Posts: 417
Threads: 48
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
nope, again the ISP believed cartoon images was realistic child porn, in fact other letters to Ms. Diemer from not only me but to them at the time even state that it was cartoon images which again doesn't fall under the category of child porn. As for writing, I have right to read and write obscene material in the privacy of my home (Stanley v Georgia 1969 US Supreme Court)
01-13-2025, 10:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2025, 10:25 PM by admin.)
So your defense to having child porn images is you have the right to view them in your home, although it's not your home and your parents can at any time take away your access to the internet.
Posts: 417
Threads: 48
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
It is state that saying it's real but the FBI Agent who found it says it's computer generated
Posts: 417
Threads: 48
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
01-14-2025, 02:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2025, 02:01 AM by admin.)
I suggest you read the title again ILLINOIS STATE POLICE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT NOT THE FBI
Posts: 417
Threads: 48
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
The police claim it is a real image but the FBI says it was computer generated.
We were under the impression it was a real image, because the police and state were WITHHOLDING information that stated it was computer generated, they had withheld 700 MB of documents in this case that I have yet to see. It was material that was withheld from discovery, they were trying to hide it.
Posts: 417
Threads: 48
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
I would also like to point out that they found that computer generated image, when they weren't supposed to be looking for images to begin with. They ONLY found that computer generated images because as stated before the search warrant was a General Warrant.