~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| -4 | shoe0nhead AMAThis shit's even worse than when the Boxxy stalkers tried to turn her into the new Boxxy. | /r/MensRights | 13/08/16 05:39 AM |
| -6 | shoe0nhead AMAShe's an extremely attractive young woman from a well off family. Her life has been very privileged and as a result she isn't really aware of a lot of the shit many other people have to deal with on a day to day basis. MRA folks are just exploiting her naiveté and desire to belong to a group to push their message. | /r/MensRights | 13/08/16 04:58 AM |
| -6 | shoe0nhead AMAJune, why did you have to go off and get brainwashed by these annoying MRA types when you used to be a pretty cool girl? They're just using you. :( | /r/MensRights | 13/08/16 12:06 AM |
| 2 | Supreme Court to hear Michelle Carters case involving Conrad Roy citing free speechPlenty of people go to jail for saying violent things about women online without actually desiring violence. | /r/PussyPassDenied | 10/03/16 03:21 PM |
| 2 | Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a husband convicted and sentenced to 4 years jail for posting threats on Facebook to his wife. Supremes said not enough for prosecutors to show that the comments from a guy to make her "feel" threatened.Ok, so I am currently on bail for terroristic threats for a Facebook post I made about a woman which wasn't even remotely threatening (unlike the ones in this article) and the law in my state has the same "reasonable person" phrase as the federal law. Does this mean the state law is now unconstitutional, or does this only apply to the Federal law and not State laws? | /r/MensRights | 02/06/15 04:21 AM |
| 1 | Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a husband convicted and sentenced to 4 years jail for posting threats on Facebook to his wife. Supremes said not enough for prosecutors to show that the comments from a guy to make her "feel" threatened.What he did actually wasn't legal and the Supreme Court didn't rule that it was legal, they only ruled that the standard of evidence had to include intent and not just what the victim felt. His conviction wasn't vacated because he was innocent, but instead because the jury was given an illegal jury instruction. I believe he will be re-tried again and re-convicted. | /r/MensRights | 02/06/15 04:20 AM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter