User Tisane, this could end badly Options

[tarantino]

The Libertarian candidate in 2008 for Virginia's 1st congressional district and and one of Abd's former mentors [1] had another account blocked August 11 2010.

He recently spent 14 months in prison for threatening to kill the president, and has just now decided not to comply with his conditions of supervised release.

His autobiography is here, and the letter sent to his probation officer is here.

[1]

I had some good mentors early on, most notably an editor known by many names, a long-term Wikipedian who, for his own reasons, kept dropping accounts and starting up new ones, though under (originally) no sanctions. He never used two accounts simultaneously, never went back to old accounts, and all were acknowledged or blatantly obvious, far from concealed. One of the names was Sarsaparilla, it's not hard at all to find another going back about two years before I met him. Older accounts he never revealed even to me, and he had real-life reasons to avoid disclosing them, he claimed.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery (NSFW)

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove (NSFW)

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte (NSFW)

Edit: Adding warnings per the requests below.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[The Joy]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte

(IMG:http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x136/Morpheus7678/Oh_lawd.jpg)

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

[Abd]

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

He claimed to have done so, through a reporting link. I referred to that above. In order to make the report he had to misrepresent the facts. Since it wasn't made directly to the FBI, it might not be illegal, that false report, but it still is scuzzy, because it wastes the time of an organization dedicated to protecting children.

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

Well, no. His point and my point. (the smilies show a common response to some kinds of pornography: simultaneous attraction and repulsion) (the two pages are different, the first has no pornography, the second has pornographic text. A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

The Wikiprudery essay has one small photo with it. It shows a young woman, playing the piano, nude. How I'd respond, as your boss, to your viewing that page would have little to do with the photo, though maybe I might feel differently depending on what you were doing when I walked into your office. I'd be more concerned that you were reading something that has nothing to do with work. The same as without the photo.

The photo itself is not pornography, nor even erotic, necessarily. The woman might or might not be a child, but it does not matter legally, because this is not child porn.

The Boylove commentary has no photos. It has an excerpt from The Lolita Method. If you fear that a piece of erotic text will flip you into illegal or harmful behavior, indeed, I don't recommend reading this. I.e., if you are a pedophile trying to stay legal.

However, there is a blatant contradiction here. A knee-jerk response to the Boylove page might be that he's a "Boylover." Yet he obviously is not, and that contradicts the impression one might get from the "Lolita Method" excerpt, that he could be a pedophile preferring girls. In fact, he is neither. Nothing about these pages would lead to a diagnosis of pedophilia of any kind.

Except for people who are completely clueless and who react strongly to mild stimuli. These people, in fact, could be far more worrisome if and when they are in contact with children, than Tisane.

Tisane is doing exactly what he says he's doing, big surprise, plus he's doing something else.

What he says he's doing is researching the issue of child/adults sex, as a political issue, that is his "interest," and what else he is doing is very effectively trolling for outraged response. He's good at it, obviously.

Wikiprudery, indeed.

Are you going to report this to the FBI? It's more deserving of it. Now, there's an image that is NSFW. Hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (Child pornography!)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

[Fusion]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

[Ottava]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

[Detective]

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.

[Ottava]

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.

Haha, nice.



Fusion

I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.

No lawyer is an expert on the subject. Lawyers fight on a side. They are not the judges. Even judges aren't the ultimate deciders as there are always appeals that can overrule.

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Abd]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

The Wikipedia article, Child pornography claims, in the lede:

Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images[1][2][3]) and, in some cases, writings[3][4][5] depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child.

When references are in the lede, that's a sign of major controversy. Supposedly, the lede should be totally uncontroversial, with what is in the lede being established, with references, in the text.

Ref 3 is a book, the reference has "Akdeniz, Yaman (2008). Internet child pornography and the law: national and international responses. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. p. 11. ISBN 0-7546-2297-5." Note that "international responses" could include places where extreme views (as held by the rest of the world) are enforced.

Ah, I love this. People don't read sources. This book is available on Google Books. Page 11 says the opposite of what the lede says.

Written materials were deliberately left out of the EU definition as there was no support or agreement for the inclusion of textual or written material in the definition of child pornography.

ref 4 is interesting. Primary source, violating RS guidelines. It's the Canadian criminal code

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Yes, that does mean that some written material might violate the law, but this is where one relies on expert interpretation, that's why the usage of primary sources is deprecated. The Canadian law came up in the discussion on RationalWiki, and I researched it. It's not important enough for me to dredge that up, if someone is interested it can be found on the archived Chicken Coop discussion. Bottom line, though, none of Tisane's material fits this.

Note that if a description of sex with a child were, ipso facto, child pornography, under this definition, Lolita would surely be child porn. However, a description of a murder, in fiction, does not "advocate or counsel" murder.

The Canadian law specifically excepts, from prohibition, material that "has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose."

Ref 5 is a report of a legal outcome, the prosecution, in Canada, of a man for alleged possession of written child pornography. He was found not guilty of that charge.

"These writings simply describe morally repugnant acts," the judge said, but the stories "do not actively advocate or counsel the reader to engage in the acts described." Therefore, they are not illegal.

Shaw also said the stories had artistic merit, based on testimony from two out of three experts. Artistic merit is a defence, "irrespective of whether the work is considered pornographic," he wrote.

The man was found guilty, however, of possessing pornographic pictures of children [teenage boys], which he had admitted.

The decision cited above followed a Canadian Supreme Court review, R._v._Sharpe]. In the Wikipedia article, it is explained that Canadian law is stricter than U.S. law in certain respects, but simple graphic written portrayal does not create an offense even under Canadian law.

In any case, the Wikipedia article lede is technically correct but misleading, and is poorly supported -- or even contradicted -- by the sources cited.

What is really prohibited in Canada is advocacy or counselling toward certain illegal activities, using written or visual materials.

Ottava classically terms anyone who points out fact in this area as being a pedophile or "pedophile-lover," and morally odious. In fact, I'd be more worried about my children being in the care of someone like Ottava than of someone like Tisane. My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay, so I wouldn't be able to test this without Major Trouble. Tisane is outrageous, no question about it. But "pedophile," no.

While there may be some countries where that depiction is illegal, it seems to be far from "most," and, for the purposes of Wikipedia and Tisane's web site, both hosted in the U.S., this isn't child porn and is not illegal. Not even in Canada. And apparently not in the E.U. So where?

Saudi Arabia?

[KD Tries Again]

My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay

What a creep.

Ottava is dim, but Abd is profoundly nasty and shouldn't be around here. Ick.

[Fusion]

My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay

What a creep.

Ottava is dim, but Abd is profoundly nasty and shouldn't be around here. Ick.

So he says his ex-wife is pretty. Fair enough. She is straight-laced, OK. She has right-wing political views, that is her business. She is gay, ditto. (But then why did she marry Abd?) How does any of this reflect badly on Abd? Is he a creep for marrying a pretty woman, or a right-wing one or a gay? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Ottava]

My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay

What a creep.

Ottava is dim, but Abd is profoundly nasty and shouldn't be around here. Ick.

So he says his ex-wife is pretty. Fair enough. She is straight-laced, OK. She has right-wing political views, that is her business. She is gay, ditto. (But then why did she marry Abd?) How does any of this reflect badly on Abd? Is he a creep for marrying a pretty woman, or a right-wing one or a gay? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

In American English, "pretty" is a modifier that means "very." So "pretty straight-laced" should be read accordingly.