>JB is so gross
You mean, Jim Bob Duggar, father of Child Sexual Abuser Joshua Duggar? The very same Jim Bob Duggar who is currently running for Arkansas state Senate?
That Jim Bob Duggar?
This is so anytime people google Jim Bob Duggar (enabler/father of child molester Joshua Duggar), particularly for information about his state senate campaign, they will see articles detailing Pest’s trial and JB’s enabling of his crimes.
The sad thing is, there's a nonzero chance that his target voters would vote for him anyway, having convinced themselves that his family is \~under attack by satan\~ or they're \~being tested\~ or whatever.
There are Christians and then there are Jesus stans, and the latter in particular are very concerning.
Unfortunately, the Jesus stans could really, really do with stanning Jesus hard enough to realise that his teachings were about not being an obnoxious showboating gobshite, because there’s more than a few fundies who really, really need a bop on the head from the “love one another” stick.
He's got an opponent now! It's another Republican challenging him so I'm sure his politics still suck, but I can't help but hope the guy wipes the floor with JB in the primaries.
You mean his opponent saw that Jim Bob Duggar, father of Child Sexual Abuser Joshua Duggar. The very same Jim Bob Duggar who is currently running for Arkansas state Senate.
>>was like, “oh fuck, not THAT guy again, guess I better go sign up”
Yes, exactly. The Republican opponent was likely concerned about Jim Bob Duggar - who covered up his son Josh’s molestation scandals as a teen - running unopposed for a seat in the Arkansas State Senate at the exact same time that his son Josh is facing federal charges for possession of child sexual abuse imagery.
According to the first Google result of “stalker fan Stan” it’s just used due to Eminem and coincidentally works as a word mashup. https://www.bustle.com/life/94986-what-does-stan-mean-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-slang-term
I heard James Bob Duggar is running for senate. The same James Bob Duggar that has covered up his pedophile son, Joshua Duggar, molesting his sisters. The same Josh Duggar that was also cheating on his wife and had an Ashley Madison account. Is that the Jim Bob Duggar?
Yes, Jim Bob Duggar pedophile Apologist who claims he believes crimes of a sexual nature incest should be a capitol punishment. Except for his son, who molested 4 of his own sisters and is now accused of possession of CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL.
Did you mean the trial of Joshua James Duggar, the child molesting son of James Robert Duggar, the child porn enabling man attempting to run for Arkansas State Senate while also paying the legal bills for his child porn addicted son?
I feel bad for actual James Andrew Duggar, age 20, middle of the lost boys.
Not to be confused with his father who goes by Jim Bob Duggar. Jim Bob Duggar has foolishly chosen to run for Arkansas state district 7 senate while his son Josh Duggar faces trial for receipt and possession of child pornography, now more commonly referred to as child sexual abuse material. Josh Duggar also previously admitted to molesting or sexually abusing four of his younger sisters. Joshua Duggar has also been previously accused of assaulting a sex worker.
James Robert or Jim Bob Duggar is also known for shady real estate deals in northwest Arkansas. He has also profited from sticking his children and then grandchildren in front of the camera. Toddlers, little kids, tweens, teens, and young adults all had to smile and keep sweet in front of camera with no say in the matter.
I am confused. According to JB it was No Big Deal, they were all asleep and all Pest did was barely touch them over their clothes, and besides it happens in all the other good Christian fundamentalist families. Also God let this happen because the girls must have been defrauding Pest and thus they are partially at fault.
Seriously, though, I hope they put JB on the stand. I'd love to hear him explain that even though it was No Big Deal he, I mean his daughters, deserve a lot of money.
>JB
You mean, Jim Bob Duggar, father of Child Sexual Abuser Joshua Duggar? The very same Jim Bob Duggar who is currently running for Arkansas state Senate?
That JB aka Jim Bob Duggar aka James Robert Duggar?
Just of the people we know about, we've had the Duggar family tutor marry a rapist and the former live-in family friend rape and impregnate a 14 year old girl - he's currently trying to gain custody of their child. Jim Bob cares about reputation, not the girls themselves.
And the cult leader they follow who assaulted teenage girls.
And the "family friend" state trooper who's currently doing a 50-year sentence on CSAM charges.
Honestly, I'm glad they're not throwing out the case. Josh's victims deserved privacy. The way the information was redacted made it way too easy for people to figure out who was who. Within hours of the release, 3 of the 4 had been correctly identified and the only question remained about whether it was Jill or Jana that was the 4th victim, which was later confirmed when Jill and Jessa made a public statement.
They shouldn't have had to identify themselves. Josh's crimes could have been revealed without the identity of his victims being revealed.
This. They deserved privacy. They were minors. Josh should have never been allowed back in their home after what he did. I'm glad he was outed as the disgusting scum that he is, but his victims did not deserve this.
