What one person considers respectful and fine another may consider rude and offensive. Though you really can't make a list for everything.

How do they look at a dick pic and know that it isn't of a consensual dick?

Because that could be considered comedy. So your rights aren't being violated unless you have a connection to the objects (and people) in the image. Ergo unless it violates their policies (usually pretty audaciously) they aren't going to do shit.

Well. It could damage Tumblr's profitability (if they take down legit pics). And as a business that and legal liability are about the extend that they care. Meanwhile they aren't liable for the pics in either case.

They aren't responsible (legally) unless someone can tell them a specific pic is kiddy porn and they refuse to remove it.

Oh grandstanding I agree. Also I might be letting them off the hook to easily since I believe in general that our elected government is full of individuals who choose not to be informed.

I think your looking to far into the rabbit hole. I think it's that they assume it costs less to imprison them than to treat them like someone with a disease (which isn't necessarily true depending on how long they are sentenced (also recidivism rates and chances to become a more violent offender). I don't think…

I would assume quite a few of them are white. Being a number of those countries have large white populations.

Also a public figure has less protection from parody (there was a case with Larry Flynn over this SCOTUS ruled in his favor).

Someone should get on Hitler's extended family then. They must be owed quite a bit of royalties.

Rape often doesn't have a limit (depending on area). Though after such a long time I doubt it would be prosecute-able.

Fair point. I thought you meant a literal "no".

awwwwwe.

Oh. It hasn't ever really been a problem for me (I've been embarrassed but I can't remember anyone going out of their way to humiliate me while turning me down). You just said the worst someone could say is no. I was merely pointing out that it isn't the worst thing someone could do.

Well thanks for the clarification. And the lack of attack.

Hey. I just popped over to check Jez's take on this (I read part of Kotaku's). And I have to say I think your article blows theirs out of the water. Both by being relatively even handed and just stylistically and logically (their's at one point says that there is no right way to respond to an accusation only to…

I thought it only would be had the case come out before the paper. So retroactively the paper could have the money returned despite it being libel at the time he sued?

I apologize. I wasn't looking at the expanded views and thought you might just not be aware about the variances between what is rape and what isn't based on states.

Hey in all fairness she seems to be pretty balanced in a number of her articles. This isn't really one of them.

Well they could also humiliate you.