site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13hr ago (text post)   462 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for November 28, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Excerpt from a court opinion:

The trial judge stated at sentencing [on December 16, 2022]:

I am considering the sentencing guidelines. I will also consider the fact that you did have a waiver trial, and I will grant you some mitigation with that. I thoroughly reviewed the Presentence investigation report, my notes on the testimony from the trial, the testimony that's been presented here today at the sentencing, from both [the victim, a previous romantic partner of Appellant and the mother of a ten-year-old child with him,] and [Appellant's current paramour,] as well as your allocution and the arguments of counsel.

On December 20, 2022, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion requesting reconsideration of his sentence. Appellant acknowledged that the court had sentenced him at the bottom end of the mitigated guidelines, but he indicated that he had been nervous and had not appropriately articulated his remorse in his allocution. Appellant also requested the opportunity to present additional testimony from some of his children's mothers regarding the ways in which his incarceration would affect their lives financially and emotionally. On April 19, 2023, the court denied Appellant's motion by operation of law. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

Court saga:

  • A 20-year-old man (diagnosed with ADHD and "autism spectrum disorder", employed by UPS under a special program) meets a 12-year-old girl (claiming to be 13) on Snapchat. Within a month, their conversations become sexual. Among other things, the man directs the girl to record a video of herself masturbating with a marker.

  • Five months in, as part of a different child-exploitation investigation, the girl is interviewed by FBI agents, and she also discloses this situation. The agents take control of the girl's Snapchat account, entice the man to meet the girl at a state fair with condoms in the expectation of having sex there, arrest him, and charge him with six crimes. He pleads guilty to three of them, and the other three are dismissed.

  • For sentencing purposes, the marker video is counted as production of child pornography with an enhancement for "material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct", which increases the total sentencing range by 55 percent (from 14–18 years to 22–27 years) under the sentencing guidelines. The defendant objects to this characterization, but the trial judge rejects the objection. It is circuit precedent that child pornography that "would cause an objective viewer to believe that the pictured activity is inflicting physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation on the minor" is sadistic or masochistic. "It is common sense that images of a middle- and high-school-aged girl inserting foreign objects into her private parts are sadistic. At minimum, such conduct is objectively humiliating." The trial judge varies downward from the sentencing range by three years to account for the defendant's youth and immaturity, but refuses to vary further based on his diagnoses. The final sentence is 19 years in prison (plus 25 years of supervised release).

  • The appeals panel vacates and remands.

    For depictions involving prepubescent minors, all penetrative activity is inherently sadistic and alone justifies the enhancement. But, for depictions involving pubescent minors [such as the victim in this case], sexual penetration is not by itself enough. The district court must instead find, within the material's four corners, other visible and objective markers of physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation. Those markers can take different forms, like bondage, urination, humiliating costumes or positions, penetration with large or sharp objects, facial expressions denoting distress, or body language suggesting discomfort. But, without more indicating pain or humiliation, the depiction of pubescent minors engaged in penetrative sexual activity alone cannot justify the enhancement.

  • One judge on the three-judge panel dissents.

    The majority contends that, since the parties agree that [the victim] was not prepubescent at the time of the video, the first avenue for application of the sadism enhancement is foreclosed. But the parties' agreement or concession on an issue is not dispositive, and it does not end our inquiry. As noted by the majority, the government "concedes" that the video shows that [the victim] has "fully-developed breasts and pubic hair", and [the defendant] describes [the victim] as "almost adult-appearing". But several other characteristics, in addition to physical ones, inform the inquiry into prepubescence. For this issue, we should not rely on the conclusions of attorneys, who presumably lack the requisite medical expertise or specialized training and experience to evaluate accurately whether a minor is prepubescent. That determination is more appropriately suited to a qualified medical expert, rather than an attorney or judge. Moreover, that determination is certainly inappropriate for an attorney or judge to make based solely on a minor's appearance as reproduced in an image or video.

    As to the second avenue for application of the sadism enhancement, the majority focuses exclusively on the "four corners of the image" depicting the sexual misconduct. In particular, the majority emphasizes the minor's facial expressions and body language to discern whether the minor objectively experienced physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation during the sexual misconduct. To this point, the majority highlights that the government "acknowledges there is no point in the video in which the expression on [the victim]'s face is particularly pained", and that [the defendant] states that [the victim]'s "body does not flinch or recoil as she masturbates".

