http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-...earbook-photo/
I'm not sure of who had the brightest idea, the dude or the prosecutor....
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-...earbook-photo/
I'm not sure of who had the brightest idea, the dude or the prosecutor....
Hahahahahahaha.
Seems a little harsh for some god-mode yearbook trolling.
That this photo got past not just the football program editing process but also the yearbook editing process is quite something.
I can't wait until we get to the point where they cut off our arms and legs and rip out our tongues so we can never offend anyone
It takes balls to do that
Seem excessive.
Wow that's pretty absurd.
School should have told him to apologize and maybe given him a suspension... Fucking criminal charges? Really?
I'm confused as to how the school is not the one being charged, as they took the picture, reviewed it, edited it, published it, and distributed it. There's really no grounds for charging him with indecent exposure that doesn't bring far more serious charges to the school, and in court the defense is going to slam that so hard that the school can either back off or be torn down.
Beyond excessive. At most, he deserves a slap on the wrists. At most. But honestly, who gives a shit? Humans aren't born with clothes. This is just more evidence that we have yet to move past our puritan heritage.
Sure, ruin his life. That's what everybody needs.
How the flying fuck did that get past the editing room?
Shit give the charges to the idiots that can't spot a penis.
What's important is that we stop this delinquent now before he starts a YouTube prank channel.
The second "it's ju..." passes his lips he needs beating until he can no longer speak.
He's not a child, he's 19. Although I suppose at a push you could maybe justify that the presence of minors near his exposed member would make it sexual content involving minors. I'm not sure where the rules stand on that. Would they need to be looking at it for it to count? What if balls aren't touching? Is it nonce material then?
Last edited by klogaroth; 2016-05-03 at 11:07 PM.
The overwhelming precedent based on existing trials is that people who receive child pornography without having any intent to do so (such as if someone sends you a random email with a "click me!" attachment and you're silly enough to open and BOOM child porn) it is not a criminal act, as long as the individual reports the incident if it is noted.
I guess seeing a penis is actually more dangerous than seeing a nipple.