Human Slavery

[Che Gookin]

Ahh yeah I'm familiar with that scam. They pull it in South Korea on occasion as they get girls from Russia and the Phillipines to fly over to work as bar girls or models. Once they arrive they are given the good news that their lives are now officially in the shit and that their future is going to be spent on their backs.

[Anonymous]

I want to buy slave, How much for american blonde girl with intact hymen 12-16 yrs old? I can trade for two russian girls of equal age and stature and maybe throw in shipping container of used ak-47? No drug addicts please. Contact me at the Ukrainian consulate in los angeles if you have offer.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting.htm
IC3^
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Legal_Comm ... tem=145452
Supreme Court Recognizes Solicitation / Offer to Commit Crime Exception to the First Amendment:

Child exploitation: The term ‘‘child exploitation’’ means any conduct, attempted
conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct involving a minor that violates section
1591, chapter 109A, chapter 110, and chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, or
any sexual activity involving a minor for which any person can be charged with a
criminal offense.

Aires, there is something called SARCASM. he is not soliciting anything, and you obviously have no sense of humor. If you were part of the past conversation (thread "has anyone spent any time in russia") you would have understood the joke. c'mon, you've never seen borat?

You couldnt tell it was sarcasm by my "name" even?
Valdimir Ivantovech piniskin.

Aries is right, Stack.

by Eugene Volokh:
Supreme Court Recognizes Solicitation / Offer to Commit Crime Exception to the First Amendment:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1211221587


   Today's [1]U.S. v. Williams opinion might seem like a child
   pornography case; but the key (though not unexpected) holding is that
   there is a First Amendment exception for solicitation of crime or
   offer to commit a crime, see Part II-B.

   This is not the same as the "incitement" exception, which bars only
   speech that's intended and likely to produce imminent lawless conduct.
   Rather, it's an exception that covers a proposal to engage in
   specified illegal activity, even if the activity is to happen at some
   unspecified time in the future, and even if the activity isn't likely
   to happen. "Please help me out of my marital problems, my friend, by
   killing my wife" wouldn't be incitement, for instance, but it would be
   solicitation. Likewise, "please help me out of my marital problems, my
   friend, by shooting my wife right now" probably wouldn't be incitement
   if it was highly unlikely to succeed, but it would also be
   solicitation or attempt (some solicitations are punishable as
   attempts). Solicitation to commit a crime is generally outlawed, but
   of course criminal laws have to pass muster under the First Amendment.
   Williams holds that this is indeed so.

   From there, the result is pretty straightforward. The statute at issue
   in Williams bars

     knowingly advertis[ing], promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing],
     or solicit[ing] ... any material or purported material in a manner
     that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to
     believe, that the material or purported material ... contains
     (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually
     explicit conduct; or
     (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually
     explicit conduct ....

   Material that's actually covered by subsections (i) and (ii) is
   constitutionally unprotected, whether under the "obscenity" exception
   or the "child pornography" exception. The Court read "advertis[ing],
   promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing], or solicit[ing]" as
   essentially involving solicitation or offer of a specific transaction
   in a particular item. That the item might not actually be obscenity or
   child pornography doesn't matter because the general criminal law is
   that an attempt to commit a crime is punishable even if the attempt is
   factually impossible. Trying to buy illegal drugs, for instance, by
   soliciting someone to sell them to you is generally a criminal attempt
   even if the solicited seller was only going to deliver fake drugs
   rather than real ones. So the bottom line is that the prohibited
   conduct constitutes criminally punishable solicitation, offer, or
   attempt to get or give constitutionally unprotected material.

   So this will make clear that solicitation, offer, and attempt to
   commit a wide range of crimes -- including the distribution or receipt
   of child pornography -- is indeed criminally punishable. And, contrary
   to Justice Souter's dissent (joined by Justice Ginsburg), I don't see
   how this will materially change the protection offered to distribution
   of nonobscene pictures that don't actually depict real children, but
   instead show computer- or hand-drawn children, or adults that look
   like children: A distributor or recipient may avoid liability under
   the statute by simply offering or asking for "pictures of adults who
   look underage" or "computer-generated pictures that look like
   children."

