"BaLlS oR nO bAlLs?!"
Seriously, it's getting old and was never fun to begin with.
I'm surprised that Nick allow such degeneracy.
Seriously, it's getting old and was never fun to begin with.
I'm surprised that Nick allow such degeneracy.
Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta Law / @NickRekieta - Hard Drinking Minnesotan Lawyer and "Internet Shock Jock" on YouTube
- Thread starter Kamov Ka-52
- Start date
Nick's a guest on Eric Hunley's stream:
Also, here's Nick's livestream of the Chauvin sentencing:
And tonight's stream:
The Lucas Gerhard Appeal Decision is on the agenda (maybe Poulter et al v. Assaf et al?)
Archive:
Archive:
Jesus Christ Michigan is cucked.
I mean, they have Whitmer as governor. The people of Michigan must love getting reamed by the State.
Lucas might as well an hero.
This is infuriating to listen to. The virtue signaling from this court and prosecutor acting like they're doing some good deed makes me want to rip their hair out.
As you can see, @PocketJacks is ridiculous.
I'm actually curious about this Mr. Double story.
So the reason why cheese pizza isn't covered by the 1st Amendment is the reasoning that creating CP necessarily requires the sexual abuse of a child. Inversely, loli hentai or other drawings would be covered since no child was harmed.
Apparently the website contained (mostly) text stories. As much as I think every person who viewed or contributed should be put up on the wall and hanged while being shot and eaten by rabid cats , you'd think that would be covered under 1A. That said, I think what did him in, according to the affidavit of that poor special agent, was that it apparently had content from convicted pedophiles, which might fall under the same reasoning as CP pictures.
Or I might be overthinking this and it's just general obscenity.
EDIT: Nick is circumsized. He is no goyim!
So the reason why cheese pizza isn't covered by the 1st Amendment is the reasoning that creating CP necessarily requires the sexual abuse of a child. Inversely, loli hentai or other drawings would be covered since no child was harmed.
Apparently the website contained (mostly) text stories. As much as I think every person who viewed or contributed should be put up on the wall and hanged while being shot and eaten by rabid cats , you'd think that would be covered under 1A. That said, I think what did him in, according to the affidavit of that poor special agent, was that it apparently had content from convicted pedophiles, which might fall under the same reasoning as CP pictures.
Or I might be overthinking this and it's just general obscenity.
EDIT: Nick is circumsized. He is no goyim!
Last edited:
Did not expect a lolicon and circumcision debate stream.
Seems to have pissed off this audience.
Last edited:
lol need a clip of that "fuck you" rant
Secret Asshole
Expert in things that never, ever happened
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There's also this:
Additionally, according to court documents and statements made at the sentencing, Arthur sexually assaulted two females who came forward during the investigation of this case. Court documents and statements made in court showed that in approximately 1992, Arthur drugged an adult woman living with him, sexually assaulted her and video recorded it. In another instance, in the early 1980s, Arthur molested a girl when she was four or five years old, who was the daughter of a friend and business associate.
I think the circumcision thing touched a nerve. 
Null found out Vic is a gay man, Nick made 6k and Vic still lost his case.
I think the circumcision thing touched a nerve.
We'll be seeing foreskin superchats for a while.
Also he's not wrong about those genital mutilation people. They are indeed strange.
The First Amendment does not protect obscenity, but not everything involving the nudity of a child or descriptive text about sexuality and children is obscene, i.e. the photographs of Jock Sturges are seen as having artistic merit, however sus it is that he is so particularly obsessed with that kind of content. Similarly, Nabokov's Lolita is seen as having artistic merit.
The court apparently decided the works are not only sexual in nature, but also entirely lacking in artistic merit and therefore obscene and unprotected by the First Amendment. I haven't seen the text in question and don't really want to frankly, but it sounds like it had no purpose but as jack off material for perverts.