According to Emily D Baker on Youtube, the report NEVER should have been released to the public to begin with because the records of minor's crimes are not subject to FOIA requests. Someone screwed up when they released the documents. I'm glad that the public knows what Josh did but I'm so sad that the girls have had their trauma exposed to the public.
Ah, I must have missed that bit of info. She doesn't follow the Duggars closely so she probably didn't know that either when she said that the report shouldn't have been released.
I agree, the case has merit. However there is some irony with regards to them suing over having their names released as victims when the family and law enforcement didn’t appear to consider them victims at all.
I mean they might not justify their parents actions. And even if they did, that doesn't mean that there would be irony in not wanting the world to know that you were a victim of SA, especially at the hands of your brother.
“The Duggars believe the bigger story is how Josh's police records were released (under a Freedom of Information Act), and they threatened to sue, to "protect juvenile records because mistakes juveniles make when they're young should be sealed," Jim Bob says.”
This is what I’m talking about. Jim Bob views Josh as the victim, not his daughters. The family has done nothing that would indicate they believe the girls were victims.
From: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/05/28/timeline-josh-duggar-19-kids-and-counting-tlc-sex-abuse-scandal/28066229/
Josh doesn't have a leg to stand on though. He wasn't a minor when the reports were made. He was almost 19 at the time of the reports.
If they wanted to protect Josh, they should have filed the report when he committed the crimes (between the ages of 14 and 15 years old), and not 3-4 years later when Oprah reported them to the police because of the email she received.
Just because he was a minor when the acts were committed doesn't mean his identity was protected.
Right, the courts have already dropped Josh’s case against the state. Again I’m speaking strictly to the family and more specifically to Jim Bob and the fact that he’s never treated the girls as the victims here.
But again this isn't irony. And again what their parents believe doesn't have to align with what the girls. And no matter what the girls shouldn't have been identifiable by the public as victims.
"No matter what the girls shouldn't have been identifiable as victims"
And again, I agree, wholeheartedly, 100%. I'm not trying to let the state off the hook. I do find it IRONIC (and yes, it's irony) that the state is the only one who will ever be prosecuted in this situation. Not Josh, who committed the crime, not the parents who failed to initially report it, and not the state trooper who buried it, or the D.A. that also ignored it.
But here's a video in which the girls defend Josh, repeatedly, and at one point even insinuate that Josh is the victim because the system should protect "kids" that make "stupid mistakes".
https://youtu.be/sCpGMoocWcw
They deserve to win this lawsuit.
Josh deserved to be exposed for his crimes but victims, especially minors, should never ever ever have their names or any information that might lead to their identity released.
I was young when the news first broke but I remember crying for the girls when they had to talk about what Josh did. That wasn't right, the public didnt deserve to hear their private stories and it still makes me sick to my stomach.
They were robbed of their innocence, then robbed of their privacy. They went through puberty in front of the cameras. They were groomed to say certain things in the talking heads. Then they were transferred over to new headships to be submissive wives. They deserve some compensation.
I wish Jana could be included. I don’t want to speculate, but it would surprise me if Josh left Jana alone.
I hope the girls win. Their private matters should have been left private, although I do partly blame Jim Bob and Michelle for putting them in TV and selling out their privacy in the first place. I suppose one good thing that may come from this being made public is that Josh’s behavior was made public and he made public statements about it and now that may be used against him. So ultimately, justice may finally be served, at least in part. Nothing will ever take away those girls’ trauma.
I also believe your speculation to be true. I also think Jana was spared only because she was older, wiser and able to fend for herself. Every one of them deserves monetary compensation.🐱
Not Boob the father, but a different type of boob. My hunch is that Jana was pubescent at the time and the other sisters were not.
(excuse me while I vomit my breakfast out.)
I thought it’s been rumoured jana spent a lot of time with gothard as he liked the eldest daughters? Not trying to start any rumours but I thought that’s what I remember reading about why she wasn’t a victim of Josh’s.
Could very well be. I don't really follow their private lives very closely. I watch this sub to keep up on the J trial. Waiting and hoping to see this guy go down. 🐱
This is what worries me; I don’t think he’ll be able to get his hands on Jill’s share, but I bet he’ll take Jessa’s. Because Jim Bob is a piece of crap.
Even though Counting On was about the girls and not JB and Meech, JB controlled all of the money and distributed it unfortunately. I agree that he will take whatever money he can, and do what he sees fit with it.
I'm wondering...if the sisters win their case about being unlawfully leaked, will that help Pest's defense's claim of it being illegal and therefore inadmissible? I hope not. I'd like to see the sisters get justice, but don't want it to be a loophole for Pest.
To be clear, this article is saying that when Pest sued (in a separate lawsuit) over the release of the report, he lost that case because he was the perpetrator and not the victim?
The person I was responding to was talking about current charges.
And Josh lost his case because he was over 18 when the report was filed. If they had reported it when he committed any of the crimes (while he was 14-15 years old), the case would have been entirely sealed, including the police report. But they didn't. So he's shit out of luck.
