557
Trump supporters gather outside courthouse and ask: Who among us hasn’t paid for sex?
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
557 points (97.4% liked)
News
23669 readers
4998 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Isn't that a crime in the US? Did these people just confess to crimes? But of course they're "conservatives" so it's OK.
TBF, I wouldn't want people to be persecuted just for saying out loud that they did a crime. Imagine if I went outside today and shouted, "My house doesn't have a secondary fire escape and is therefore outside building regulations!". Should I then be investigated for committing a crime, or should someone just tell me to shut up and stop shouting in the middle of the road?
Oddly specific, weird example
Maybe this person should be investigated
Haha yeah you'd expect an example to be something somewhat close to a thing that people would actually say.
Home ownership be like
Haha definitely not relevant to me 😅
I was just struggling to think of an example of a crime which wouldn't warrant investigation. Flying Squid has a good example further down of confessing to a murder which had just happened, which would need to be investigated probably
I would say it depends on the type of crime and the amount of detail. If you say out loud, "I murdered John Smith last Tuesday" and John Smith had been murdered last Tuesday, I think you should probably get investigated for the murder of John Smith.
If you say "I've had sex with a prostitute" but don't go further than that in terms of any details, definitely not.
Hence why I picked such a banal example :)
Slow down, I think nuance might not be well understood by this person.
Not if you film it.
What an amazing little carveout, and since almost everyone has a phone with a camera...
This was the plot of an episode of Boston Legal. I wouldn't assume it would actually hold up in court. In the story a professor of sex studies had paid a prostitute to answer some interview questions for a study, and he "got carried away". But he was filming it, so they argued that he was actually making a pornographic film, which is protected speech.
IIRC, the person who owns the production company can't be the one getting it on. Even that's probably not enforced much.
Not a crime everywhere in the US, cat houses are still around in Nevada. I’m assuming the gentlemen making these statements frequented a couple cities in that state to come to this assumption.
Not everywhere. Prostitution is legal in Nevada (just not within the city limits of Vegas).
It's actually fully legal in some areas. Vegas comes to mind.
Actually, prostitution is not legal in Clark County (where Las Vegas is). It is legal in the rest of Nevada, though. The sex workers that advertise in Vegas are based just outside of the county lines and travel into the city when called. The cops pretty much just look the other way so it seems legal there.
It's just locker room talk
If you're rich, they let you do it.