BootmanLA

FWIW, "prostitute" is a specific kind of sex work. So is porn. Content creators produce porn to get subscriptions (if they have an OF/JFF/etc. account), or followers (on other social media, which can be monetized). There are the rare, occasional folks who produce porn content of themselves to freely distribute, but again, they're rare. But except for those rarities, they're having sex and making money at it - ie sex workers. This applies to solo videos and pics, duos, orgies, and whatever else is produced. Likewise, cam boys who get "tips" for live performances on cam? Sex for money. That may be different, in some forms, from someone who is paid to actually have sex with the paying individual, but it's not really a completely separate concept. Mind you, I have nothing against sex work. I don't think there's anything inherently worse about monetizing your body than monetizing a skill (like software development) or talent (like music) or athleticism (like pro sports players) or even looks (like models, body builders, and the like). We monetize what we have in order to be able to afford things - whether it's a roof over our heads or a Ferrari.

Rhetoric like this is irresponsible. We don't know who the shooter was, or what his motivations were. We can speculate but to do so publicly is, well, pretty damned disgusting.

Federal campaign law says that money raised by a particular candidate has to be spent on that candidate's election, or otherwise disposed of in a very limited number of ways. But all the Biden money was raised for the Biden/Harris re-election campaign, and most campaign finance experts say if Harris is still on the ticket, even if she moves up to the top slot, the money can be spent to elect her. But even if not: the money CAN be transferred to their party, and the DNC could spend to elect her.

That's a judgment call, but I would say the vast majority of D's are MORE progressive than the vast majority of R's. In a system that effectively only the two major parties can compete in, that's close enough for me. Or how much we patiently point out that people who throw their vote away on Green candidates for president are simply making it that much easier for a Republican to win. That's bullshit. A huge percentage of the Inflation Reduction Act (which, let's be honest, was a stimulus bill) is specifically targeted at green energy and climate change issues. This administration has also been doing what it can on the executive branch side, for instance halting approval of all new LNG export facilities, but thanks to the current SCOTUS right-wing majority, administrative agencies will henceforth be severely crippled in terms of being able to address ANY concerns without clear direction from Congress (which isn't going to happen as long as Republicans have any power there). Again, Bullshit. This administration has been fighting for LGBT people especially in court, where the DOJ has intervened in case after case regarding (especially) trans rights. The administration is also pushing hard to implement trans protections in schools (under Title IX) and in housing and other areas, mirroring what happened for employment a few years ago. The right wouldn't be fighting so hard if they weren't up against an administration pushing hard to implement those protections. That's not going to happen. HIV medication for treatment has long been covered by insurance, mostly because it makes economic sense to prevent people from advancing to AIDS status and fending off opportunistic infections that can cost hundreds of thousands to treat. What might happen is that PrEP might be removed from the "must cover" list of preventative care things, but even before it became a "must cover" larger insurers were moving to cover it because again, it makes economic sense - particularly given the discounted cost they pay for PrEP. I don't doubt that a second Trump administration would be horrible for LGBT people, but this particular concern is - I'm pretty certain - is overblown. They're not going to criminalize *being* gay. They might well push to overturn Lawrence and allow states to criminalize *gay sex*. I'm not defending the latter in the least, but they'd have to actually *prove* that someone had gay sex. And if you look back to when those acts WERE prosecuted, they were almost entirely for *public* sex (which, I might add, is still illegal in most places). THIS - I wholeheartedly agree with. My view of my party is that it's too invested in wanting to be LIKED and not nearly invested in enough in winning. One way the Republicans work is by scaring the rank and file into believing false things - that immigrants are stealing their jobs and stealing elections by voting fraudulently, that people of color are being given massive amounts of "their" tax money, that transwomen are simply perverted men trying to get into women's bathrooms to rape their daughters and sisters, and so forth. Fear is a great motivator - but not so much when you try to scare a tiny portion of your base. Most straight people, even our best allies, won't "fear" re-criminalization of sodomy, even if they realize it'll affect their friends, even if they realize they themselves commit those same acts and could well be guilty under those laws, because they don't believe they'll be affected. Nobody's going to knock on Joe and Jane's door and barge in catching her giving him a blow job and they won't get charged if it does happen. Likewise, a lot of D-leaning voters aren't worried about R plans to make voting harder, because they're convinced they themselves won't be affected, and think all their friends and relatives will be similarly situated. They don't realize that they might well not be able to readily, on the spot, prove they're citizens, because they don't have a certified copy of their birth certificate ready to show at the polls. By the time they do realize it, it'll be too late. Fear works when it motivates a big chunk of your base - like the working class white men who are such a solid part of the Trump base. On our side, fear of what the GOP is doing on abortion is a huge motivation for women voters - enough that everywhere abortion rights have been on the ballot, they've won since Roe was overturned. If we're going to use fear to motivate people to vote - and I'm all for that - it needs to be over things that a big chunk of voters will relate to, and see as a threat. Open to suggestions.

