Sorry about setting your shit on fire

Okay, this one deserves an actual response, I think.

I think you massively overestimate how much practical benefit there is to have from poor people thinking you’re nice. Although I do remember one person who contributed more money to me over a few years than I’d given them, once. But… Like, what exactly do you think I ask them to do? Why would I need this?

I just think it’s sort of terrifying that you can’t imagine doing a thing for its own sake. Like, seriously, you can’t imagine this? If you had enough money that you could cover your expenses and have enough left over to be adequately supplied with shiny things, and you knew someone who was starving, you wouldn’t send them money? And you think I’m the creepy one?

And what makes you think they necessarily trust me? Some of them don’t. I think some of them sorta hate me. I… don’t really care?

I don’t see any basis for your theory. I’m not “convincing” people of things. They’re telling me about these things and I’m saying “huh, you know, that’s unusual.”

So the thing is, statistically, I’m more likely to try to convince someone they’re trans than to try to convince them that they’re not, because most people start out assuming they’re cis. But it’s not 100% consistent. I’ve talked to people who were identifying as more-trans and suggested that they might be happier considering things a different way, possibly as “cis but sort of gender-nonconforming” or “just really upset in general”, and so on.

But your fervent belief that Trans Doesn’t Real is very odd. I’d been assuming that you were in some way part of or related to the forum community, but I don’t think we have anyone in that community who’s that vehemently anti-trans.

You’re clearly hearing about forum stuff secondhand, and your source is sorta unreliable. They told you that “half the forum” allegedly “figured out” that Wildspyer was actually palindromordnilap, but they didn’t mention that “half the forum” was completely wrong and jumping at shadows, and actually it was someone else who has since come forward and talked about it. You also pick up a lot of mischaracterizations of events.

So, you think trans doesn’t real, and you hate BPD a lot, and you are convinced that I’m secretly a multimillionaire from my incredibly lucrative thing of suing junk faxers, and… like, none of this makes any sense at all. Seriously, talk this shit over with some people who are basically familiar with how money works or something.

Assuming they somehow had the money to take someone to court for libel and their case was somehow credited as having a leg to stand on (requires evidence of financial loss or emotional distress). the defendant would just turn around and go: Hey man. Public Interest. I’m just letting the public know this person is a paedophile supporter and therefore a danger to the public. I don’t even have to find evidence, it’s there on their blog and they admit to drawing under 18′s lmao.

2. Considering at least one of the people driving this little crusade are in a competing business and considering explicit statements that this little crusade is intended to damage RP’s standing in that business, there is a decent case that they are engaging in Deceptive Trade Practices. Look it up.

3. There is no “public interest” defense to defamation or UDAP claims.

4. “Charges” do not result in “inescapable debt”. Your little J-school law class seems to have not covered bankruptcy.

If you try to kill someone, and fail because you’re incompetent, you can still be charged with “attempted murder”.

Why don’t we have laws about “attempted pornography” or “attempted obscenity”.

And seriously can you imagine how utterly embarassing it would be to stand trial on charges of “attempted obscenity”, where it is the prosecution’s allegation that you made a genuine effort to do something disgusting and purient without redeeming social value, and ended up failing?

Without further research, but just recollection from Crim, inchoate crimes such as attempt and conspiracy have their own statutes. These are “generic”, so to speak, crimes in which one can slot in any other offense such as murder or kidnapping or possession of narcotics as part of the inchoate offense.

In addition, a few seconds’ thought would show you are comparing different things. “Murder” is a verb often used as a noun. “Pornography” and “obscenity” are never verbs. One can only be criminally prosecuted for actions (verbs), not nouns.

A while back, Roach suggested donations to the Holocaust Museum equal to (or greater than) the cover price of the Captain America issue where the character Jewish dudes made to show that fighting Nazis was patriotic turns out to be a Nazi. And a lot of people have done so, enough that the Holocaust Museum people are aware of the sudden increase in donations.

