🐮 Lolcow Todd Daugherty / N9OGL / Fox Smith / Doc Dot - Domestic terrorist, ham radio sperg, self-described hikikomori, confirmed pedophile

[N9OGL]

Please elaborate.

The Illinois Child Pornography law states:

"“A person commits child pornography who: (1) films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise depicts or portrays by means of any similar visual medium or reproduction or depicts by computer any child whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 or any person with a severe or profound intellectual disability where such child or person with a severe or profound intellectual disability is.."

ILCS 5/11-20.1 (a)

“For the purposes of this Section, "child pornography" includes a film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual medium or reproduction or depiction by computer that is, or appears to be, that of a person, either in part, or in total, under the age of 18 or a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability, regardless of the method by which the film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual medium or reproduction or depiction by computer is created, adopted, or modified to appear as such. "Child pornography" also includes a film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual medium or reproduction or depiction by computer that is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the film, videotape, photograph, or other similar visual medium or reproduction or depiction by computer is of a person under the age of 18 or a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability.”

720 ILCS 5/11-20.1 (f)(7)

720 ILCS 5/11-20.1 (f)(7) is unconstitutional because it is similar to the wording in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which was struck down by the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (2002). The Illinois law doesn't only ban real child porn, but virtual child porn as well. In fact, section 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1 (f)(7) was deemed unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2003 and it was supposed to have been "severed" from the rest of the law (People of the State of Illinois v Kenneth Alexander 2003), but it wasn't and there is no footnote or reference that the section 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1 (f)(7) was deemed unconstitutional or "severed" by the court. This makes law enforcement believe that "virtual child porn" is illegal. In fact, a state trooper testified in my pre-trial that the Taylorville police had been trying for years to go after me for child porn. The child porn they were going after me for was virtual child porn.

Section ILCS 5/11-20.1 (a) is also unconstitutional because regardless of if it's real child porn or virtual child porn. the law states "A person commits child pornography who: (1) films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise depicts or portrays by means of any similar visual medium or reproduction or depicts by computer any child whom he or she knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18" meaning any virtual child that looks like they are under the age of 18, would be illegal under this act. Again, making the police believe virtual child pornography is illegal.

Regardless of if you like it or not, virtual child pornography is legal. The reason it legal is how it created. Child porn (real child porn) does have redeeming value and is protected under the first amendment, what makes it illegal is how it is created. Child porn is illegal not because of the content, but how it is created - by harming real children. Virtual child porn is created without harming real child, and thus legal. (See Ashcroft - US Supreme Court 2002 citing Feber v New York 1982)

 

[crayolasword]

WHAT?! THE?! FUCK???!!!!!!

Did you just say it has a redeeming value???? And that you enjoy it????

 

[N9OGL]

Here's what the Supreme court actually said

"The Government's argument that these indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferber's judgment about child pornography was based upon how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment's protection. Second, Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. It recognized some works in this category might have significant value but relied on virtual images - the very images prohibited by the CPPA-as an alternative and permissible means of expression. Because Ferber relied on the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography as supporting its holding, it provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well. "

Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (2002)

 

[James done did it]

I have a hard time believing someone as old as you who has loli doesn't also have real child porn. With any luck they'll put you away for awhile this time.

 

[N9OGL]

I want to point out this is a state case not a federal, the US Attorney didn't want to touch it for two reasons 1. the warrants that they used to search the computer were no longer valid, they were quashed by a judge in 2018. In other words, they searched the computers without a warrant, violating the fourth amendment. Secondly the stuff on the computer was virtual. The issue is the state law is pre-Ashcroft. The law was last updated in 1999, Ashcroft took place in 2002, it has never been updated. The state law makes both real and virtual illegal, conflicting with a Supreme Court ruling and violating the first amendment.

 

[crayolasword]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness right?

Fucking degenerate.

 

[N9OGL]

If you have a problem with it, take it up with the US Supreme court, not me.

 

[Sir Dank-a-Lot]

Believe me I do plan to fight this, all the way into the federal courts because of two reasons

1. The search warrants that were issued to search the computers were quashed

2. The Illinois Child Pornography law is unconstitutional.

“I’m not going to fight this because I didn’t have kiddie porn. I’m going to fight it because they found kiddie porn that totally shouldn’t be called kiddie porn”.

Bold strategy, pedo. Let’s see how that works out.

Enjoy prison

 

[N9OGL]

“I’m not going to fight this because I didn’t have kiddie porn. I’m going to fight it because they found kiddie porn that totally shouldn’t be called kiddie porn”.

Bold strategy, pedo. Let’s see how that works out.

Enjoy prison

Like I said have a problem with it take it up with the Supreme Court. The ONLY reason Child porn is illegal is because of how it is created, nothing more. Virtual Child porn is LEGAL (not only legal but protected under the first amendment) because of how it is created, by not using real children to create it. What the content is expression isn't what makes it legal or not, how it is created is, per the US Supreme Court.