   Such offers or solicitations won't "reflect[] the belief, or [be]
   intended to cause another to believe" that the material is a visual
   depiction of an actual child engaging in sex. (Of course, if the
   material does prove to be actual child porn involving actual children,
   and the recipient knows or learns that the material so qualifies, he
   might be liable for possession of actual child porn, but that would be
   true regardless of the solicitation/offer ban.) And to the extent that
   such offers or solicitations may be said to reflect a belief or are
   intended to cause a belief that the material is obscene -- a
   complicated matter given the vagueness of the term "obscene" -- the
   problems that the law poses are not materially different from the
   problems posed by obscenity law in the first place.

   So the opinion strikes me as generally quite sound, not much of a
   change in child pornography law, and an important but fully expected
   recognition of the solicitation/offer exception. The recognition of
   this exception requires the Court to define and police the "important
   distinction between a proposal to engage in illegal activity and the
   abstract advocacy of illegality," the latter of which is protected
   under Brandenburg v. Ohio and many other cases; but the Court's
   recognition of this distinction, which I just quoted, and the
   necessity for such a distinction, leads me not to worry too much about
   the future on this score. So on balance it's not surprising to me that
   the result was a lopsided 7-2.

References

   1. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf

[Anonymous]

Pedophile is more of a taboo in russia than in the U.S.

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

A heavily disproportionate number of the real sick sites involving little boys end in .ru.

Now maybe the Russian Mafia has their scruples and kills pedos, but they're obviously not doing a very good job if so. There are a LOT of pedos and pedo sites in Russia including the teeny-model or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves now (they rebrand themselves almost as often as programs).

Also, LOL at Internet lawyers. Next up he'll be saying "YOU IMPERSONATED KEN HUEY THAT'S DEFAMATION" and we can laugh at him some more.

[Anonymous]

I want to buy slave, How much for american blonde girl with intact hymen 12-16 yrs old? I can trade for two russian girls of equal age and stature and maybe throw in shipping container of used ak-47? No drug addicts please. Contact me at the Ukrainian consulate in los angeles if you have offer.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting.htm
IC3^
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Legal_Comm ... tem=145452
Supreme Court Recognizes Solicitation / Offer to Commit Crime Exception to the First Amendment:

Child exploitation: The term ‘‘child exploitation’’ means any conduct, attempted
conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct involving a minor that violates section
1591, chapter 109A, chapter 110, and chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, or
any sexual activity involving a minor for which any person can be charged with a
criminal offense.

Aires, there is something called SARCASM. he is not soliciting anything, and you obviously have no sense of humor. If you were part of the past conversation (thread "has anyone spent any time in russia") you would have understood the joke. c'mon, you've never seen borat?

You couldnt tell it was sarcasm by my "name" even?
Valdimir Ivantovech piniskin.

Aries is right, Stack.

by Eugene Volokh:
Supreme Court Recognizes Solicitation / Offer to Commit Crime Exception to the First Amendment:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1211221587


   Today's [1]U.S. v. Williams opinion might seem like a child
   pornography case; but the key (though not unexpected) holding is that
   there is a First Amendment exception for solicitation of crime or
   offer to commit a crime, see Part II-B.

   This is not the same as the "incitement" exception, which bars only
   speech that's intended and likely to produce imminent lawless conduct.
   Rather, it's an exception that covers a proposal to engage in
   specified illegal activity, even if the activity is to happen at some
   unspecified time in the future, and even if the activity isn't likely
   to happen. "Please help me out of my marital problems, my friend, by
   killing my wife" wouldn't be incitement, for instance, but it would be
   solicitation. Likewise, "please help me out of my marital problems, my
   friend, by shooting my wife right now" probably wouldn't be incitement
   if it was highly unlikely to succeed, but it would also be
   solicitation or attempt (some solicitations are punishable as
   attempts). Solicitation to commit a crime is generally outlawed, but
   of course criminal laws have to pass muster under the First Amendment.
   Williams holds that this is indeed so.

