Trashfire 08/21/2021 Ethan Ralph wants to sue Kiwi Farms - "I will be going to the FBI to personally report Josh Moon, with my attorney."

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    The [img] should essentially never be used outside of chat. It does not save disk space on the server because we use an image proxy to protect your IP address and to ensure people do not rely on bad third party services like Imgur for image hosting. I hope to have a fix from XF soon.

Elwood P. Dowd

kiwifarms.net
Why is this stupid hog making me like commies more and more? Maybe I should send @CECA Loather my application to join the CPC. He sounds like a pussy ass whimpy bitchboy even when he's trying to threaten some twink looking commie faggot.
If you're gonna LARP as Johnny Depp LARPing as Hunter S. Thompson you should at least acknowledge that Hunter S. Thompson was extremely left wing. 🤷‍♂️
1629812250995.png1629824000259.png
Ethan should file a lawsuit against twinkies because he's a fat bastard
Weight loss is driven by quantity more than quality. 😐 Not that Gunt pays attention to either thing.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds

 

Useful_Mistake

Exhibit in a fight between a Jew and Anti-NZ Dog.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Wrong and you're exceptional, it's federally illegal, USC 18 1466A
Technically, you could make an argument that the definitions specifically mention that the child must a real person for this to apply. This argument has worked a few times (notably in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)), although it was overturned in United States v. Williams (2008 ) where SCOTUS upheld the federal law.
 

StraightShooter2

kiwifarms.net
Does this guy not even know how to do basic legal research? Or is he just trying to posture for his fans?

(e.x. The hacker allegedly targeted the entire payment platform that Ralph was using, not just the Killstream, and there's no proof the hacker was anyone who runs KF - just because a troll posted it on the site doesn't mean he has a case against any of the site owners anymore than Faith does against the site where he dumped the gunt sex tape).
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Awh, he's trying to big league us in an attempt to show he's still making the big bucks. Maybe instead of bragging about buying a fucking purse he could look into things like how it's not his hosts fault they use shitty security?
Isn't it usually women who boast about buying expensive fashion accessories? It isn't terribly masculine. Is this faggot going to show us his Jimmy Choo fuck-me pumps next?
Technically, you could make an argument that the definitions specifically mention that the child must a real person for this to apply. This argument has worked a few times (notably in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)), although it was overturned in United States v. Williams (2008 ) where SCOTUS upheld the federal law.
This case was not about actual child pornography, though, but about offering child pornography for sale, even if the person possessed no actual child pornography. It was also about the very specific issue of whether the statute was facially overbroad, which is detached from the issue of whether any particular instance of something can be prosecuted.

Facial challenges for overbreadth are an entirely different beast from when a defendant argues a statute is unconstitutional as applied to himself, and should not be taken as a general blanket approval of the statute's application.

It should also be noted the defendant in this case actually was distributing child pornography, clearly unprotected behavior, but was hiding behind facial overbreadth to get around the fact that he himself was guilty as sin. Part of the reason facial overbreadth challenges are disfavored is they permit an actually guilty defendant, against whom the application of the statute is not remotely unconstitutional, to argue that the statute itself is invalid, because it might violate the rights of other people, and he should get away with whatever he did for that reason.
 
Last edited:

HackerX

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Does this guy not even know how to do basic legal research? Or is he just trying to posture for his fans?

(e.x. The hacker allegedly targeted the entire payment platform that Ralph was using, not just the Killstream, and there's no proof the hacker was anyone who runs KF - just because a troll posted it on the site doesn't mean he has a case against any of the site owners anymore than Faith does against the site where he dumped the gunt sex tape).
You give him too much credit. He's equivalent to a child in handling emotion. A relatively mature person would probably reflect on the situation, then move forward with a plan of action. A child would make a scene immediately.

Something bad happened, so he's going to sperg out, except in a more adult-oriented fashion. (i.e. yell about filing a lawsuit).

The dummy doesn't comprehend that his reactions to people fucking with him just lead to more people fucking with him, and it doesn't help that he has a tendency to make things worse every single time.
 
Last edited:

Slobs

9001 hours in ms paint
kiwifarms.net
Wrong and you're exceptional, it's federally illegal, USC 18 1466A
Most states only apply this literally, as in depictions of actual minors (a1A). For example what that disgusting fuck Shadbase was doing. If you took this law literally, as a blanket ban on obscene acts, you absolutely would not get anywhere due to freedom of expression laws. The reason people aren't punished over this isn't because of lack of interest or motivation, it's because it's literally not usable outside of plea bids. And this doesn't even take into account that certain groups have muddied the waters with false reports and disingenuous charges by equating fictional CSAM with CP. The legal system makes a distinction between the two of them for good reason, and it's not because lolicons are "heckin good boys"; they're certainly suspect but they're not committing genuine child abuse with their creepy anime porn (yet, anyway).
 

DaGhouley

Just shut the fuck up, where's the weed at?
kiwifarms.net
All of this just because he declined to provide a believable justification for his refusal of losing some fucking weight? Jesus...
 

Thomas Paine

Jameson® Irish Whiskey enthusiast
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Most states only apply this literally, as in depictions of actual minors (a1A). For example what that disgusting fuck Shadbase was doing. If you took this law literally, as a blanket ban on obscene acts, you absolutely would not get anywhere due to freedom of expression laws. The reason people aren't punished over this isn't because of lack of interest or motivation, it's because it's literally not usable outside of plea bids. And this doesn't even take into account that certain groups have muddied the waters with false reports and disingenuous charges by equating fictional CSAM with CP. The legal system makes a distinction between the two of them for good reason, and it's not because lolicons are "heckin good boys"; they're certainly suspect but they're not committing genuine child abuse with their creepy anime porn (yet, anyway).
Dude we get it already, you crank your hog to loli. Chill.
 

kexio

not the sock you think i am
kiwifarms.net
Ooooooh can't wait for some new KillAllPedos content and some fun streams going over this.
By squealing like a pig so hard he is just getting other groups to fuck with his doxed paypigs [again] and the new blame is us Karens.
 
Top