The 2018 motion to dismiss which quashed the warrants

 

[Sir Dank-a-Lot]

Like I said have a problem with it take it up with the Supreme Court. The ONLY reason Child porn is illegal is because of how it is created, nothing more. Virtual Child porn is LEGAL (not only legal but protected under the first amendment) because of how it is created, by not using real children to create it. What the content is expression isn't what makes it legal or not, how it is created is, per the US Supreme Court.

You’re a sick fuck.

 

[Fwiffo]

Like I said have a problem with it take it up with the Supreme Court. The ONLY reason Child porn is illegal is because of how it is created, nothing more. Virtual Child porn is LEGAL (not only legal but protected under the first amendment) because of how it is created, by not using real children to create it. What the content is expression isn't what makes it legal or not, how it is created is, per the US Supreme Court.

You’re an actual pedophile.

 

[temeluchus]

For non ham Kiwis, this is pretty typical for people who stay on the general or tech licence for more than five or six years.

 

[moseph.jartelli]

Your killing your mom and dad, Todd

The 2018 motion to dismiss which quashed the warrants

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

I want to point out this is a state case not a federal, the US Attorney didn't want to touch it for two reasons 1. the warrants that they used to search the computer were no longer valid, they were quashed by a judge in 2018. In other words, they searched the computers without a warrant, violating the fourth amendment. Secondly the stuff on the computer was virtual. The issue is the state law is pre-Ashcroft. The law was last updated in 1999, Ashcroft took place in 2002, it has never been updated. The state law makes both real and virtual illegal, conflicting with a Supreme Court ruling and violating the first amendment.

Have fun in jail pedo.

WHAT?! THE?! FUCK???!!!!!!

Did you just say it has a redeeming value???? And that you enjoy it????

All of this will be used against him and I love it. This is why according to his bail he wasn't supposed to go on the internet unsupervised.

By the way, not that this guy will understand this, but this is a good read. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/993/child-pornography
Should also mention the Dwight Whorley case and PROTECT act.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Have fun in jail pedo. All of this will be used against him and I love it. This is why according to his bail he wasn't supposed to go on the internet unsupervised. By the way, not that this guy will understand this, but this is a good read. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/993/child-pornography Should also mention the Dwight Whorley case and PROTECT act.

Toad will plead guilty. But i bet if his public defender knew he was on here talking about the case, they would shut him up in a second. Probably his Mommy and Daddy also who are his legal guardians and ordered by the court to supervise his internet use and also put up his bail for him.

And it's not to us to ask the Supreme Court, it's up to you. You get no public defender on appeals and have to pay all expenses.

And they found real child porn on your computer. You have admitted as such. Your argument of you don't know where you got it fron isn't going to work and your public defender won't allow you to use it.

Considering you have never filed a single court action in your life, it's never going to happen.

And yup, the judge can use anything you can say on internet forums and other areas in considering your sentence. Once you are found guilty, the judge has a lot of flexibility in sentencing.

 

[N9OGL]

Dwight Whorley case was in 2008. The PROTECT ACT which he was charged under was later struck down in 2015 in United States v. Handley.

As for being online it's called Free Speech.

believe me I will be going into the federal courts to challenge the warrants and the constitutionality of the state law ... and NO I will not be pleading guilty to anything.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Doesn't matter. The judge can revoke your bail or change your bail for any reason he feels, no trial required and no proof. He can also raise your bail or require your Daddy to put up 100% instead of the 10%.

You will plead guilty because your parents and public defender attorney will make you, just like in 2010. And in 2012 when you plead guilty to violating your probation by sneaking back on the internet. Funny that you said you weren't going to plea a deal then either. But you did, twice.

And you aren't going to go to any federal court, you've been crying that for 20 years. Your parents aren't going to pay for that or pay for the attorney you'll need.

Oh, but don't worry about us. We already judged you as a pedophile on Kiwifarms. I'd worry more about what the local DA will allow you to plea to.

Dwight Whorley case was in 2008. The PROTECT ACT which he was charged under was later struck down in 2015 in United States v. Handley.

As for being online it's called Free Speech.

believe me I will be going into the federal courts to challenge the warrants and the constitutionality of the state law ... and NO I will not be pleading guilty to anything.

The PROTECT ACT which he was charged under was later struck down in 2015 in United States v. Handley.

You're not being charged under the PROTECT act dumbass. You don't even know the difference between state and federal law, do you?

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Dwight Whorley case was in 2008. The PROTECT ACT which he was charged under was later struck down in 2015 in United States v. Handley.

As for being online it's called Free Speech.

believe me I will be going into the federal courts to challenge the warrants and the constitutionality of the state law ... and NO I will not be pleading guilty to anything.