As PozBearWI noted, that's generally the case. But in the case we were discussing - the Florida obscenity charges for Paul Little (Max Hardcore) - the charges were brought in Florida, where the material was received. I'm not certain whether the DOJ manual provision in question was adopted before or after that case. But the convictions were upheld by the 11th Circuit in Atlanta - specifically holding that because the material was sent to Florida, it was acceptable to judge it by Florida's obscenity standards (which are, after all, specific to the community). I'm guessing that DOJ felt that winning the case would be harder if brought in California possibly because California's "contemporary community standards" were different enough that a conviction would be more difficult.

Most of the calls have been for him to withdraw as candidate; but yes, there are calls that he should step down so Harris can run as an "incumbent." I put that in quotes because although it's true she would then be the incumbent, I don't think she will be seen as such - not in the same sense that, say, Lyndon Johnson was in 1964, or Harry Truman was in 1948.

It's both. It's also because a goodly percentage of people just don't bother to vote at all. Studies generally show that a solid majority (like, >60%) of people who routinely don't vote have progressive/liberal sentiments; they just think it won't do any good to vote. If they voted, the right-winters (who DO turn out to vote, regularly) would never win the presidency OR a majority in either chamber of Congress.

Serious question: does NOBODY read the thread before posting the same question over and over? One of the moderators has already posted that there's a known issue at the hosting level with email being sent out. That means - drum roll - that for now, you can't get the confirming email. It means you'll have to wait, unfortunately, until that problem is fixed. This is not Google or Yahoo! or some other massive service with a thousand technicians who can be delegated to fix an issue. It's basically a (FREE) labor of love by one guy and his crew of volunteer moderators. As one of my favorite casual restaurants says on its menus, "If you are not served your order within five minutes, relax, it may be another five. This is not New York City."

Also, I'd note: I'm sure Wolfe's own films almost certainly have the proper paperwork documenting that all the performers are of legal age. And again, I'd suggest that it's pretty hard to fake porn being sent from phone A to phone B when the feds have phone B in their possession at the time the material was sent, and once they retrieve phone A, find the corresponding sending record on that phone.

Nope. Paul Little (aka Max Hardcore) was convicted of obscenity charges for material his studio actually produced. It had nothing to do with transmission of child porn or anything like that. What you may be thinking of is that he was convicted in Florida because the material was distributed there, even though it was produced elsewhere. But once you've produced obscene material (which isn't protected by the First Amendment), you can be prosecuted anywhere it's shipped (electronically, if it's online). Nobody planted material on Max Hardcore's computers or anything like that.

That's the issue I mentioned about regional ISPs using a pool of IP addresses across state lines. It's very possible (probable, even) that your ISP in Indianapolis has facilities in Louisville, and that's where the IP addresses are registered, so that's where it "looks" like you're from (based only on the IP address). As I noted, my home ISP (Cox) has its DHCP address pool based in a city 60 miles west of here, serving at least another 80 miles or so to the east from where I am, or a radius of 140 miles. Since computers (unlike phones) typically don't have any GPS capabilities, you appear to be wherever your IP address is registered to.

Easy is in the eye of the beholder. For starters, while phishing attacks are common, successful ones aren't nearly as abundant. Thanks to fairly decent spam filters and other anti-malware software, as well as people's tendency to delete email they don't recognize (not enough, but still...), it's harder to reach vulnerable people. Second, there's no "payoff" for the payload-delivering site, usually; they want money, not just to annoy people. And targeting malware would be even harder, because you'd have to craft a message specific for your target that they would be convinced to check out. Separately, there's almost always a way to tell where files like that came from, so if the malware people were forcing CP/CSAM onto someone's computer in an attempt to compromise him, forensics would probably be able to tell that it came from a malware site and wasn't actively sought out by the person. Could it be done? Probably. But I don't think it's likely.

Well, yes and no. Having HSV2 doesn't mean that you're able to spread it every time you have sex. Aside from the simple "luck" factor, the risk of transmission is lower when the infected person does not have an "active" (ie visible) infection. It can still happen, but it's not a certainty. I agree the odds are definitely in favor that he's been exposed to it and may well be carrying it. But I wouldn't say you could call it "statistically impossible".

