smut

[smut @smut1248248]

@PixelShadow89 @bostonson45 @Spidermonkeyy93 If he was obedient

[John Olooney @OlooneyJohn]

Absolutely fucking disgusting

[smut @smut1248248]

@ChunChiuLu @MJ_Koch @WSJFreeEx Sun rand was a horrible human being and self inserted as John galt

[smut @smut1248248]

@MJ_Koch @WSJFreeEx "Real life"

[smut @smut1248248]

@Deplorable_Dan1 The man is no shame he didn't learn a single thing

[smut @smut1248248]

@AlterEg0125 @vvxcsm something in the water and in food has increases or gives them more estrogen so they reach puberty a bit earlier than other generations .They weren't taught to be dainty but to be people.

[smut @smut1248248]

@Angle__wix I'm taking my name off the organ donation list

[Say it pop @Sayitpop]

Mom in tears after being humiliated at 4th of July party hosted by son’s best friend’s mom

[smut @smut1248248]

@szuchans If south Korea stayed communist the type of government that would of operated may of have been closer to China than the current juche mess in North Korea

[Sam Szuchan @szuchans]

A man in South Korea took his dog to the vet. What happened next almost sent him to prison.

In 2017 he brought his dog to a clinic for treatment. He believed the animal was put through excessive testing, steered toward a surgery it didn't need, and left at risk of losing its sight.

He wanted to do what any person does after a bad experience with a business. Write down what happened, name the clinic and the vet, and post it where other pet owners could read it and decide for themselves. But in South Korea, doing that could send you to prison for up to two years. Even if every single word is true.

The law is Article 307, Paragraph 1 of the Korean Criminal Act. It's called defamation by stating facts. Paragraph 1 punishes anyone who publicly damages another person's reputation by alleging facts: up to two years in prison or a fine of five million won. Paragraph 2 covers false facts with a heavier maximum of five years. Truth lowers the ceiling on the penalty. It does not erase the crime.

There is one exit. Article 310 spares a true statement only when it was made purely in the public interest. But the speaker has to convince a prosecutor and then a court that their motive was public rather than personal. That's a judgment about an interior state nobody can fully see, applied after the fact, by someone who was not there. The man challenged the law in front of the Constitutional Court. In February 2021, he lost by a single vote.

All he wanted was to give other pet owners enough information to make their own choice about where to take an animal they loved. The law's answer was that the choice was not his to hand them. So the question becomes: whose reputations are being shielded, and what exactly are they being shielded from?

[smut @smut1248248]

@iampolaris1069 @luo_yuehan That goes for every university that allows rich kids to do the same ; along with gatekeeping knowledge in the form of textbooks and lectures

[smut @smut1248248]

@chezners78 @susylicious2023 It was more than just the story bro

[smut @smut1248248]

@BabeRNB @Axxyworks You're also for getting the fact that they never spoke on what he saw of the victim in the bathroom.getting her out of it and onto the street should of had witnesses and video footage the episode has so much forced suspense he probably was in that bathroom for a moment

[smut @smut1248248]

@EdmundHeidel @jessykigen Does Ignatius seem impulsive to you?

[smut @smut1248248]

@EdwardBakeisk7 Kinda looks like "the audacity" show

[smut @smut1248248]

@DrunkSuperman3 I just finished watching this,it's scary how infectious agamemnon is

[smut @smut1248248]

@antitties47 I need this

[smut @smut1248248]

@CapKingDomeNYC @Raindropsmedia1 Wow