+- Todd Daugherty's N9OGL Official Board (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl)
+-- Forum: General (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Main Board (http://160.32.227.211/n9ogl/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Ok a recap for the newbies (/showthread.php?tid=61)
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - Guest - 01-15-2025
well, let's see what the "newbies" think...
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
I'm leaving it to show people the BULLSHIT I have to go through
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - Guest - 01-16-2025
Nope. You can disable pictures at anytime. You probably posted it yourself for sympathy. Therefore, you must want them.
[IMAGE REMOVED]
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
Nope...
Username: 9 inches
IP Address: 195.47.238.87
Hostname:
(if resolvable) tor-5.no-ack.net
I DON'T USE TOR BITCH! I want the State and the police who visit this site the harassment I am getting. all your doing is helping me.
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
NO BITCH I WIN...WANT TO POST YOU HAVE TO REGISTER....
PS FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT
YOU ARE ONE STUPID MOTHER FUCKER...DO YOU WORK FOR THE TAYLORVILLE POLICE OR STATE OF ILLINOIS??
OH WAIT YOU CAN'T REPLY BECAUSE YOUR A CHICKEN SHIT TO LOGIN
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I WIN FUCK YOU LOSER!!
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
The person posting the porn on here is Dirty Harry AKA FCCBodyguard, who is a known user on KIWI FARMS and the one who has the original image that was used in the school shooting threat.
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
BTW the letter below has NOTHING to do with child porn, it has to do with obscenity, and again it is up to a court to determine what is obscene and what isn't/
![[Image: Msyi7sz.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/Msyi7sz.jpeg)
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
Obscenity is based on the Miller Test which states:
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
IT MUST BE ALL THREE PRONG TO BE DEEMED OBSCENE. If it survives just one prong, then it's not obscene.
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
(01-13-2025, 11:37 PM)Earl Wrote:(01-13-2025, 09:32 PM)admin Wrote: So, I have a right to look and write obscene material in the privacy of my home (Stanley v Georgia US Supreme Court 1969)
Posting in social media websites and on the web is not in the privacy of your "parents" house.. It's you trying to groom children in Taylorville and on the web. It's also a violation of your bond agreement, which the judge should revoke just like they did in 2012 and order you to get a psychiatric evaluation like they did with Daniel Larson and delay your case until the evaluation is complete.
W/ CONDITIONS OF NO SOCIAL MEDIA; NO UNSUPERVISED CONTACT WITH MINORS;
NO UNSUPERVISED INTERNET USE;
Your parents could also be found in contempt of court as they are allowing you to use their house and internet to groom children.
NO moron was talking about writing material for the purpose of consuming it in the privacy of one's home. As for delay the case "your case until the evaluation is complete." this case has been on delay going on 4 years now.
RE: Ok a recap for the newbies - admin - 01-16-2025
(01-14-2025, 02:37 AM)Guest Wrote: By joining social media sites that have children on it,
The government used that argument in Packingham v North Carolina, and the US Supreme Court didn't buy it.