When they've painted themselves into a corner, Democrats invariably fantasize that the highly straightforward laws and facts are NOT what they are ... they are magically transformed into what Democrats wish them to be.
Andrew Follet FILETS Lefty Lawyer Accusing VA GOP of Revenge Porn for Sharing Susanna Gibson's 'Work'
http://twitchy.com/samj/2023/10/24/susanna-gibson-revenge-p0rn-lol-n2388929
You guys remember Susanna Gibson, yes? She's a Democrat running for office in Virginia ... she also was discovered to have performed various sex acts online for money. Sorry, for 'tips.'
Actually, tokens, because that somehow makes this all better for some reason EVEN THOUGH the tokens were basically just another way to take money, BUT we digress.
Welp, seems the VA Republican Party has seen fit to use Gibson's 'work' on flyers as the state nears the very important 2023 election for the House and Senate ... and Lefties are discombobulated about it.
They're not complaining at Gibson for having something in her past that could so easily be used by the opposition party, no no, they're mad at the opposition party for trying to win an election.
Even this sad little attorney thinks they're somehow violating Virginia's revenge porn law.
No, really.
Joshua Erlich (@JoshuaErlich) ~ pretty hard to see how this doesn't violate Virginia's (quite strong) revenge porn law
Woof ... you GRADUATED from a law school?! Which one? Because, based on your pathetic inability to comprehend a simple statute, its accreditation needs to be called into question.
"Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells ..."
SHE intentionally downloaded the pornographic videos of HERSELF to a public website ... NOT to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" HERSELF ... but in exchange for remuneration that financially benefitted HER.
All of it is now out in the public domain - because SHE deliberately put it there in exchange for money.
Except you know, she put that content out for the public who bought tokens to look at it.
Andrew Follett chimed in:
Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) ~ {Replying to @JoshuaErlich} Your law degree should be revoked for being this much of an illiterate simp.
She herself posted the videos publicly on the Internet while a candidate for office.
Oopsie.
The so-called attorney shot back:
Joshua Erlich (@JoshuaErlich) ~ {Replying to @AndrewCFollett} pretty unclear what "she posted the videos herself" has to do with revenge porn but go off buddy
If she posted them there is no revenge here, unless of course she is seeking revenge on herself?
Which seems weird, but you do you, bro.
Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) ~ {Replying to @JoshuaErlich} Aren't lawyers supposed to be literate? Cause you clearly aren't. Gibson posted the videos to a porn site and was paid for them. She doesn't own them...no matter how much you lie otherwise.
Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) ~ {Replying to @lukerosiak and @TVPUAC} I'm sorry to report that I looked up the value of the tokens. She wasn't only prostituting herself, she was doing it for literally $25 bucks. BRB, need to vomit.
Maybe she's seeking revenge on the porn site!
HA HA HA HA HA!
Sorry, we can't even at this point.
Joshua Erlich (@JoshuaErlich) ~ {Replying to @AndrewCFollett} law doesn't say anything about ownership. you should read it again. carefully. slowly. maybe with help.
Awww, look at how hard he's trying.
We almost feel sorry for him.
Almost.
Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) ~ {Replying to @JoshuaErlich} It takes actual effort to be as dishonest as @JoshuaErlich ...
Seriously.
The Virginia Project (@ProjectVirginia) ~ {Replying to @JoshuaErlich} If you read Chaturbate terms of service you'd know those videos are public domain from the moment she streamed them.
beans (@beantropy) ~ {Replying to @JoshuaErlich} Self-described "civil rights lawyer" unfamiliar with the First Amendment.
Not exactly the sort of argument we'd put out there if we were looking to impress, but hey, what do we know?
| 