I'm not saying he's guilty. People have raised questions about how the process works, what was alleged to have happened, etc., and I've answered those. People have made inaccurate statements about things like first time offenses and I've corrected those. I've actually never watched an episode of Law and Order or any of its spinoffs. But I'd note that nothing is compelling you to read anything I post here. You're free to skip over any post with my name on it.

"AIDS" is not transmitted. HIV is transmitted; AIDS is the condition resulting from HIV infection after one's body reaches a certain point (T-cells below 200). Typically, progressing from HIV infection to AIDS takes a significant period of time. You're correct that HIV has a low risk of oral transmission. However, that risk is elevated if you have any cuts, even tiny ones, in your mouth, or poor oral hygiene such that you might have a way in your gums for the virus to enter your system. It's still very uncommon, but it's not something that could be ruled out.

We might know that such a deranged individual exists. But I don't see any explanation of WHY that individual has chosen such a deranged action.

For about 20 years now, if not longer, I have been saying "I will vote for the Democrat even if the candidate is the reanimated zombie corpse of Adlai Stevenson" - not because I think Democrats are perfect, but because the Republican Party is that bad.

That's exactly what it is. The whole "kick out all the immigrants" thing reeks of the "pure Aryan blood" fetish of the Nazis, as is the concentration of power in the hands of a few who will never have to face an election.

You might want to look into what people get for a single count of CP/CSAM even when they plead guilty and cooperate and it's a first offense. The statutory MINIMUM is 5 years - the judge is not authorized to go ANYWHERE below that. The statutory maximum is 20 years. But those are for a SINGLE count involving a SINGLE file and for relatively (if such a thing exists) benign child porn, like a 16 year old consenting to sex on camera with someone else. Beyond that, there are guidelines: the guidelines are basically a flow chart that says, based on THIS crime, your offense "level" is X (like a rating). CP/CSAM has a fairly substantial rating. The court then applies enhancements (circumstances that increase the level) and reductions (things that reduce the level). Things like abuse, BDSM, etc. - if involved - mean the maximum can be LIFE. There are a LOT of things that can enhance a sentence, and not a lot that can reduce it - cooperation and acceptance of responsibility are the major ones, and you typically only get a one or two level reduction in the offense level for those. (The guy arrested first, whose phone they used to catch Wolf, will probably get those reductions because he agreed to help in the investigation.) I'm not suggesting Wolf will get life, or even, say, 40 or more years. But I'd be shocked if he got less than ten to fifteen years, and I would not be shocked if he got at least 20.

What I linked to was what is called the "complaint" - it's not the indictment itself but rather a statement of the facts that are being presented. It's presented to a judge when seeking an arrest warrant to charge someone with a crime. The difference between this and an indictment is that criminal complaints are used when there may not be time to present the prosecutors' case to a Grand Jury (who would issue an indictment) - for instance, when there's an ongoing criminal conspiracy and they're trying to prevent a further crime from happening. (Grand Juries typically meet for a couple of days a month for several months or a year, and hear whatever cases the Dept. of Justice wants to present to them). Criminal complaints are also used when there's a concern that evidence might be compromised by waiting. However, for felonies, once a criminal complaint is issued and the person is arrested, the prosecutors do have to actually secure an indictment (I believe they have 30 days). If the investigation continues and they uncover more evidence, they can seek a "superseding indictment" that adds additional charges, if necessary. But due process requires that there at least be an initial indictment fairly quickly, so the accused knows what he's specifically accused of. Based on the criminal complaint, he has not been charged with "sending 300 files" to anyone. That's not how this generally works; the penalty for sending one file are pretty much as drastic as sending ten, or fifty, or whatever. It's a lot easier to prove one count of something - you pick the event that's easiest to prove, and they had the receiving phone in their possession when it was sent and found the sending record on the phone seized from the defendant. That's pretty much a slam dunk. (I wouldn't be surprised if they'd gotten the phone company records and linked Wolf's known location with the geographic location of the phone at the time of the transmission for extra proof.) IF the case fell apart - a jury refused to convict, for instance - the prosecutors COULD bring charges based on other files or transmissions, but they'd be harder to prove without the send and receive records both in hand the way they appear to be in this case. Not legally. The possession of such material is a crime in and of itself. Sending such material is a crime in and of itself. The REASON you have it or send it doesn't matter; you can totally have zero interest in sex with an underaged person and it's still illegal to have or send the file. Just like, for instance, it's illegal for me to have a stash of cocaine or fentanyl. Doesn't matter whether I've never used drugs in my life or never wanted to use drugs in my life: if I have them, I'm breaking the law, and if I sell them to someone, I'm breaking the law. In fact, I suspect that quite a few drug dealers never touch the stuff themselves because they know what it can do; they're just in it for the money. But he's not charged with being a pedophile; and as I noted many posts back, we don't know - and at this point, can't know - whether he ever had sex with an underaged boy anywhere, any time. And he's not charged with that, either. He's charged with sharing child pornography (or, as others have said, child sex abuse material). Assuming the facts alleged in the criminal complaint are true (and that's what will have to be proven at trial, assuming the indictment tracks the complaint), then he did what he's charged with. Put simply, "being a pedophile (someone sexually attracted to children)" is not itself a crime. Actually having sex with a child *IS* a crime (at least in this country), but he's not accused of that. Possessing and sending CP/CSAM *ARE* crimes, and he *IS* accused of those.

