672
Justin Roiland used his ‘Rick and Morty’ fame to pursue young fans, text messages show
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
672 points (95.5% liked)
News
23644 readers
3100 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow. You think that's actually defensible?
You called him a pedo, but he doesn't appear to be one. Correcting your mistake doesn't mean anyone is defending him.
How is he not a pedo when he was sexting teenagers? Just because he waited until it was legal to fuck them?
Sexting minors (under 18) is illegal in most places, including California, even if they're above the age of consent.
....yes? He's waiting till they're 18. Besides the fact that, as someone referenced above, in many states the age of consent is 16, so, if he was really scummy, he wouldn't have even waited at all.
Don't bother, they have a weird way about sexuality and age of consent, puritan nutjob heritage.
Again, I find it very hard to believe that adults can sext teenagers legally. I'd like some evidence for that claim.
They make lists of illegal acts in the law books, they don't generally list the legal ones. I'm curious if this is a crime as well, so please share with the rest of us if you find the answer to this question.
You're curious if this was a crime, but above you're saying it isn't a big deal because he waited until they were 18 to act. Which is it?
Literally nobody said that. Nobody is trying to defend this guy. Suggesting that Roiland was "operating within the law" is a claim of the facts of the case, not a defense of the morality of his actions.
Where did I say that? Please cite the text.
You appear to be projecting a lot of positions onto my comments that I do not hold. All I've said is that he does not seem to have broken the law based on the article and my own legal knowledge, I never said anything about what was or was not, "a big deal." Having sex with 18-year-olds is not an example of pedophilia, legally speaking.
Your response to me calling him a pedo, not a legal claim mind you, was:
That sure sounds like you're saying it isn't a big deal to me.
Does it? I suggest you work on your reading comprehension then, because I neither wrote nor implied any such thing. I made a legal claim in the text you quoted, not a moral one.
A legal claim in response to a moral claim, which, again, sounds pretty dismissive.
If you construe anything short of picking up a pitchfork and loudly virtue signaling alongside you as disagreement, you're going to mistakenly presume a lot.
Morally or legally?
Does it being legal make it okay? And I'm not sure sending sexual messages to 16-year-olds is legal.
I don't think they are defending him, but if they're right he's adhering to the letter of the law, not necessarily the spirit of it.
Is adults texting sexually explicit things to 16-year-olds legal? I find that hard to believe.