Ok a recap for the newbies

[Guest]

well, let's see what the "newbies" think...

[admin]

I'm leaving it to show people the BULLSHIT I have to go through

[Guest]

Nope. You can disable pictures at anytime. You probably posted it yourself for sympathy. Therefore, you must want them.

[IMAGE REMOVED]

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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!!

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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/

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.