Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Revenge porn isn't in the public domain like criticism of a public figure is. It is a crime to release sexual images of a person without their consent, no matter how famous they are.
For example, Hulk Hogan won 115 million dollars from Gawkers because they released his sextape without his permission.
Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson won over a million dollars in their lawsuit with IEG for releasing their sextape.
Except most of them hunter biden already had uploaded himself on a public channel on a very very public porn site.
wow, you are spending a lot of thrashing carrying water for this guy. why? if the laptop IS his, it is prima facie evidence of a LOT of felonies and has details of the bribery scheme as well as, the payment records. IF the laptop is not his, as he has sworn and discussed earlier, then he had no case. CLEARLY he is hoping on his daddys morked up DOJ to save him, but he is for all intents and purposes, guilty.
What do you mean he has no case? These state laws are clear have to get permission to publish sex videos of someone else. The source of the videos doesn't really matter.
What do you mean he has no case? These state laws are clear have to get permission to publish sex videos of someone else. The source of the videos doesn't really matter.
So is it illegal to share links to porn sites now?
You do realize hunter had his own public channel on a popular site?
Except most of them hunter biden already had uploaded himself on a public channel on a very very public porn site.
Copyright infringement would be a better angle.
According to the letter, its all the unreleased stuff he still had on his laptop and never uploaded, specifically the videos with his face in them.
revealing his identity would be revenge porn. In Alabama, the revenge porn statute includes identifying characteristics specifically because The first court case on this issue had someone argue that the person suing had shown those images online, the court ruled that this didn't matter because the person didn't show their face or tattoos and the person exposing them online revealed their face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skezo
So is it illegal to share links to porn sites now?
You do realize hunter had his own public channel on a popular site?
Sir, you are reading this page and somehow skipping over a lot. We already addressed this.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,856 posts, read 12,705,334 times
Reputation: 10582
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
There is no picture in the link of the comments from pornhub. Only the comment written by the Author of the article. The comment is in past present tense . Full stop.
In short, you have no evidence to support your claim, and the authors words do not back up your claim. It is on you to prove it and you can not.
The author was obviously speaking about comment posts of people recognizing him that had been made in the past. You seem greatly confused.
Quote:
Quote:
that's not what he said
Quote:
He also said.
You have just confirmed what I'd said, twice, that he'd said he wouldn't have taken it to that shop, he would have taken it elsewhere.
Quote:
He said he didn't recall taking it to the repair shop, he never claims that the laptop isn't his, and the very next section is him stating ....
There he lists all the things that are fake or fabricated until matt Gaetz cuts him off and changes the subject.
In short, he never claims he doesn't have a laptop that went missing, he just didn't remember he gave ti to that repair shop.
You are weirdly fixated on him saying that the laptop wasn't his, which wouldn't matter, because the point was that the story about Ukraine that was reportedly on the laptop was in fact fake and not actually there and that is why the other guy was arrested.
The whole point was that the story on the laptop is fake, not the laptop itself.
When did he say it was his?
The FBI and various other forensic computer experts said that there had been no tampering with the laptop, and I don't know what to tell you because obviously you believe you know more than they do.
The author was obviously speaking about comment posts of people recognizing him that had been made in the past. You seem greatly confused.
I disagree.
Quote:
You have just confirmed what I'd said, twice, that he'd said he wouldn't have taken it to that shop, he would have taken it elsewhere.
Thats not what you said. You said he didn't claim ownership of the laptop. An irrelevant point on your end either way.
Quote:
When did he say it was his?
He didn't have to state the laptop was his, he was being asked about false information believed to be on the laptop.
Quote:
]The FBI and various other forensic computer experts said that there had been no tampering with the laptop, and I don't know what to tell you because obviously you believe you know more than they do.
Ill assume you are not being obtuse,a nd just are missing a step somewhere.
the Congressional republicans were told by an informant that there were documents on the laptop that showed a Ukraine scandal.
Republicans asked Biden the questions believing that the informant was telling the truth. Biden assumed that there was a laptop with doctored documents because he never did these things.
