- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tigerdroppings makes the Washington Post- Levar Allen story
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:36 am to Kujo
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:36 am to Kujo
quote:
M. Andrews May 6 at 6:44 AM This is his resume, is/was he a poster here?
Travis is a good guy. From New Orleans. Level headed, not your typical WaPo or Reveille writer.
1
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:37 am to man in the stadium
quote:
Travis is a good guy. From New Orleans. Level headed, not your typical WaPo or Reveille writer.
Well hello Travis.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:38 am to slackster
quote:
It might be national attention, but it is for all the wrong reasons.
clicks are clicks. arse brought the clicks
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:42 am to X123F45
That's hilarious man.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:44 am to jbgleason
quote:Everyone on this board could stand to remember this when painting with a broad brush.
Great. They are going to quote LSUTangerine and make it look like he represents the views of TD and the South.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:47 am to ballscaster
It's easy to forget that all the wacky and ignorant shite that gets said on here can literally be read by anyone on the planet with an Internet connection..... frick.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:49 am to Kujo
A thread started by arse and quoting Tangerine is the one that's referenced in WaPo...
Just a FYI, there's an LSU Alum that works for WaPo. Likely why TD was referenced.
Just a FYI, there's an LSU Alum that works for WaPo. Likely why TD was referenced.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:54 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:Literally every anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant post adds to the Jim Crow stereotype that we inherited, no matter how unfairly, from out grandfathers.
It's easy to forget that all the wacky and ignorant shite that gets said on here can literally be read by anyone on the planet with an Internet connection..... frick.
Living in New York has actually turned this into an advantage of mine, ironically. When people hear where I'm from and hear my accent, the bar is set pretty low, affording me an easy opportunity to exceed expectations socially and professionally.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 9:56 am
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:54 am to ULSU
quote:
Holy shite, of all the people on this board they choose a thread by Tangerine
Some of you are even worse than the media. I did not even comment in the thread much less start it.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:00 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Some of you are even worse than the media. I did not even comment in the thread much less start it.
Yeah you were waiting on the cops to punch the kid before you left your mark.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:07 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I did not even comment in the thread much less start it.
regrets?
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:28 am to Kujo
I am glad I didn't post in that thread
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:15 am to Cosmo
quote:
Washington Post trying to paint the south as racist? Im shocked, shocked I tell you.
Dumbass. The Post was exposing that the original news report, which was picked up by some national outlets, left out crucial information that indicated it was NOT because of racism.
quote:
But in this case it prob is racism.
Read the fricking article, dumbass. It wasn't racism, and the Washington Post explained why.
1. The girl WAS charged, too. In fact, she was charged first.
2. Because she was under 17, her charge fell under the sexting statute, because he was 17 his fell under the child pornography statute.
3. BPSO sent the Washington Post examples of two other cases featuring exactly the same facts (underage girl sending sexually explicit photos or videos to boy 17 or older) in which both parties were charged with exactly the same things the two in this case were. In one of the other cases both were white, in the other case both were black.
4. When they looked at Allen's phone, they found HUNDREDS of sexually explicit pics and videos, including some of ANOTHER underage (16 y.o.) girl.
5. BPSO had, just recently in 2014, gone around to all of the high schools in the area addressing this specific problem, warning ALL students that sending and receiving sexually explicit images and video can result in child pornography charges.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:41 am to slackster
quote:
King is even more of a hack.
King might be the crappiest race baiting writer in all of media right now. I enjoyed Clay Travis pieces that dismembered Kings pieces on the faux Mizzou and Peyton Manning outrage, then it came to light King may or may not have been plagiarizing people for years. Simply a POS.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:44 am to SkepTic
quote:
This story shows how screwed up our legislature is. Because there isn't a difference in age greater than two years he could legally have consensual sex with her but can not legally receive videos of her????
Exactly. The laws on sexting and child porn related to kids sexting each other are absolutely insane.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:46 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
17 year olds can have sex, but if they take a picture of one another while in bed after the fact, that's child pornography #truestory
False, 17 is the age of consent. The article above even spells out that La law dictates that no one under the age of 17 can submit indecent or pornographic photos of them self.
It's fricking ridiculous that she could have come over to his house and actually had sex with him and no crime would have been committed, but sending him a video of herself was a crime by both of them.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 11:48 am
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:47 am to LSUballs
quote:
That is pretty true. You go in the wrong hood in Sport/ Bossier you're apt to get capped just because you're white and in their hood. Same as Nola and other places with a large black populations. Terribly racist places.
Sadly that is my comment being taken out of context because I was definitely not making that comment to be one sided. The whites are racist but a lot of the older blacks will not even have a conversation with white people.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:47 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
BPSO had, just recently in 2014, gone around to all of the high schools in the area addressing this specific problem, warning ALL students that sending and receiving sexually explicit images and video can result in child pornography charges.
This doesn't mean it is a good law, but I've got some respect since they're applying it equally when it comes up.
By the letter if the law, if a 16 y/o sends a picture to the state reps and senators that represent the Bossier area, those reps and senators are also guilty of child pornography. I'd imagine the law would be changed quickly if the BPSO tried to arrest one of them.
The law is so asinine.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's a case of "old school" laws involving child porn being used for a modern behavior that was never foreseen when the laws were written
True, but the "old school" laws have been challenged on free speech grounds and the SCOTUS upheld them on the reasoning that the process of MAKING the porn exploits and harms the child involved. How in the hell does that logic apply when the child herself is the one making it?
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:56 am to slackster
quote:
It is beyond fricked up that a 16-year old can have sex with another 16-year old but if a camera is involved it is illegal. What uproar caused these sexting laws in the first place?? Are they designed to be some sort of compromise for charging a 17+ year old with child pornography? If you can legally have sex, sexting charges should be non existent. If you cannot legally have sex, then we can have that discussion.
The only thing i can think of is the guy or girl could post those pictures on the internet. Sometimes you need laws to protect people.
This has happened before. Young girl send pics to guy, guy posts her pics on the internet. Sorry, but it that is child pornography. You have to draw a line some where. I know every situation is diff, but i dont think you can then start debating over whether the pictures were posted with consent or not.
You do it, you are charged, regardless of motive.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 12:00 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News