant.
*Loosely, it indicates a general ideological basis that provides background on that states neocon progressives (Fabian socialists, and fascist pseudo -feminists, actually ), who are ideoligically aligned with the hard right to pass shitty unconstitutional, speech crushing laws.
So, the revenge porn blahblah has ideological roots in the battle between international interlopers like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon and local porn king Ferris Alexander on Lake Street in that very city.
Without irony, its the pro -porn people who protect the first amendment, every time, and the ideological union between the police-state and so called feminists that kills it.
Then, theres a series of other bizarre “control the sex supply ” narratives, and the ant -sex worker Swedish Model sex -negative vibe there too, which I outlined above.
I left out another few shit laws, or attempts to pass them, like the “anti -ogling ” ordinance ( I actually knew, and interviewed the Ogler ) and the attempt by Dworkinites to pass other bad sex negative legislation, otherwise known as the Minneapolis Porn Ordinance*
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=ulj
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the brightest orb....
I’m not imposing arbitrary rulesets. I was telling you about the general rules of arguments (e.g., claims without evidence can be disregarded, and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim) and requesting that you stay on topic and not fill the comment section with unrelated discussions. Again, have this discussion elsewhere where it is relevant, and provide evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise, people consider it a distraction and will ignore it like they do spam. That’s why others are showing less interest than I am. I’m trying to help you present your ideas in a place and manner that would make more people find you persuasive. For example, only providing citations to irrelevant articles does more harm to your argument than good. Also, if people are asking for citations, that’s not detailing your argument. That is asking for you to show that your argument has any merit. They aren’t going to debate you on something that you have provided no evidence for. It’s not their job to do your research for you.
(Speaking of offering advice, and this is just a tip, but if you’re going to reply to someone’s comment, please use “reply to this” rather than start a new thread. It improves readability.)
I also have no idea who you are, so I can’t follow your posts. To the extent that I have, they seem to make less sense and become less coherent as time goes on. If you insist on having this discussion here, why can’t you just lay your cards on the table here and now? If I have to dig through multiple weeks’ worth of posts’ comment sections and piece together your argument (where I have to figure out which comments out yours, taking into account the fact that you don’t have an account here, change the name you post under repeatedly, and change your IP address repeatedly, making automated tracking or searching unfeasible) just to get your full claim, I’m not going to bother, nor is the average reader. Explain how it’s relevant, explain your claims fully, and lay out all the evidence in a way that we can check it. Otherwise, I don’t know why you’d even bother because you provide no good reason for a rational or average reader to take your claims seriously, particularly if they don’t already agree with you.
You also seem to have completely misunderstood what the political left and right are, because Techdirt is far from hard right. (They aren’t leftist either; I’d say they’re more libertarian.) FTR, I am not in full agreement with Techdirt on everything they discuss. I’m actually closer to the left and slightly less libertarian than they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Americas Secret Police
I am writing to you from HEAVEN. Nothing but beautiful angel tits, from cloud to cloud.
And these angels LOVE IT HERE! They never get old or bitter!
More on my case, which is a relic of the creative uses of quasi-constitutional RICO laws:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/544
It was RICO, giving birth to the TOTAL SURVEILLANCE STATE , cuz, mobs! Gangs! THE MAFIA! Perteck de ’ wimmin n’ chilrens!
And, inter-linked gang databases that targeted individuals, while bending and busting the letter, and the spirit of the Constitution, in order to push para -judicial federal policies in the states.
Cuz, for the children®＞ Constitution
Aaaaw, tits. I gotta get back on my harp, theres an angel at six ’clock...and five o ’clock...and....two o ’clock....an...
POOF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly, Ferris’ Dibbuk clearly hates te gayz, cuz the word 'poof is clearly homophobic. I’ve been called that many times.
Whats next, PUFF?
EeeeeeeEEEewwww! RAAAAAGE!
In the future, please be more sensitive to communities of queerness, and use this simple phrase instead, so theres no hurtzfeelz:
[ A SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE THAT MAKES A VAGUELY PUFFING NOISE, LIKE THE SOUND OF A QUICKLY DEFLATING WHOOPIE CUSHION ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
script kiddies
Is artificial intelligence being used to create these posts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Artificial intelligence' implies there was intelligence
If by 'these' you mean the last few incoherent comments, no, that's just one of the trolls throwing a delusional tantrum for attention. Flag and ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Artificial intelligence' implies there was intelligence
If by incoherent you are conceding the argument; or that you are just too humorless or stupid to comprehend it, I appreciate it in either case.
Your self-reflection is appreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Artificial intelligence' implies there was intelligence
It’s incoherent because there is no logical connection amongst any of the claims you’re making, or any apparent substance to what you’re saying. I’d be amazed if anyone could make sense of what you’re saying, TBH.
And saying an argument is incoherent is never a concession. It’s saying that you are unable to state your argument in a way that average readers can understand. Considering what I can gather from your posts is the general topic, it shouldn’t require the kind of heavy analysis to interpret that you make it.
As for humorless, I’m unsure how that was funny in anything but a childish manner. Maybe your sense of humor just isn’t suited to any of our tastes, but whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its another win for groupthink, and a loss for the first amendment!
Go team anti-tits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See, here’s what perplexes me. This article is clearly opposed to this revenge-porn law on the grounds that the law violates the 1st Amendment. The court also ruled that the law was unconstitutional for that reason, a ruling that TD is citing favorably.
So, I’m sorry, but how is any of this a loss for the 1st Amendment or “anti-tits”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like... there was a time when ROGS wasn't so ridiculously unhinged. He at least stayed pretty steady on the topic of police abuse and lack of oversight.
Now it's as though he wants to be the simultaneous lovechild of out_of_the_blue, John Smith, Hamilton, Richard Bennett and Zof with a heaping dose of anti-vaxx on the side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: my vaccination records
My vaccinations are fully up to date in every country that will have me.
Your off-topic slanders however are still right in line with typical Big Pharma /crisis PR/JTRIG/ /Etalphabet agency online chatbots( you might have noticed I was under attack by thread derailers,and others up above, so, rules out the window ).
And thankfully, I have dodged just those few bad batches of fake doctors that led to bin Ladens lair.
And so, if by incoherent you are conceding the argument; or that you are just too humorless or stupid to comprehend it, I appreciate it in either case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: my vaccination records
"My vaccinations are fully up to date in every country that will have me."
There's more than one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: my vaccination records
There's more than zero?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: my vaccination records
And so, if by this, you are conceding the argument; or that you are just too humorless, derailing, or stupid to comprehend it, I appreciate it in either case.
But please stop effing it up for others who dont work in modern fascist police and total surveillance states, as you do.
Signed ,
Нуля.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: my vaccination records
I don’t think you understand what conceding an argument is. It’s not making a joke at your expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: my vaccination records
When did anyone ask about your vaccinations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yup
Yup.
You might be surprised at the value of ROGS Analysis outside of FVEYs nation state religious terror sponsors, like where you live there, in the land that gave the world the great headlining act de Torquemada and the Flagellant’s Greatest Hits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dick and DVIC
Here, have at it.
I WANT Scotland Yard and the hero of the FBI, and its colliding parallel investigations via the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP ) organized gang stalking, Hamish Brown, to save me from my own stupidity.
Oh! My poor, downtrodden penis!
But also, to have that prick look at my dick, and hold it in his arms, to love my dick, like a tiny little dick-victim (dick -tim? DVICtim? DVIC Victim? Domestic Violence Industrial Complex useful idiot? ! )
Splooging now, in Mr. Browns FBI advising, organized gang stalking, dick ogling face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]