And suddenly, Roach is being attacked. By someone who’s really proud of his fascist OC with a sorta strikingly familiar armband on his uniform. By someone who has a history of talking about hating “retards” (his word, not mine). And so on. And suddenly he’s got his friends talking shit about the nice Jewish lady.

he doesn’t like that a jewish woman is popular in one of his fandoms. that’s why this is happening.

it’s definitely not about your aged-up homestucks artwork. he’s drawn and written plenty of porn about cronus ampora. (and of course the genital torture murder fic he refused to tag ‘noncon’ until ao3 threatened to take it down, and then took the tag off later because he thought they wouldn’t notice, because it’s totes not rape if HE writes it you guys.) it’s not about anything you’ve done. it’s about ray being a malignant narcissist who resents you for existing.

anyone who’s attacking roach based on rumors and conclusion-jumping right now: good job doing ray’s dirty work. i hope you feel super great about that. especially the part where you’re trying to discredit roach’s efforts to get donations to the holocaust museum. i’m sure they’ll understand when the donations taper off because some utter pillock on the tumbles said roach is a kiddie fiddler and you believed it because being angry makes you feel tingly.

good job, internet heroes.

I for one doubt it if only because it’s a prisoner case. They would have convicted him for drawing tiddy on the wall of his cell if they could. Also, further confusion: is it a nolo or a guilty?

So? I can find examples of people being convicted of all sorts of ludicrous things based on ludicrous misreadings of the law. People who were already in prison tend to get screwed over really badly in court. Without actually going into a heck of a lot more detail on the case, and seeing what happens with any appeals, I wouldn’t really place a lot of weight on it.

thefloweryfanclubWell, a “fucking lawyer”, you’re incorrect.

lawpixelsi’m licensed in the state of texas

thefloweryfanclubIn April 2016 a man was convicted for possessing 6 drawings - yes, DRAWINGS - of child porn.

lawpixelswhere are you licensed?

thefloweryfanclubTexas. I could have guessed.

lawpixelswhere are you licensed?

thefloweryfanclubhttp://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FUSCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492%2Fpdf%2FUSCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf&t=ZGQ5MWYyMjVkYzJlMmUxOTZlMzIwZDQwM2M1NzNiZWQ5OWM0NWYwNSxMNHpTWGhydw%3D%3D

lawpixelswhat is your authority for interpreting statutes on the internet?

thefloweryfanclubThe evidence shows that on or about May 5, 2015, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, Defendant, in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, did knowingly possessa visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256(2)(A), which is obscene, to wit: at Seagoville Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Defendantdid knowingly possess visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are obscene.  Specifically, while Defendant was an inmate at Seagoville FCI—which is in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States—serving a 180-month term of imprisonment for transportation and possession of child pornography, prison officials found seven visual depictions—all drawings—of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are obscene in Case 3:15-cr-00492-N   Document 19   Filed 04/13/16    Page 2 of 5   PageID 41

lawpixelswhat is your bar number?

thefloweryfanclubThe evidence shows that on or about May 5, 2015, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, Defendant, in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, did knowingly possessa visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256(2)(A), which is obscene, to wit: at Seagoville Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Defendantdid knowingly possess visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are obscene.  Specifically, while Defendant was an inmate at Seagoville FCI—which is in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States—serving a 180-month term of imprisonment for transportation and possession of child pornography, prison officials found seven visual depictions—all drawings—of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are obscene in Case 3:15-cr-00492-N   Document 19   Filed 04/13/16    Page 2 of 5   PageID 41

Read the case study.You do know how to do that, correct?

lawpixelsi know how to read

thefloweryfanclubThen please do.

lawpixelswhat i don’t know is how to engage with someone who won’t answer my questions

in what state are you licensed?

what makes you qualified to interpret caselaw and statutory law?

thefloweryfanclubI’m studying.

