Facing 40 years in porn pop-up case

Its time some of the language is reviewed and changed. I’m no more a supporter of porn than the next guy, but “endangering a child” by them seeing a nude photo????
I get so pissed about the moral thumping hypocrits when they talk about porn, especially in the church. Again, I’m no supporter of porn (though by writing this there will be the reactionary moralists who dismiss the words as if they came directly from demons in hell), but amfortas expresses the correct reaction. I’m not even sure the male/female aspect is what irks me most. But when society sits and watched the utter destruction of families and men, then sits in church yelling AMEN about anti gay and anti porn sermons, we gotta enough logs in eyes to start a bon fire.

She hasn’t been sentenced yet. 40 years is probably reserved for those vile penis-people. Those without a penis are presumed to have been corrupted by those with same.

5 years is too effin long; 1 year is too effin long.

She is being prosecuted by f*ckwits (Or as the Gonzman would say, F*ckweasels; he has such a good vocabulary) not as a man but as a victim of stupidity, censorship, hysteria and f*ckweaselitis. So, simply seeing something is illegal is it. ‘Viewing’ porn. Deliberately or accidentally. I suppose they will be chasing down any surviving soldiers who liberated Belsen next for daring to view naked jews dying of starvation. “Ooooh, they saw NAKED people”!!

40 years is a mockery of just judgement. As someone said, a woman teacher raping a child gets less.

If she were attractive and actually had sex with the kids, then she could get off with a slap on the wrist and a book deal. Instead, she is being prosecuted and punished just like a male teacher would have been. Sounds to me like the judge and the prosecutor are repulsed by the thought of having sex with this woman, which would explain the stiff penalty normally reserved for male perps.