The informant was lying and has been arrested because of it.
There was never evidence of what your side claimed was on the laptop.
The step you are missing is that the informant lied about everything except the existence of A laptop.
The laptop is completely irrelevant to the legal action Hunter Biden is taking against Fox News. Biden only has to prove that those videos were published by Fox News without his permission. Even if it's proven the Laptop was left there by Hunter Biden, and it became the property of Mac Isaac after 90 days. He or anyone else can't publish sex videos without permission.
Example husband and wife at some point they decide to video record their sexual relations using the husbands iPhone. Few years goes by and the marriage ends in an divorce. Husband angry that he has to pay child support and spousal support he decides to open a Pornhub account and publish the video of her only performing a sex act on him. He owns the phone it was recorded on, so that makes the video his property by copyright law. This is why the other laws were passed in many states because an ex-spouse had no right to claim ownership she knew he had recorded her.
I hope Hunter Biden forces Hannity to go on the air and read a statement.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,856 posts, read 12,705,334 times
Reputation: 10582
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
I disagree.
Naturally.
Quote:
Thats not what you said. You said he didn't claim ownership of the laptop. An irrelevant point on your end either way.
Yes, it was. This is what I'd said that sent you off the rails:
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
He also said that if it were his and it needed repair he would have taken it elsewhere.
Yeah, it certainly was questioned.
Quote:
He didn't have to state the laptop was his, he was being asked about false information believed to be on the laptop.
You are fixated on one small time frame, when this has spanned years. He'd been avoiding saying it was his from the start. In fact, he insinuated that it wasn't his when he said he wouldn't have taken a broken laptop to that store, he would have gone to an Apple store.
Quote:
Ill assume you are not being obtuse,a nd just are missing a step somewhere.
the Congressional republicans were told by an informant that there were documents on the laptop that showed a Ukraine scandal.
Republicans asked Biden the questions believing that the informant was telling the truth. Biden assumed that there was a laptop with doctored documents because he never did these things.
The informant was lying and has been arrested because of it.
There was never evidence of what your side claimed was on the laptop.
The step you are missing is that the informant lied about everything except the existence of A laptop.
What does Smirnov have to do with Hunter's porn tapes? Nothing, stop deflecting.
Naturally.
You are fixated on one small time frame, when this has spanned years. He'd been avoiding saying it was his from the start. In fact, he insinuated that it wasn't his when he said he wouldn't have taken a broken laptop to that store, he would have gone to an Apple store.
Again. Him not remembering where he dropped off the laptop is irrelevant. The premise was the laptop having documents that showed illegal transactions and bribes between Biden, his father and government officials within Ukraine through a "shell" company.
Something that did not happen. Biden denied this, not the possibility of him owning a laptop. How is this so hard for you to understand?
At this point, its obvious you are being obtuse.
Quote:
What does Smirnov have to do with Hunter's porn tapes? Nothing, stop deflecting.
we were never debating whether the porn exists, LOL. Just what was on the internet and what wasn't. Your own article established Biden never showed his face, so you admit you are wrong ?
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,856 posts, read 12,705,334 times
Reputation: 10582
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Again. Him not remembering where he dropped off the laptop is irrelevant. The premise was the laptop having documents that showed illegal transactions and bribes between Biden, his father and government officials within Ukraine through a "shell" company.
Something that did not happen. Biden denied this, not the possibility of him owning a laptop. How is this so hard for you to understand?
At this point, its obvious you are being obtuse
And you are deflecting.
lol at, it didn't happen because Biden denied it.
Nothing about Smirnov has been proven at this point, it's all allegations. And if you want to discuss that then create a thread about it, since this thread is not about Smirnov, illegal transactions, bribes, etc.
Quote:
we were never debating whether the porn exists, LOL. Just what was on the internet and what wasn't. Your own article established Biden never showed his face, so you admit you are wrong ?
Where did that article say "never"?
It seems his face was shown on his profile on that site, plus, users of that site knew it was him.
It appears that all you want to do is deflect and hijack this thread, your way of defending the crack ho.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
