0
3

[–] Guy_Justsome 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Harvard students need to learn to read.

Pedogate's political scandal quality explicitly exempts it from the stated legal definition of "obscene," which the dumbfuck copypasted herself.

3
-1

[–] NASAspecialops [S] 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

Voat commenters also need to learn to read the document to which the whole article refers, your point is nullified on account of your deliberate obfuscation of FEDERAL LAW.

0
2

[–] NuclearFuckingBomb 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

4chan are getting wrekt

0
1

[–] wincest1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Would it kill you to spell Harvard correctly?

2
-1

[–] NASAspecialops [S] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

I wouldn't go near the place, so allow me this oversight.

2
-2

[–] NASAspecialops [S] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Yale is number 1

0
1

[–] kevdude 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wait is she saying that the tweets themselves are not protected? Or that the reposting for investigative purposes is not protected. Not sure if this is shenanigans so tell me if I need to grab my broom.

1
3

[–] NASAspecialops [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

As well as this, his tweets are posted publicly and unlike imagery which can contain a sensitive content warning, words do not. It's a deliberate act of obscenity without artistic merit thus falling under a violation of what I would imagine to be the obscenity act.

0
0

[–] Improbablyanasshole 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

He's a shock comic known for saying the most horrible things he can think of, so there's artistic merit.

1
2

[–] NASAspecialops [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

She's a Harvard Law Student, so even without previous litigious reference setting a precedent is most definitely an option here. As we have recently seen happening in another twitter case.

1
2

[–] NASAspecialops [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yes, she asked for analytical demographic data from his twitter which would make this enforceable as he has an audience of minors.