   From there, the result is pretty straightforward. The statute at issue
   in Williams bars

     knowingly advertis[ing], promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing],
     or solicit[ing] ... any material or purported material in a manner
     that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to
     believe, that the material or purported material ... contains
     (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually
     explicit conduct; or
     (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually
     explicit conduct ....

   Material that's actually covered by subsections (i) and (ii) is
   constitutionally unprotected, whether under the "obscenity" exception
   or the "child pornography" exception. The Court read "advertis[ing],
   promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing], or solicit[ing]" as
   essentially involving solicitation or offer of a specific transaction
   in a particular item. That the item might not actually be obscenity or
   child pornography doesn't matter because the general criminal law is
   that an attempt to commit a crime is punishable even if the attempt is
   factually impossible. Trying to buy illegal drugs, for instance, by
   soliciting someone to sell them to you is generally a criminal attempt
   even if the solicited seller was only going to deliver fake drugs
   rather than real ones. So the bottom line is that the prohibited
   conduct constitutes criminally punishable solicitation, offer, or
   attempt to get or give constitutionally unprotected material.

   So this will make clear that solicitation, offer, and attempt to
   commit a wide range of crimes -- including the distribution or receipt
   of child pornography -- is indeed criminally punishable. And, contrary
   to Justice Souter's dissent (joined by Justice Ginsburg), I don't see
   how this will materially change the protection offered to distribution
   of nonobscene pictures that don't actually depict real children, but
   instead show computer- or hand-drawn children, or adults that look
   like children: A distributor or recipient may avoid liability under
   the statute by simply offering or asking for "pictures of adults who
   look underage" or "computer-generated pictures that look like
   children."

   Such offers or solicitations won't "reflect[] the belief, or [be]
   intended to cause another to believe" that the material is a visual
   depiction of an actual child engaging in sex. (Of course, if the
   material does prove to be actual child porn involving actual children,
   and the recipient knows or learns that the material so qualifies, he
   might be liable for possession of actual child porn, but that would be
   true regardless of the solicitation/offer ban.) And to the extent that
   such offers or solicitations may be said to reflect a belief or are
   intended to cause a belief that the material is obscene -- a
   complicated matter given the vagueness of the term "obscene" -- the
   problems that the law poses are not materially different from the
   problems posed by obscenity law in the first place.

   So the opinion strikes me as generally quite sound, not much of a
   change in child pornography law, and an important but fully expected
   recognition of the solicitation/offer exception. The recognition of
   this exception requires the Court to define and police the "important
   distinction between a proposal to engage in illegal activity and the
   abstract advocacy of illegality," the latter of which is protected
   under Brandenburg v. Ohio and many other cases; but the Court's
   recognition of this distinction, which I just quoted, and the
   necessity for such a distinction, leads me not to worry too much about
   the future on this score. So on balance it's not surprising to me that
   the result was a lopsided 7-2.

References

   1. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf

the above is not valid. I was not soliciting anything, do i have to repeat this again? I was not offering or socliciting anything. I was being sarcastic.

there is something called SARCASM
SARCASM

If the above is illegal, then playing a peadophile in a movie would also be illegal.

Understandably, the law exists for a reason. That reason does not exist on fornits.

anyway, why the fuck would a real peadophile come to fornits to solicit anything? are you completely lacking any brains? or are you just the moral gestapo?

[Anonymous]

Pedophile is more of a taboo in russia than in the U.S.

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

A heavily disproportionate number of the real sick sites involving little boys end in .ru.

Now maybe the Russian Mafia has their scruples and kills pedos, but they're obviously not doing a very good job if so. There are a LOT of pedos and pedo sites in Russia including the teeny-model or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves now (they rebrand themselves almost as often as programs).

