I believe this is the video @Balldo's Gate is referring to.
There isn't a specific rule against it. And mere possession is generally not considered, by itself, a "crime of moral turpitude." However, a pattern of drug-fueled scofflaw behavior that involved incompetent representation like no-shows because of incessant intoxication clearly reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.
Literally everyone who gave a shit about this worthless faggot told him exactly where his hellbound behavior would lead him, and he hissed at them. Fuck him, you were warned shit would happen if you continued the psycho shit you were doing, you ignored them, that exact shit happened, and now you act like it's the people's fault who warned you.
It's scheduled for 1:45 p.m. central time. In the afternoon, there is one hearing scheduled before the Toe at 1:30 and a couple after starting at 2:00.
Nah, best option is the judge orders the bailiff to execute Nick outside of the courthouse.
I distinguished quite directly. I clearly said that existing RP laws have not caught up with the Internet and, with that in mind, the expectation for privacy should be modified (my opinion) when a person knowingly poses for nudes. Except for dumb teenagers, we all know the risks of doing that. In 3 clicks a nude can be sent to thousands whether by a vengeful ex or via a hacking (which Destiny is claiming). (If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm just saying I know the difference bw existing laws and my "moralizing" on the topic.)
I'm finally caught up ITT and I'm still confused by this. Aaron would have mentioned it when he laughed at the length of the reports. All I can think of is that it's a kid (eldest son?) which is why no one said anything? April is another possibility but the case isn't remotely about her. I can't noodle any basis for her to be a victim.
April
Yes, he can absolutely do that. I think it was @Folgers Can who did a detailed post about the statutes on that around a week ago.
Hate to say it but Nick could have a pretty solid case. WE all knew about the swinging but his normie viewers did not. Plenty of them have abandoned him. Nick can claim monetary damages from Aaron for exposing the degeneracy.
There is a dedicated Aaron thread but it somehow got recategorized or downgraded or something? I don't follow these things. Anyway, the OP by @Balldo's Gate is very good. It's here.
What violation does Nick believe was done exactly?
WTF I love AI now.ChatGPT is also not fooled by
View attachment 7552345
View attachment 7552341
View attachment 7552347
View attachment 7552343
This was my point. That is not the law.
This is the dumbest take I’ve heard Nick do in a while.
Nick’s show was in the gutter before everything blew up. He was having trouble getting 1k viewers and had nights he’d be lucky to make $100.
Anyone a logging this have any idea when he last mentioned Kayla? And if he has done it that much, why wait until tomorrow to address it? Maybe it isn’t as unusual as what I think it is.
Nor should it be. The entire point of "revenge" pornography laws lie in preventing people from releasing nude pictures or videos obtained in the course of a sexual relationship as "revenge." The law recognizes that the vast majority of revenge pornography comes from initially willing participants who have partners who seek to extort, embarrass, or otherwise shame them after the relationship ends. These laws have a legitimate interest in preventing that behavior.
I don’t see anyone saying that. The objection seems to be that if someone took the risk of sharing such sensitive material with another person, despite knowing how easily it could be shared, that the government shouldn’t waste resources cleaning up the mess they could have avoided. I don’t have a position on this because I have not really dug into the background of such arguments, but this is what I understand people are getting at.