lawpixelsawesome!

thefloweryfanclubYou, oh wise one, can interpret the law fortunately.

lawpixelswhere are you studying?

thefloweryfanclubSo please.The case study.

lawpixelsdo they know you’re engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?

thefloweryfanclubhttp://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FUSCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492%2Fpdf%2FUSCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf&t=ZGQ5MWYyMjVkYzJlMmUxOTZlMzIwZDQwM2M1NzNiZWQ5OWM0NWYwNSxMNHpTWGhydw%3D%3D

lawpixelsi told you, i won’t read until you answer my questions

where are you studying and in what state?

are you informing them that you are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?

thefloweryfanclubNew York

lawpixelsoh cool!

thefloweryfanclubLmao.

lawpixelssecond circuit is awesome

what law school? i almost picked cornell ngl

thefloweryfanclubYour fearmongering isn’t going to work. Read the case study.

lawpixelswhat fearmongering?

thefloweryfanclubhttp://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FUSCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492%2Fpdf%2FUSCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf&t=ZGQ5MWYyMjVkYzJlMmUxOTZlMzIwZDQwM2M1NzNiZWQ5OWM0NWYwNSxMNHpTWGhydw%3D%3DCase study, moron.

lawpixelswhat, specifically, do you allege that i am mongering?

special exceptions, please

thefloweryfanclub“prison officials found seven visual depictions—all drawings—of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are obscene in Case 3:15-cr-00492-N   Document 19   Filed 04/13/16    Page 2 of 5   PageID 41 ”

lawpixelsi specially except to your pleading and demand a more specific allegation before i proceed with your voluminous and galactically overbroad discovery production

thefloweryfanclubHe was convicted based off of this evidence. Kindly read it.

And quit deflecting.

lawpixelsi am not deflecting

thefloweryfanclubIt’s so obvious what you’re doing.

lawpixelsi am attempting to engage in this conversation on an even level with you

which i cannot do until i know what your allegations are against me

specify what you claim is fearmongering

or i will not engage with you

because it is becoming clear to me that you do not wish to have a dialogue

thefloweryfanclubMy allegations are that you refuse to read the fucking case study

prison officials found seven visual depictions—all drawings—of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are obscene in Case 3:15-cr-00492-N   Document 19   Filed 04/13/16    Page 2 of 5   PageID 41

lawpixelsand you do not wish to have this in public

if you wanted this to be public, you would have replied to my pos

tinstead, you seem to wish to want to berate me privately so i will somehow change my mind

on clearly established first amendment jurisprudence, may i add

thefloweryfanclubIt’s long enough as it is. This could be a long dialogue.

lawpixelson clearly established first amendment jurisprudence, may i add

thefloweryfanclubRead the case study.

lawpixelsif scotus doesn’t know what actual porn is, what makes you think it knows what child porn is

thefloweryfanclubThe man was convicted on 6 drawings of child porn.

lawpixelsread the statute

“is obscene” allows for a great variance in expression

thefloweryfanclubhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf

lawpixelswhich does actually allow for people to draw child porn

i know you hate being wrong

thefloweryfanclubRead the case study.

lawpixelsplease, look up your jurisprudence

thefloweryfanclubRead the case study.

lawpixelsi refuse to engage with your arguments until you consider mine

so it appears we are at an impasse

thefloweryfanclubYou can’t read a case study.

Incredible.

Decide for yourself whether the drawings were obscene.

A court did.

And convicted the man for possessing the six drawings, which it deemed obscene.

lawpixelswhat was the appeal

or is it still ongoing

what is the statute

please compare to other statutes the supreme court has ruled unconstitutional

thefloweryfanclubHe pleaded guilty. He’s awaiting sentencing as of April 2016.