Also, LOL at Internet lawyers. Next up he'll be saying "YOU IMPERSONATED KEN HUEY THAT'S DEFAMATION" and we can laugh at him some more.

Does the mexican mafia controll all the cocaine in the U.S?
NO.

Does the russian mafia control everything in russia?
NO.

Is there even a single organization?
NO.


Peadophilia is illegal in the U.S just like it is in russia, and about as common. The reason you see so many sites is because in russia the internet has absolutely zero regulation. The difference between the U.S and russia is that if in the U.S a peadophile gets found out, they get immediatly arrested and sent to prison where the aryan brotherhood or similar organization will turn them into hamburger. When a peado gets caught in russia, every single person in the prison wants to kill them in as brutal a manner as possible. Not just the AB or other gangs. EVERYONE. there is no protective custody in most cases in russia.

You also have to remember that the country is like the wild west. you can do whatever the fuck you want, and you will probably get away with it.  but if the wrong people get wind of it, you are fucked in more ways than one. In the U.S, you cant do whatever you want, and if you do, you will easily get caught.

[Anonymous]

I'm tired of being tormented to hell, that's what I'm tired of.

[Anonymous]

I'll bet he is…or soon will be.^
Uh, Stack,
There’s no point in making your case for sarcasm in follow up posts.
Who knows if aries or anyone reported you.
I’m thinking you’re better off consulting a real attorney (not the imaginary kind) and giving some thought to whether anyone having a look at your hard drive etc. would share your sense of humor.
Eh?

[Anonymous]

suck it. i have nothing to hide. I'm not a pedophile, and any investigator who looks into me for ten seconds would know that. I may have a very dark sense of humor, that is true. but so does Quentin Tarantino, Carlos Mencia, Chris Rock, Marylyn manson, and tommy chong. All of those people told jokes, directed movies, and played characters that depicted people doing illegal things, soliciting illegal activity, and acting like immoral jackasses. If you saw a movie, or saw a show where a person was soliciting someone for something illegal, you wouldn't report it, would you? if you saw a movie that had hate speech among other illegal acts (maybe someone screams "fire!" during the movie), that wouldnt be illegal now would it? you've seen borat, right? this thing is a play on what would be for example maybe borat's cousin. If sacha baron cohen, as a skit, solicited child porn, would he get in trouble? NO. He had a "running of the jew" and a gay almost-sex scene, along with a number of other highly inflammatory things in his movie...no one raised their gavels.  What happened here is not illegal, it was comedy not solicitation. I hate pedophiles as much as anyone else, and i despise the russian mafia along with pretty much every other criminal organization known to man. Hence the fuckin joke - to ILLUSTRATE THE DEPRAVITY OF RUSSIAN CRIMINAL-TYPES IN A HUMOROUS AND PARTLY FICTIONAL WAY.

If you can remember, the final post by my alter-ego Piniskin Included "I= ::fullofshit:: ". thats smiley for "I am full of shit"

I invite any FBI or similar agent to take come take a look at my hard drive. not an inkling of suspicion of any wrongdoing will arise. No kiddie porn here. I like milfs - i'm subscribed to brazzers. I should probably hide my two grams of weed though, as if the FBI will actually try to charge me for that after I threaten to sue them for harassment.

I used a fake name, and claimed I'm a russian criminal at the Ukrainian embassy in LA. I am most definitely around 2000 miles away from LA. How is it solicitation if there's only a fake name and non desrcript address? For solicitation you need to provide some form of contact information, is that provided? NO. i'm not even sure there is a ukrainian embassy in LA. I dont own a private jet, I've never been to russia, I dont know any russians, and the only russian word i know is Blaht, which is apparently used like "fuck", but means something else...

are you pooping this party because your jealous you're not getting a political position in Voronezh? (HA HA, it's a joke, get it?)