You apparently never read that case. Handley plead and was sentenced to six months in jail. If he didn't he would have received 15 years in jail. His charges were for obscenity too by the way. PROTECT Act is still a thing. He's lucky that he didn't have to register as a sex offender. I doubt you'll be that lucky. I'm rather impressed that you're this liberate.

By the way, the Free Speech Coalition is filled with pedophiles just like you. Its why they spend so much money defending people who should be lined up against a wall.

 

[N9OGL]

You apparently never read that case. Handley plead and was sentenced to six months in jail. If he didn't he would have received 15 years in jail. His charges were for obscenity too by the way. PROTECT Act is still a thing. He's lucky that he didn't have to register as a sex offender. I doubt you'll be that lucky. I'm rather impressed that you're this liberate.

By the way, the Free Speech Coalition is filled with pedophiles just like you. Its why they spend so much money defending people who should be lined up against a wall.

He did plead guilty, which was a bad mistake, he could have won the obscenity charge. But the court did rule that two sections of the law were unconstitutional and that still stands.

My issue is the Illinois law, it was updated in 1999, a few years before Ashcroft and was never changed to reflect the court ruling. The law has the exact wording as the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) which was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2002.

You're not being charged under the PROTECT act dumbass. You don't even know the difference between state and federal law, do you?

Yeah, I do. The Illinois Law is unconstitutional because it has the same wording as the Child Pornography Prevention Act which was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2002.

Doesn't matter. The judge can revoke your bail or change your bail for any reason he feels, no trial required and no proof. He can also raise your bail or require your Daddy to put up 100% instead of the 10%.

You will plead guilty because your parents and public defender attorney will make you, just like in 2010. And in 2012 when you plead guilty to violating your probation by sneaking back on the internet. Funny that you said you weren't going to plea a deal then either. But you did, twice.

And you aren't going to go to any federal court, you've been crying that for 20 years. Your parents aren't going to pay for that or pay for the attorney you'll need.

Oh, but don't worry about us. We already judged you as a pedophile on Kiwifarms. I'd worry more about what the local DA will allow you to plea to.

HAHAHA 2010 - 2012 is that it? is that your argument? How many cases since then have I been in since then and won. let's see 2015 - charges dismissed, so I won that one. 2018 - charges dismissed, and I won that one too. I learn my lesson since 2010 - 2012 and I don't back down now. BTW I suggest you look up Packingham v North Caroline (US Supreme Court 2017) Packingham was convicted of a sex crime and one of things he was told on his parole / probation was that he couldn't get on the internet or social media. He challenged it and the North Caroline Supreme court ruled that the law was constitutional. He appealed it to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court reverse the ruling stating that it violated his right to free speech. Now I only bring this up because he was convicted of a sex crime, I've only been accused. I don't think the judge's restrictions would hold up in federal court as the US Supreme court stated, "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'."

Doesn't matter. The judge can revoke your bail or change your bail for any reason he feels, no trial required and no proof. He can also raise your bail or require your Daddy to put up 100% instead of the 10%.

You will plead guilty because your parents and public defender attorney will make you, just like in 2010. And in 2012 when you plead guilty to violating your probation by sneaking back on the internet. Funny that you said you weren't going to plea a deal then either. But you did, twice.

And you aren't going to go to any federal court, you've been crying that for 20 years. Your parents aren't going to pay for that or pay for the attorney you'll need.

Oh, but don't worry about us. We already judged you as a pedophile on Kiwifarms. I'd worry more about what the local DA will allow you to plea to.

One more thing, I do plan to take it into the federal courts we are waiting for this to get over with before we file the complaint. Can't file while the case is ongoing. Already got most of the money for a lawyer. because yeah, my parents are going to pay, it was them that they stated that we were going to fight it in federal court.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Todd Daugherty is age 54 and still needs his Mommy and Daddy to do everything for him. From posting his bail to providing his internet, and his toilet paper, Mommy and Daddy raise Todd like he's still 6 years of age, and I think Todd likes it. Just think about it, 54 years of age and STILL a little bitch who can't do anything on his own.

You aren't going to take or file a lawsuit in federal court. Your parents aren't going to pay for your lawyer and you don't have the money. Nothing is going to happen. You've been saying this 100s of times for 20 years, like the broken record you are. And when is the lawsuit coming against KiwiFarms like you promised on Twitter? We still got the screeenshots on this thread. 4 years and they haven't gotten served by you yet.

And you agreed to supervised internet and not a use social media when you AGREED and ACCEPTED to the terms of your bail release and the same with your probation. If you didn't agreee, then you wouldn't be let out on bail. Thus, your free speech are not being violated because you agreed to the terms when your Mommy and Daddy decided you had a long enough time out. And maybe if you had read the Terms of Service for Twitter, Twitch and other platforms, you wouldn't have been banned from them.