Purely out of curiosity, why not turn him down outright? I don't mean in a mean or rude fashion, but if you can be clear, that might stop. Unless you're afraid he's going to go psycho on you, is there a reason not to be clear that you're not going to be interested ever again?

Viking's response prompts this addendum to my previous post: "Cold" is often a synonym for "blunt" or "direct". I usually don't see much reason to beat around the bush when I'm trying to be clear, particularly when drawing a boundary; sometimes I'm told "that was cold", but sometimes that's unavoidable. See also "ripping the band-aid off" and other similar phrases. I don't think there was any world in which this guy was going to be able to suppress his interest in "something more" to keep giving you the "something less" that you want. And I don't mean "more" or "less" in a values sense; there's nothing wrong with pure sport fucking, just as there's nothing wrong with something more involved. But "sex+socializing" IS more than "sex" alone.

This is why I've always stressed the importance of open communication (and one reason I'm generally opposed to cheaters). There's nothing wrong with wanting a very casual FB arrangement with someone; there's nothing wrong with someone wanting more than that. It's when what two people want for themselves conflicts internally that there's any issue. I think you're probably right, for what it's worth, that you've lost a "great lay". Which is regrettable, but there almost certainly would be drama coming down the road if you'd navigated a way to keep seeing him, knowing he wanted something more. Especially if there are other "great lays" that you're seeing.

Dude: according to the agent who sought the arrest warrant, the Telegram account shows files sent FROM Austin's Telegram TO the cooperating witness's Telegram. Not part of a group, not something that some rando shared with thousands of others - a direct, one-to-one transfer of files. There's no allegation that this was a "sudden fall" - just that these PARTICULAR violations of the law occurred, during this period. That's not an affirmative statement that they found no other such transfers; that's just not how an indictment works. When an indictment is issued, it has to allege specific facts [X person did Y action on or about Z date], and the job of the prosecutor is to prove those specific things as true. They do NOT want to "dump" lots of other allegations of similar behavior that may or may not be as readily provable, because that muddies the water for a jury. If the indictment said that Wolf had, say, sent 300 files to various people, then each of those would be a separate "count", and each one would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict on that count. That would mean a trial lasting weeks, or months, and for what purpose? The mandatory minimums and the sentencing guidelines are already very harsh for even a single incident of CSA material. As for the poll: go ahead, if you want, but it's meaningless. None of us, unless we're chosen for the jury (assuming he doesn't make a plea deal) then what we think is irrelevant. As for the hacking option: Sure, that's theoretically possible. But since they found the transmission records *on Wolf's physical phone*, based on what I know of Telegram (particularly its encrypted chat), that means the sending/receiving took place ON THAT DEVICE, not just using his account from another machine. "Elaborate frame job" just doesn't seem that likely, at least to me. Especially since Wolf was, by all official accounts, not the original target. TTU1 was - for whatever reason - and it was only on arresting him and reviewing HIS devices that they happened on to his communications with Wolf. It's certainly not impossible for this to be an elaborate frame job, but it seems really, really overcomplicated for that to be the case.

Alternatively, this Supreme Court might simply find a pretext for striking down the Respect for Marriage Act. At this point, with the Court firmly in the hands of right-wingers, you can't really put anything past them; and if Trump were elected this November, expect at least Alito (age 74) to resign so that Trump could appoint a 40-year old replacement who's just as far right. You might even see Thomas (age 75) doing the same, although he's privately said he wants to stay on as long as he's able. Our only prospects for regaining sanity on the Court lie in Alito and Thomas both dying during Democratic presidential terms where we also have the Senate (because I can't see either retiring under those circumstances). Gloomy outlook to say the least.