I'm not defending myself against the FBI or whomever might look around this board after hearing about my "piniskin" post. I have no need to, I'm comfident that they will see the attempted humor in it and not interpret it as solicitation. It just peeves me that people have to poop parties and be mr. moral police when they dont take their time to actually read through the text and between the lines. It annoys me that people are so ignorant as to not see humor in things like that. So here i am, wasting my time defending my fuckin deranged sense of humor that everyone else seems to think is funny in person and within context.


and btw, who the hell is stack? i'm not stack, whoever he is....
I used to be a productive member of fornits untill important things like college took over my time, and CHE/psy took over the boards. I also kinda dont give a shit about programs anymore. I just come here to crash the board with my trolling now and then when i'm bored.

[Inculcated]

Ah,that’s the spirit. Don’t waste your time with legalities or reality, whatever.
No matter what they call you, you’ll always be pedopath to me.

Meanwhile,life goes on and reality matters to some.

http://http://www.freedomcenter.org/Interesting website to look over. Worth a few moments of your time.

http://http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/

[Antigen]

I'd like to get a job screening such complaints to FBI. I bet it's a riot for whoever gets to do it. Might even work into a sideline at talent scouting or article brokering or some such. :clown:

[Inculcated]

LoL. Mentioning “talent scout” is just going to compel the self aggrandizing delusional pedopath to compile a portfolio of what he considers
 to be his best work and submit it to the FBI himself.

http://http://www.freedomcenter.org/Interesting website to look over. Worth a few moments of your time.

http://http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/

[Che Gookin]

Not to distract from the original point of the thread, but on facebook they have this user group of dogooder lunatics who spend all their time complaining to the facebook admins about groups they think are pedos.

I joined the group and have been lurking for awhile just watching them. Their complaints are absolutely hilarious. One guy they got banned from Facebook for saying he'd bang some 14 year old actress if he was under 18.

For awhile I was pondering setting up a fake group of pedos and trolling this dogooder group with it. In the end I decided against it as they blocked facebook in china and I don't like using proxies due to the slow speeds.

What surprises me though is the sheer number of people who use public groups on facebook that are pedophile oriented. When I was looking over the dogooder group earlier I think I'm sure I even saw a Nambla group being talked about.

Whatever happened to pedoes being too damn embarrassed to show their faces in public?

sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Slaves are fun. I met this guy in saudi arabia once, he had twenty seven wives. He took me to the market, and his friend offered to sell him a twenty eighth wife. He declined, but bought her for me. We had lots of fun for a few days. You should see what she was able to do with those hookah hoses! it was like straight out of some japanese anime monster-rape porn flick with tentacles and shit.

Then i left the country, and they found out i was actually an infidel jew who only looks arab (we all do...when we get a tan and grow a beard). The slave was set free back to her original master (her father) but then he found out she was already defiled - by an infidel nonetheless - se he brutally murdered her by burying her alive in a mountain of camel poop. That is the law. His neighbors gave him mad props.    :twofinger:
 :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:
 :hug:

[Anonymous]

Dig

[try another castle]

A heavily disproportionate number of the real sick sites involving little boys end in .ru.

Congratulations! This quote has just won the "Stuff-I-Should-NEVER-Claim-to-Know" award!


Yaaaay!  :birthday:

I met this guy in saudi arabia once, he had twenty seven wives.

I had a similar experience with a guy like that, once.. except that it was on the way to St. Ives, and he only had seven wives, and each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats, and each cat had seven kittens. I told him that he was an obsessive compulsive freak, and I bought myself a sack of cats before we parted ways.

He got kind of mad at me, though, cause I didnt want the kittens.

Due to the fact that only *one* of his wives is going to have to adjust and carry only *six* sacks of seven cats, (plus some sort of improvised container to house an additional forty nine kittens), I don't think its such a  big deal, and I really didn't appreciate having to listen to him shout at me about how I've "totally fucked up the song now."

I'm sorry, I cant afford forty nine kittens, I just bought a whole sack of cats.

If you don't like it, don't fucking sell them. Better yet, just back the fuck off of your stupid prime-number fetish.






.....wait.. what were we talking about?