    But this emphasis on the visible appearance and reaction of the victim in the material is wholly speculative and unreliable. The majority's approach requires the court to evaluate a victim's reaction while the victim is in the throes of adverse circumstances. This approach assumes that a minor's apparent facial expressions and body language in an isolated and contrived image or video accurately reflect the minor's objective experience, but that assumption defies common sense. This approach fails to take into account that the minor may pretend to tolerate the defendant's treatment or appear comfortable in the image or video to appease the defendant, which often may be the case, or because of the defendant's threats or manipulation. This approach also fails to take into account that the minor may experience objective physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation immediately after or in the minutes, hours, or days following the sexual misconduct depicted in the material. This approach excludes all outside circumstances, even though those circumstances may illuminate whether the sexual misconduct depicted in the material caused the minor to experience objective physical or mental pain and suffering.

    The burden should not be on the victim to convey to the court in her image or video that sexual misconduct with minors involves objective pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation. Rather, the burden should be on the defendant to prove otherwise. Common sense and human experience inform such an approach.

The burden should not be on the victim to convey to the court in her image or video that sexual misconduct with minors involves objective pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation. Rather, the burden should be on the defendant to prove otherwise. Common sense and human experience inform such an approach.

I do not see how it would be possible for someone to prove that a person on an image or video is not in pain when the assumption is that they would be hiding it.

During the pandemic there was such beast as asymptotic covid ... for those obtuse enough to be healthy.

I forgot to copy some text that clarifies the dissenter's viewpoint here. (The paragraph was cut in half by a page break.)

This approach also fails to take into account that the minor may experience objective physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation immediately after or in the minutes, hours, or days following the sexual misconduct depicted in the material. This approach excludes all outside circumstances, even though those circumstances may illuminate whether the sexual misconduct depicted in the material caused the minor to experience objective physical or mental pain and suffering.

Also:

Certainly, the majority’s approach cannot accurately capture the feelings or mental state of a minor through the confined frame of an isolated image or video.[1]

Although the depiction in the material is relevant to the inquiry, the court’s focus should not be so narrow. Rather than confine the court’s inquiry to the image or video and focus on the victim’s appearance and reaction as portrayed in the visual media, the court should consider all relevant circumstances and ultimately focus on the defendant’s conduct.[2] The court’s inquiry should include the course of conduct between the defendant and the minor, the events leading up to and after the footage, and the susceptibility of the minor to the defendant’s possible manipulation and control, as those considerations yield a more accurate determination of whether a minor may have experienced objective physical pain, emotional suffering, or humiliation due to the events depicted in the material.

[1]Parenthetically, this problem is exemplified in the media by teenage Virginia Giuffre, who appears to be smiling and happy in pictures with then Prince Andrew, despite her alleging that he subjected her to extreme sexual abuse.

[2]Indeed, in other areas of the Sentencing Guidelines, we have emphasized that the "focus of the inquiry is on the defendant’s action, not the victim’s reaction".

Were there ever CSM cases where the minor was deemed not susceptible enough to the defendant's manipulation and control?

Yes; minor males get prosecuted for self-produced CSM all the time.

Some even get charged as an adult for it, which tends to be A-OK with the courts because again, male.

Of course, what's actually being litigated here is more along the lines of

Were there ever child sex abuse cases happening under a mother's own roof where the woman was deemed not susceptible enough to the man's manipulation and control [as in, she gets charged for it]?

and dissenting on the assumption that "the woman isn't being sufficiently Believed (that being coerced != pained emotionally)" in this case, which this dissenter even took pains to point out.

or humiliation immediately after or in the minutes, hours, or days following the sexual misconduct depicted in the material

Again, smuggling in the "consent can and should be withdrawn afterwards" standard. The accedent likely realize this from the other direction; "regrets it afterwards" is not a law on the books.

That quote is from the dissent. "Susceptibility of the minor to the defendant's possible manipulation and control" is not an actual standard that has been used in any cases. The text of the law criminalizes merely "persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense".

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats