top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If they keep jailing people for protesting, we should send in Shrekbots with strapons and tell them to complete the job at any cost.

But, thankfully, they were wise enough to only jail for a day. Also, be more creative, I know a certain image on the sodium site that would instill grave fear.

But we don't send that... Yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago

    Yet the 34 count felon, rapist, traitor, document thief among other likely crimes, was not held in jail at all, just got his silly pic he sells now.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    This is my thread people, move along

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Beging arrested for enjoying a succulent cartoon dick?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 1 day ago*

    As 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.

  • source
  • 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!

  • source
  • [–] 135 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 99 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    What do you mean not the onion? I have it on good authority ogres are like onions.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 23 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Okay so this is some Kentucky Fried Bullshit.

    I thought we lived in 'Murica, mkay?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 28 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    the revolution will not be televised but...shrek dicks will be sent?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (24 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 44 points 2 days ago* (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    So uhh.... Is it ya know... Big?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›