It sounds like Ross might be a tad....slow.

_________________

If that is the only thing he did then it is really odd. It shouldn't be a crime to send someone their own photo.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

My fucking "friends" took a picture of me nodding off in Tavern on Rush and texted it to my wife yesterday. That should definitely be a felony!

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Depends which head was nodding first.....

_________________
GOB: "My God, what is this feeling?"
Michael: "Could it be love?"
GOB: "I know what an erection feels like, Michael. No, it's the opposite. It's... it's like my heart is getting hard."

I hope there aren't any SJW's in Rosemont tonight, as there are a few Icehogs fans sporting their Ross jerseys...

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner

This is why in the "court of law" innocent until proven guilty is the threshold before someone is labeled. In the court of "public opinion" the accused is not only guilty but the accuser needs some form of shielding/protection from those who don't just accept what is presented hook, line and sinker. Where things run off the rails with the latter is that there no rules, no standards, and essentially no checks on what is being judged. Blend the two together and there are runaway headlines that have little to no relevance to the truth and a lot of scar tissue/detritus that remains for those who delve into the court of public opinion.

From what I've read, this is the revenge of a hockey groupie who tried to leverage her status and got burned. When Ross sent her own photos of herself directly to her, she involved the law. From what I've read/understand, the photos weren't dissimenated on the internet but were transmitted electronically. As I stated at the onset of this story, will B&B drop the "sexting" line from their opening? Because it just shows their hypocrisy, or devolution to being a shit show by shit people.

Finally, the Blackhawks (who as most successful business operations are run by Smart Business People), aren't going to let bullshit like this from stopping them in their operations. SBPs don't flinch at this silly shit when there is serious money at stake. If the smallest segment of their fans have a problem/hard-on then fuck em. Notice how even CBS doesn't give the shit from Bernstine, DiCaro, or Baffoe any credible support. They get to put out what they want, and it is left as toxic waste by the corporation.

CBS radio is up on the blocks, there's a new boss (sheriff) in town, and the landscape for the medium's future has been altered. I'd love to hear the aforementioned explain their roles, and more importantly their relative worth to the overall operations. They could be replaced tomorrow and aside from this forum, few would mourn for more than what is comparably a 10 page thread. Subtract the comments from a few who live going contrarian, and the thread would be closer to six pages (with lots of gifs).

_________________
DRINK BƎTTƎR. @theRIPH

I just caught the 30 for 30 Duke case the other day. My God was that terrible.

I have no problem with the "court of public opinion". People are going to talk. Some will become instant "experts" on a subject. I don't think anything can be done about that. It is what it is.

The problem is that in the Internet age it is very easy for an average nitwit to become a self-styled "journalist". In the Kane matter, the case was dropped by the prosecution in a manner that was specifically designed to eliminate all doubts within the court of public opinion. But many of the amateur journalists on Twitter and in fanzines- and indeed, even some professionals- don't seem capable of grasping that fact.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

There's a special snowflake in the Kane case who has tweeted so much about her nut job conspiracy theories how Kane could have done it that even Baffoe has blocked her. Amongst them are that Kane only thrusted one time inside of her that's why there's no DNA. That Sedita didn't want to prosecute because they are old family friends. That Kanes people paid off the rape kit examiner to show there was no DNA, and a bunch more .people are going to want to believe what they want to believe no matter what

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

Once again, Baffoe calls this a "sex crime." Can it be a sex crime if no sex is involved?

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Yes. Except in this case, where the "crime" part technically does not exist.

_________________
Not a mult.

Baffoe is a fool.

Why hasn't the girl been charged with distributing porn? I fail to see how she is a "victim" when
she is the one who sent it out in the first place. Did she instruct him NOT to share it? If not, then
it seems she is just plain stupid.

If it truly is "revenge porn", then it seems she is the one who committed the so-called crime.

You still get to control the distribution of pictures you take.

I think it is assumed that the pictures were just for him.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

So what if she assumed that? That is meaningless, she's a moron and deserves whatever ridicule she gets.

BTW, SJW feelings are not the law of the land, thankfully.

No, the law assumes it unless you specify otherwise.