I don't think "artistic merit" is really capable of having a consistent, principled definition, but it sounds like the material at issue in this case is unprotected by the current jurisprudence on obscenity and the First Amendment. And if something is unprotected by the First Amendment, and there is also a valid law against it, creators and distributors of it can be prosecuted.
The mere mention of circumcision sends some autists into a shrieking tizzy. It triggers them.I think the circumcision thing touched a nerve.
I didn't see this stream, but I just read through that link. It sounds like the guy might have sexually assaulted people, but what he got convicted of was just hosting fictional stories of sexual abuse of children? I kinda have a problem with that if so.
Can someone toss a timestamp to where Nick discusses this case? I want to see his take on it.
01:50:05 is when he starts discussing the case.
Secret Asshole
Expert in things that never, ever happened
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There was also the fact that the writings were done by real sex offenders and the guy had knowledge of this. He also charged money, which makes these sort of things prosecutable. The only time I've EVER heard of this happening was when people were charged money. Or the guy who ordered loli hentai from Japan way back was arrested and just immediately plead guilty without advice of counsel. Or the individual was a former sex offender and it was a parole violation.
Not to mention this guy seemed to be more than just a smut merchant and was in contact with known offenders (which he had known). If he rejected these stories or rejected contact with them, it might have been a different case. That and there were victims of abuse, which might have escalated the charges.
I mean his take is quite literally 'I don't give a shit'. They do go over obscenity a little bit but he honestly does not care and is pretty drunk and everyone should kill themselves or something. I mean, I honestly think the guy got 40 years because he was consulting with known offenders, it was his sole source of income.
But honestly, everything was from him charging money:
The real discussion actually isn't with obscenity, it is with Ashcroft. Since under Ashcroft, all these things are actually legal federally. What isn't legal is selling them over state lines. Possession is legal (though considering, the FBI will probably look into the members/authors, though that might be a bit tougher since I've actually never heard of a case where just writing ended up with someone in prison) for all of Reiketa's proselytizing. And it has been used to go after vulnerable individuals before (the last person to be arrested for obscenity sold it, but was a victim of sexual abuse, her website had like 10 members and she was so agoraphobic she couldn't make it to the courtroom, so she was found guilty and sentenced to house arrest. Which is ironic, since that's what she was doing anyway and was done by a shitty prosecutor looking to build numbers). Obviously, this is way more involved than that case.
The guy is a scumbag rapist who was in contact with known sex offenders and might have peddled stories about them offending. I mean, this isn't just a guy reading or writing fantasies, he's in touch with known predators and is a predator himself. So that just escalates things. While I do find it hard to care about him, there's a lot more extenuating circumstances than some guy selling stories.
I get it, the guy's a sleaze, but I'm just trying to look at things legally here. He wasn't convicted of rape or sexual assault, so legally speaking he's still innocent of that. Being in contact with a sex offender is not a crime. Sex offenders (or anyone) writing stories about child sexual assault with a profit motive is… a crime because that counts as obscenity, I guess?
I guess I just get a "I don't like this but I don't think it should be illegal" vibe from what I've read of this so far. Haven't watched the stream yet, though. Will background noise it while doing chores later today.
holachau
kiwifarms.net
From an outsider pov ,most americans fall under two teams ,it happens in every podcast and it's hilarious:
The ones who are in favor of circumsincion, their standar-bearer is the dude doing mental gymnastics about girls liking cut dicks and uncut dicks being dirty.
And the ones who hate being circumcised, their standar-bearer is the dude with graphs and studies about the jews,they rant about trauma and doctors chopping dicks without their concent.
both are equally retarded and fun to watch.
The ones who are in favor of circumsincion, their standar-bearer is the dude doing mental gymnastics about girls liking cut dicks and uncut dicks being dirty.
And the ones who hate being circumcised, their standar-bearer is the dude with graphs and studies about the jews,they rant about trauma and doctors chopping dicks without their concent.
both are equally retarded and fun to watch.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
Catboy Aficianado, Latinx White Nationalist, Manlet, Trump Dickrider, Age of Consent Abolitionist
