PervyAuthor

@kagukana @ChibiReviews The majority of yes men aren't even yes men, if Chibi says something weird. We'll call him out on out, some of us have and he's been nice about it. You not so much, you've been more harmful than helpful.

@ChibiReviews threw u under the bus??? Wake up chibi. you are surrounded by a bunch of yes man. Sure u are gonna win a couple online fights but ur way of rebellion is gonna backfire u someday. u are only putting ur family more in danger. better to take a break and think it through

watching chibi slowly self destruct himself is honestly quite fascinating. every move he had made in order to fight off his online haters was a learning curve for us on how NOT to handle situations like that. his tweets of him flexing his twt earnings were honestly sad imo

@ZSchwark @Anna_xb2 Yes it is

@StandardAuthor @Anna_xb2 Ain't that the bear that was serving in the Polish military?

Without Googling ?💀

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Yeah, you make some good points. I was gonna try to counter-point for the Tennessee harassment code. But until TaxedBrass does something more, we don't really have much to work with. For now, i think this ends in a tie. This was a fun debate.

1. Countermen (and indeed Elonis) are very difficult to argue here without TaxedBrass' testimony on the matter. It quite literally excludes use from speculating what a reasonable person would thing (objective), as the court ruled that judgement must be proved subjectively (by what TaxedBrass thought in the moment of posting). We cannot say this with certainty, nor can we judge it against what a reasonable person would do, so I'll concede a draw in this matter. TaxedBrass may or may not have been reckless in posting it. 2. This is true, but not relevant to the case law. You'll notice that the court's decision here hinges on "...its context and conditional nature...", not the size, nature, or publicity of the alleged threat. 3. The harassment and stalking laws here are a little thorny in regards to this situation. They seem to have largely been written with threats against a person in mind. You may argue that there have been true threats against Chibi's brother's grave, but I think the lack of threats against Chibi's person is unambiguous. There may be harassment/stalking charges, however my reading of these laws gives me a sense that they're incredibly broad, and almost any Twitter beef could be construed this way. For the civil matter, I do not think IIED would apply here. It's hard to say as an outsider, but Chibi does not appear to have suffered to a degree rising to "serious mental injury". This is a very specific, serious bar to clear, and I'm doubtful it has been.

Wait, I'm confused. Why did Chibi get so angry? It's just fiction after all. It's not real, it's just an illustration. Why is he trying to censor me? Does free speech only apply to child porn?

@torturamente .... that's a question I wasn't expecting today.... Cinnamon-roll flavored...

Si su pene pudiera botar semen de sabores, de qué sabor les gustaría que fuera? si no tienen pito, igual respondan

@VulJonKrul @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass You might need to stay out of it homeboi, I need to focus up.

@RoxyFan1987 @StandardAuthor @FakeTaxedBrass It feels like I'm watching a battle of wits here. God damn this argument is going hard.

1. counterman of 2023 required only recklessness, consciously disregarding a substation risk that a reasonable person would see as a serious threat. Posting an ai image of yourself or stand in holding a shovel at a real named Grave + the explicit "I'm going to dig him up and turn him into a cuck chair. Is Not abstract hyperbole, this combination indicates targeted intent that crosses the line. 2. Watts was crude political ranting at a public rally about the President. This is personal doxxing of a grieving family's actual grave in the middle of a feud. 3. Even if TN's vandalism statute requires the physical act, the posts can still support harassment, stalking, or intentional infliction of emotional distress (civil). Chibi already confirmed law enforcement is reviewing it - that's strong evidence a reasonable person did perceive it as threatening