If I write a book and send you a copy to read it doesn't mean you can give it to everyone you know. Same principle applies here.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Are you sure about that? If you "give" someone something, then it is seen as a gift and that person in receipt of that gift is now the owner of that item, unless specified otherwise.

Since when is a book a picture? And how far does the book analogy go? Are emails not to be forwarded without a contract?

What does distribution mean? If the guy/girl shows his or her friends? This does not feel like it should be a crime. More like something in civil court. There are already way too many people in prison. Calling this a sex crime seems draconian at best.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

BS, if you wrote and book and gave me a copy, I own that copy. I can give it to or lend to anyone else.
I can't publish it and sell copies of it. But that book is mine to toss away, give away or lend.

Even a failed lawyer like Julie should understand that, but I doubt she understands much outside
of her SJW beliefs.

Yes. I'm sure.

The owner of the picture is still the person who took it unless they grant a release.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

There seems to be a big difference between a copyright issue and "revenge porn".

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

That isn't true. The owner still has the rights to how you can republish it. That is how movie screeners work in Hollywood. You can view it. You can't make a copy and distribute it. You may not even be able to show it to others.

A book license is transferable when you purchase the book.

They have rightfully decided that unless otherwise specified that naked pictures sent to one person is not a license to distribute them to everyone in the world.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Section 5. The Criminal Code of 2012 is amended by adding
Section 11-23.5 as follows:

(720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 new)
Sec. 11-23.5. Non-consensual dissemination of private
sexual images.
(a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section:
"Computer", "computer program", and "data" have the
meanings ascribed to them in Section 17-0.5 of this Code.
"Image" includes a photograph, film, videotape,
digital recording, or other depiction or portrayal of an
object, including a human body.
"Intimate parts" means the fully unclothed, partially
unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic area,
anus, or if the person is female, a partially or fully
exposed nipple, including exposure through transparent
clothing.
"Sexual act" means sexual penetration, masturbation,
or sexual activity.
"Sexual activity" means any:
(1) knowing touching or fondling by the victim or
another person or animal, either directly or through
clothing, of the sex organs, anus, or breast of the
victim or another person or animal for the purpose of
sexual gratification or arousal; or
(2) any transfer or transmission of semen upon any
part of the clothed or unclothed body of the victim,
for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of
the victim or another; or
(3) an act of urination within a sexual context; or
(4) any bondage, fetter, or sadism masochism; or
(5) sadomasochism abuse in any sexual context.
(b) A person commits non-consensual dissemination of
private sexual images when he or she:
(1) intentionally disseminates an image of another
person:
(A) who is at least 18 years of age; and
(B) who is identifiable from the image itself or
information displayed in connection with the image;
and
(C) who is engaged in a sexual act or whose
intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part; and
(2) obtains the image under circumstances in which a
reasonable person would know or understand that the image
was to remain private; and
(3) knows or should have known that the person in the
image has not consented to the dissemination.

It's the same idea though. All pictures have owners and they deserve some rights too. I don't really think the act of sending someone a picture should grant that person the right to share it with every person in the world.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I said I can't republish and sell the damn book.
BTW, he didn't send them to EVERYONE in the world, you are full of shit and if you are a lawyer, you aren't a very good one.

You can't republish and give it away for free either. He definitely can't send the pictures on to others(make a copy). If he had just shown it to people on his phone then it may be different. The articles seem to indicate he "distributed" them which would be like you making copies and giving them to all of your friends of the book which clearly isn't allowed.
It's the concept though. If he can't post them on his twitter account then he can't send them to his bros either.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

TF pasted pretty much all you need to know about the difference. it's pretty clear that without consent, intimate private images/videos are to remain private.

literature and screenplays are different. that's why the NDA exists, and is a writer's best friend. i've always been told a personal "copyright" doesn't mean shit in a court of law. i have scripts that are WGA registered, and i'm pretty sure i could still lose a lawsuit of copyright infringement if someone stole my idea because someone could always say "it was my idea". i mean it happens a lot in hollywood. and sometimes you spend more on a lawyer than what you could get back if you win.

I don't understand why whoever you send nudie stuff to can't post it anywhere they want.

Because an over reaching law now on the books in Illinois says so.

_________________

People need to be protected from themselves.