.hack deep lore binge sperg phase

Chuds with a $3500 PC when you tell them to buy a dreamcast with a copy of SA1

Ok, so I'm going to have to explain why this law is not just worthless when protecting free speech, but actively detrimental when stopping crimes. I'm gonna breeze past this first bit because it's not directly relevant, I just need to point out that what this law proposes to fix is something that's already been fixed by the rules of evidence. There's no need to touch on this further. So let's move into how this doesn't protect anime drawings at all with obscenity and the miller test. In the United States, we have free speech. In order for something to not be free speech it needs to meet all 3 prongs of the Miller Test. Long story short the most important is the last one which says if a work has any literary, artistic or scientific value then it can't be restricted; suffice it to say that it is nearly impossible to not meet this criteria. Any law that attempts to curve free speech HAS to abide by the Miller Test. This is a Supreme Court ruling and has never even come close to being overturned. It's important to mention the Miller Test because establishing a work as having artistic merit is a ridiculously low bar that almost anything can pass. Which becomes important when talking about TRIAL EVIDENCE. This law would, in effect, make it so any written work could never be used as evidence cause all you have to do is claim it was a creative writing project and then prove it passes the Miller Test. Diary entries, recorded videos, written confessions, I could even make an argument for Google searches, all have to be thrown out under this law if someone claims it's an art project. It would be an impossible bar to clear for prosecutors. All this law proposes to do is directly protect criminals who openly confess to their crimes by claiming we're somehow protecting art (already safe under the Miller Test) and court integrity (already solid under the rules of evidence.) To reiterate, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this law to protect anime drawings at all. Anyone who says it would effect them in any way doesn't understand how the law works. This law solely exists to protect criminals who directly confess their crimes by giving them an out.

Wife: Do anything interesting today? Me: I watched the internet destroy an innocent women’s life.

To the left is the accuser to the right is the JP Morgan female exec being destroyed online for claims of sexual abuse. I’m betting the dude who supposedly cried on the left is the liar and the Albanian queen on the right did nothing wrong. Choose wisely The scammer is obvious

C'mon. Someone born in 1999 does not remember life before the internet.

sure but I could argue the opposite too my grandmother used to have sex with my grandfather and she kept having abortions until it came to my fathers turn and my grandfather told her NO your having this one if a man didnt "tell a woman no" I literally wouldn't be here

My abortion is the kind people love to judge the most. I wasn’t underage, I wasn’t assaulted, and there was no medical emergency. I got pregnant because I knowingly had unprotected sex, no accident, no rare failure, just my own choices. By their standards, it was “irresponsible.” I knew abortion was an option, and I took it. Not because I couldn’t survive it or raise a child, I simply didn’t want one. I wanted sex without becoming a parent, and I chose not to carry the pregnancy. There’s no redemption arc here. I don’t regret it. Nothing terrible happened to me afterward, no punishment, no downfall. My life is still good. And that reality alone challenges everything people like to assume about women who make this choice.

If the JPM story turns out to be BS she's going to secure a bag like you can't even imagine. And if the story turns out to be TRUE, she could still secure a bag as an online FinDom influencer and make more money than she ever imagined possible. She will come out on top of this.

legally and fairly yes evidence is most important however we hear "believe all women" and the moment its a dude that genuninely might not want to have his marriage ruined because he geniunely could love his wife they say hes a "liar and ungrateful"

JPMorgan is backing her. No evidence for the claims. The employee failed to cooperate properly. Maybe we’re being harsh on her?