Ok, let's get into case law now that I'm out of bed First, you contend that @FakeTaxedBrass's posts constitute a True Threat of criminal mischief. Tennessee does not have a "criminal mischief" statute, so instead we'll look at their laws on vandalism and trespassing. Specifically, vandalism of a grave is a Class E felony (not C as you contended). This is only for actually performing those acts, not threatening them. As far as I can tell, this threat is not unlawful under Title 39. Criminal Offenses § 39-17-308. The most straightforward reading, that this is a threat to harm, does not apply as there's no harm to Chibi's person implied. I'm unable to find any code relating to threats of vandalism, if you can please let me know. Regardless, violation here is a Class A misdemeanor, not a Class C felony as you contend. Getting into the caselaw you've cited: Countermen v. Colorado 2023 This case found that the correct standard for True Threats is a subjective one, rather than an objective one. The question then is "Did TaxedBrass behave recklessly posting these threats?". (Or, did he consciously disregard the harm that may come from posting them?) I do not believe he did. It's obviously impossible to know TaxedBrass' mental state at the time, as we are not him, but it seems ridiculous to me that he could have known that Chibi would take this as a threat of harm, and then recklessly post it anyway. Virginia v. Black 2003 The connection you've made here is tenuous at best. The court here ruled that any statute banning crossburning with intent to intimidate cannot find that any crossburning is done with intent to intimidate, and that prosecuting someone as such violates their First Amendment rights. If we imagine TaxedBrass' chair construction activities as a cross burning, this case law only comes into play assuming he does construct the chair. It holds no weight for threats alone. Watts v. United States 1969 This one quite literally rules against your entire argument. The court ruled in favor of Watts, that a crude political hyperbole could not be construed as a true threat against the life of the President. TaxedBrass' post is the epitome of political hyperbole, the act of turning someone's corpse into a chair is fanciful and ridiculous. Elonis v. United States 2015 This is basically a rerun of Countermen, and runs into the same issue. Did TaxedBrass have a subjective intent to threaten? I do not believe so.

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Thanks for getting back to me, this is an interesting debate. I'll have to get to you. (Thanks for the debate, I'm glad you're willing to debate my Argument instead of performing an Adhominem

@aaliyahvtuber_ I have an internal monologue I debate myself with. I thought I was crazy for doing so, turns out alot of people in my neighborhood do the same thing, some even talk to themselves due to not having an internal monologue. It's a very interesting topic I want to learn more from.

Be honest Do you talk to yourself?

@sonsofurmom @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass x.com/i/status/20466… No he's not,

@VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Ur actually braindead

@VulJonKrul @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass I like to read stuff. Law Jargon is interesting yet a nuisance.

@StandardAuthor @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass Oh damn, and I thought I was decent at Law. You're over here pulling case law.

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Not yet, but there's precedent. Countermen vs Colorado 2023, Virginia v Black 2003, watts v united states 1969, Elonis vs united states 2015

@StandardAuthor @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Can you give me citations? Everything I have seen suggests no crime has taken place but maybe I’ve missed something in the codes

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass That's not how that works. The Law is very clear on this

@StandardAuthor @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass x.com/RoxyFan1987/st…

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Yes. 100% if you threaten to shoot up a school, you'll get arrested. If you threaten to mug someone, you'll get arrssted. If you threaten to desecrate a grave, you'll get arrested

@StandardAuthor @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Q: do you think a reasonable jury of your peers would convict you of the crime of posting an AI image of a grave and a clearly nonsensical/hyperbolic threat?

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Threatening to dig up someone's grave is a threat. It displays intent. This is a similar reason if someone threatens to shoot up a school on X, they're arrested. Same reasoning applies here. Adding the images, ai or not, only makes TaxedBrass' case here worse.

@StandardAuthor @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass This is not a class 3 felony. Also of course law enforcement will be on the lookout if you say “help there’s a madman threatening to dig up my dead brothers grave” and don’t specify the entire context of this that clearly makes it not a crime.

@VulJonKrul @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass Oh, I completely forgot about that. Yeah if you threaten to commit a crime under Virginia v Black, you can get prosecuted and charged

@StandardAuthor @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass Hang on, isn't threatening to commit a crime not protected by the first amendment?

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass Thats not how the law is portrayed here. You also need to take into account of the doxxing that took place. Combine that with intent, this is class 3 Felony. It also been declared by chibi that law enforcement is actively seeing these posts being made.

@StandardAuthor @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass No he can’t 😭 That’s a blatant 1A violation first off, second these images don’t show that. You could MAYBE have made that case with his first tweet (“I’m going to turn him into a chair”), but not with this.

@RoxyFan1987 @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass "Intent" of grave defilement, "intent" of criminal mischief. So long as intent is present, he can be charged if he is moving toward to committing the crime. The images he's posted shows: Intent. Moving toward it. That's enough of a sign for the law to arrest him.

@StandardAuthor @VulJonKrul @FakeTaxedBrass He is absolutely wrong, nothing about this is a crime. He didn’t visit and defile the grave irl, he posted an AI picture. Not illegal.

@VulJonKrul @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass Exactly, it's another Jizzwanka issue. This TaxedBrass guy is in another level of too far.

@StandardAuthor @RoxyFan1987 @FakeTaxedBrass Thanks, I was gonna ignore him. Like, what's stupid is this isn't considered fiction anymore.