- 22 hours
The Shrek image may have been crude or vulgar. But in context, there is no serious argument Byrnes sent it to arouse anyone’s sexual interest.
Speak for yourself!
20 hoursAs a former columbus resident I’m gonna guess this is the rooster. Sounds up his alley.
Edit: ayy
The blogger, D.J. Byrnes, runs The Rooster political website.
- Ludicrous0251@piefed.zipEnglish2 days
What do you mean not the onion? I have it on good authority ogres are like onions.
- tidderuuf@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I have to see Trump’s fat ass in the news every day, can we get a criminal complaint about how that is harassment to our fucking eyes?
I now have the image of Biden standing behind Trump with his bare back turned towards him, pulling on the back of Orange Mussolinis diaper to take a shit grinning.
SFW depiction of the situation:
Okay so this is some Kentucky Fried Bullshit.
I thought we lived in 'Murica, mkay?
Fiona being cursed to turn into an ogre at night was a blessing in disguise.
- 1 day
Ik this won’t be a popular take because, as evidenced by this very comment section even, critical thinking isn’t popular, but this is sexual harassment. Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment. Yes, even when the person you’re sexually harassing a piece of shit themselves, is that seriously a hard concept to grasp?? This dude is a piece of shit too if he thinks it’s okay to send someone porn without consent.
EDIT: Harassment not assault.
- FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish21 hours
Generally, harassment is a course of conduct over a period of time, not a one-off. The bar for a one-off encounter being harassment of any kind is high, with good reason.
That reason, to me, is that any reasonable person should be robust enough that all but the most serious, malicious communication should be something they can shrug off without much ill effect if it’s a single isolated message. Getting a picture of a wanking cartoon character and a disparaging message isn’t going to be pleasant for most people, sure, but if that’s it?
The logic behind punishment for sexual harassment is not - or should not - be any different from the logic behind punishment for non-sexual harassment; it should be proportional to the harm caused, and it should take the same standard of a “person of reasonable firmness” or whatever the legalese is.
- DudleyMason@lemmy.mlEnglish1 day
No, this is constitutionally protected political speech, as any court in the country will find when this winds up in front of them.
Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment.
Questionable, but even granting that, public figures like politicians are a legally distinct kind of people who have to meet a much higher bar to claim communication is harassment, and this is a huge nothingburger. Larry Flynt is laughing from his grave.
- dgdft@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Did you read the linked article?
If so, could you be so kind as to speak to why you disagree with its unusually thorough and detailed legal analysis of the matter at hand?
The Shrek image may have been crude or vulgar. But in context, there is no serious argument Byrnes sent it to arouse anyone’s sexual interest, let alone that it satisfies the Miller test. Byrnes sent it to another adult, reportedly accompanied by political commentary describing Cirino as “Young Mussolini.” That’s protected political mockery, not obscenity.
i can’t take an article or author serious when they argue shreenis is not titillating.
- glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish22 hours
Look, I didn’t flash my dong to everyone in the train to arouse anyone’s sexual interest so there’s no serious argument it was obscene
- DudleyMason@lemmy.mlEnglish1 day
Dicks are irrelevant. If you can genuinely look at the picture in that article and call it “porn” you’re even weirder than the fascist piece of shit it was sent to mock.
It damn sure wouldn’t meet any legal definition.
For someone who started off their diatribe by accusing everyone else of lacking critical thinking skills, you damn sure have t bothered to address any of the counterpoints or analysis anyone else has brought up. It’s almost like you lack critical thinking skills and are just reacting to vibes.
- DudleyMason@lemmy.mlEnglish1 day
spreading rape apologia whether you know it or not.
Kinda rich coming from someone whose definition of sexual assault is so broad (and thereby so cheapened) that it includes sending cartoon dicks to politicians.
- corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish1 day
Ha! People who can’t tell morals from ethics will argue with lawyers and claim the lawyers are fake, all day. No one knows more than a YouTube grad!
- dgdft@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Wym?
Morally, I’m neutral about the act of sending the photo. It’s crass but was sent to a GOP politician, so big shrug.
Ethically, I think it violates the general principle of “don’t be a dick”, but see it as a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things.
Semantically, I don’t think it’s sexual (*in the sense of anyone getting their rocks off) in any way, shape, or form, nor credibly assault. I don’t think the photo as shown in the article is remotely distressing to anyone imaginable except a deeply-repressed GOP closet case.
- ClownStatue@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
Feels like everyone should make all their avatars Shrek’s penis.
I would in a heartbeat if just for a day or two, but I suspect it’s not allowed?
EDIT: I did it, but I pixelated it. Hopefully I won’t get banned for that.
Haven’t read the article, but I’m wondering if this is the line Ted Cruz has drawn on Internet Comment Etiquette. If he still tweets at him.
didn’t you hear ted cruz is head of the internet shrek penis taskforce
- 2 days
Countdown to the 5 million dollar settlement in 5…. 4… 3……
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
What picture? Where is it? Does it even exist? Give us the link (please).
- FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish21 hours
You know how this post is a link to an article?
Have you tried, I dunno… clicking it? And then scrolling down?