Which was last month.

lawpixelsdistrict court cases are rarely cited because they have little precedential value

thefloweryfanclubIn case you’re unaware.

lawpixelspleading guilty doesn’t mean guilty

thefloweryfanclubThe court found him guilty of possessing the drawings.

lawpixelsit means an arrangement was reached between the prosecutor and the defendant

thefloweryfanclubThe drawings were deemed illegal.

And obscene.

lawpixelswait, so did he plead guilty or was he adjudicated guilty?

what’s your story here?

thefloweryfanclubThe drawings were deemed illegal and obscene.

lawpixelsthese are two totally different things

thefloweryfanclubRead the case study.https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf

lawpixelswere they found factually obscene, or were they found legally obscene?

thefloweryfanclubGood lord.

lawpixelsif you can’t tell me, then it tells me you actually don’t know what you’re talking about

you don’t know the difference between factual and legal sufficiency

you don’t know the difference between a plea and an adjudication

please continue to go to school

thefloweryfanclub…have you ever been to law school in your life?

lawpixelsyou cannot pass the bar right now in a state as hard as new york

i am licensed in the state of texas

thefloweryfanclubYou don’t know how to read a case study?

You don’t know how to read a case study.

lawpixelsthat’s why i’m asking you whether it was adjudged legal or factual

i do

thefloweryfanclubHoly shit.

lawpixelsi’m choosing not to because i believe you are full of shit

thefloweryfanclubTexas is an intersting place.

lawpixelsi’m also publishing this conversation

thefloweryfanclubLawyers won’t read a case study.

lawpixelssince you seem so keen on keeping it private

thefloweryfanclubGood.Read the case study.https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf

Perhaps your followers know how to read case studies.

lawpixelsi won’t block you because i believe you should be able to say your peace

thefloweryfanclubI hope they see the link.

lawpixelsoh my followers do that’s the thing

thefloweryfanclubI believe you should read the case study.

lawpixelsi am not the only person who thinks you are full of shit

thefloweryfanclubBut apparently you’re having a “see no evil” moment.

Ironically.

lawpixelsi believe i’m not going to read it because i don’t beleive you’re approaching this from an intellectually honest point of view

really?

i see plenty of evil

thefloweryfanclubNo doubt….

lawpixelswhat’s that saying about logs and splinters

thefloweryfanclubThat’s the irony.

lawpixelswhat irony?

that you’re deliberately misinterpreting a statute and cherrypicking non-precedential caselaw?

thefloweryfanclubThe case study is too scary for you.

lawpixelsthat you refuse to have a refutation publicly and instead choose to berate me privately?

that you can’t have an argument on the principles and instead cite to a case that has no precedential value?

thefloweryfanclubYou want this whole “I can’t see it lalalala!” convo public, post it.

lawpixelsi’m not reading the case because it’s not relevant

can’t see what?

i’m not saying i can’t see it

thefloweryfanclubPost it in as many tags as you want. I just like using the messaging system.https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_15-cr-00492-0.pdf

lawpixelsi’m just saying that it’s not worth anything

i am telling you, right now, that the “case study” you have picked is not a legal opinion expounding on the meaning of the statute

thefloweryfanclubTexas is an interesting place. No case study, he says.

Not worth anything.

lawpixelsthe “case study” you have picked, you can’t even tell me if it was a plea or an adjudication, if it was a judge or a jury

thefloweryfanclubYou haven’t read it.

lawpixelsyou don’t know what you’re citing to

you can’t tell me anything about it

you’ve refused to

thefloweryfanclubI don’t care to give you more information because you’re boring.

lawpixelsand, since i have an actual real person job to go to in the morning that involves me suing doctors, i believe i’ll stop engaging with you now

thefloweryfanclubYou can read it yourself.

lawpixelsi hope you have a good rest of your night!

hope this didn’t make you too upset that i refuse to engage with you

what followed: continuing to engage, an accusation that i am a donald trump supporter, continued misgendering, and an accusation that i would somehow manipulate the truth, so i guess it did make thefloweryfanclub upset that i refused to engage