MyLittleStudPony wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 8:02 pm
I'm not saying it doesn't all sound a bit iffy. But IMO sending explicite pictures is < having full sex, which the the law says is ok.
I'm wary of pitchforking someone for something which may not have been be that bad. I don't know the details.
Do we know it's a 'he''? I haven't looked at the details really. Not that it should matter.
I am inclined to agree. It's all too easy to get the pitchforks out without knowing thither the story or the motivations. Since this chap is a bit of a joker, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a (bad!) joke. Also we don't know yet the timescale or if we do, I'm not that inclined to go looking.
It wasn't so long ago when there wasn't such a proliferation of electronic recording devices which, in the blink of an eye could potentially ruin your entire life. I sincerely doubt there's anyone on this planet who could claim they haven't done something they're glad isn't circulating ad infinitum on YouTube. Plus eventually, we grow up and learn from our mistakes.
Trial by social media is a relatively new phenomena which, coupled with a trail of permanent text, audio, video or photographic records to compile from, makes presenting a case for crucifixion all too easy. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.