Respectfully, in certain rare unique situations, can it also be the operative word bo/bv?
*for bo/bv?
do you mind posting the twatter handle and, if you know it, date of post?
I'm just coming into this so I don't know all of the facts, but I do know there are pics from that laptop many people claim is CP but isn't at all. One example is the top down view.
I don't know who anon is.
Just coming into it not knowing all the facts, it just seems off IMO. I'm not trying to attack anyone or defend anyone I know personally or from these boards.
Thank you for your input.
I think there's a legal difference between pornography and… the term escapes me, but whatever they're using to go after, for example, Netflix in Texas. The kids in cuties aren't naked but the intent of the cinematography is to sexualize so there's a problem there. IF the child is a child (again, I'm pretty sure the asian on her knees in the top down pic is NOT) and is depicted sexually but fully clothed, then you're looking at moral wrong but I'm not sure it's legal wrong, as the only issue on these boards is, rightly so IMO, child porn. So was it or wasn't it, and if it was borderline was the poster's intent and contributions to QR factored in?
Fair questions i think.
Again, no disrespect…
but an appeal triggers a higher up taking a look at something and deciding for themselves if the correct action was taken and if not then reversing that action. If you're already looking and you come to the conclusion on your own that an incorrect action was taken, do you need to wait for an appeal?
Jim Watkins isn't BO.
No one is signed in so I don't know who I'm talking to right now, but, with all due respect, the best we can do is what's right, regardless of how these decisions affect our future. It was either right or it was wrong. If there's doubt, further investigation is warranted. This is true regardless of why we've been losing our images.