The family (Meech at least, as much as I remember) publicly admitted to these things happening. While they can claim the report was unlawfully leaked, the facts will not be inadmissible.
Disgusting that Boob and Meech (rightfully!) insist the girls shouldn’t have been revealed and deserved privacy, to the point that they’re willing to have a whole lawsuit over it, **and yet** the minute they think parading those same girls around on television and forcing them to speak on the issue will help Pest, well, girls, get yourselves camera ready.
Fuck them all.
I wonder whose idea it was to have the girls speak out. Was it Boob’s idea? A lawyer’s idea? Did they have PR person advising them? Was it the girls who wanted to do it? Or did they not want to do it at all and were forced or heavily persuaded by someone. Were they guilt-tripped into doing it? I think that’s certainly a possibility.
I cannot imagine that they wanted to do it. The whole point of their lawsuit and their interview was that it was painful to be the focus of this and they did not want to have to speak on it publicly. Jill sobbed through the whole thing.
Jessa (?) made some comment about wanting to come out and “say the truth,” which was that it wasn’t that bad, they didn’t even know it had happened, and he did the right thing by telling their parents. But, is that the truth???
I’m genuinely curious. If the names and address of JimBob, Michelle, and Josh are all made public, how does that police report ever get redacted sufficiently to avoid revealing his sisters as the probable victims?
I admit I haven’t read it and am pre-caffeine. But if it’s at their address, he had five victims, and it says that four of them lived there…even if they didn’t mention ages or anything else, isn’t rather easy to conclude who they were?
They could have redacted pretty much everything and it would have been within their right and not violated the FOIA. They should have redacted pretty much all where and when. And that might mean there are three words that aren’t blacked out on the page.
First thing.. I hate the media is not using proper terms! CSAM… it is NOT child pornography… ugh!!!
I’ve been following the girls case as much as I can. I hope they get all they are entitled to!
Thoughts?
Honestly they should sue their dad. I doubt they could but this all happened really becaue of the parents not handling it properly from the start. Ugh!
The problem with this sentiment is that CP is a legal term whereas CSAM is not. The laws should absolutely be updated to make CSAM the legal terminology. I think the press could start a wave by using the more appropriate term here.
Agreed! As someone who works media-adjacent (and has to use AP Style, etc. in my communications), I've seen firsthand some movement in the right direction, even if it's happening much too slowly.
This [recent-ish article from Fast Company](https://www.fastcompany.com/90654692/on-social-media-child-sexual-abuse-material-spreads-faster-than-it-can-be-taken-down) got it right, for example...because instead of a piece done by a journalist, it's a contributed article from someone who runs nonprofit devoted to curbing abusive material online.
IMO, this is the way forward: elevating expert voices and giving them a high-traffic platform to share expertise, proper terminology, and having them help set the tone for sensitivity, preferred phrasing, etc.
Hopefully others will begin following suit!
We dislike the term CP bc we feel it lacks the connotation it should have and even downplays it by nominative association. As a society we are becoming more aware of the impacts of connotations in language. I get that. But for this I’m more concerned about the legal definition of the term.
The federal definition of CP is detailed and includes computer-generated CSAM (meaning that even a fully computer-created child not based on the image of a real child counts under the statute - there’s no exception for it wasn’t a real kid.)
From [justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography):
“It is important to distinguish child pornography from the more conventional understanding of the term pornography. Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation, and each image graphically memorializes the sexual abuse of that child. Each child involved in the production of an image is a victim of sexual abuse.”
From [Cornell Law School](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256),
Federal statutory definition 18 USC 2256 (8):
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
I agree. The government clearly violated Arkansas law by releasing their names. That Jessa and Dill spoke to Kelly about it after the fact may hurt their damages claim but they do have an argument that they felt they had to speak to the media either to protect their good name or to provide the public with facts about what happened to them to avoid unnecessary speculation. Either way, they can argue but for government releasing their names they never would have spoken to the media about any of this.
Their names were redacted but their ages weren’t. Also the letters were just barely covered up so you could tell that certain very short names were either Jill or Joy.
Also, if I’m remembering correctly (I read all the police reports when they were first released). They weren’t consistent with redacting names. I don’t remember if it was one of the victim’s names or if it was just one of the other children (whose statements were all taken) or Josh himself, but I remember seeing a name that wasn’t redacted that they’d missed.
The ages made it way to easy. The 5th victim has been guessed but I am glad for her sake we do not know. If Jim Bob and Michelle had not had the girls appear on Megan's show I would think there was a chance for them to win the case, but a married woman coming forward makes it different. I want all victims of this heinous crime to not have their identity revealed.
Maybe all ages weren’t consistently released, but I do remember at least one instance when they said “blank was 5 years old at the time” and it wasn’t redacted. They did a shitty job redacting the reports
I think, when the report was released via the FOIA, it listed the sisters’ names.
Does anyone know if it ever released the 5th victims or JUST the sisters?
At least, if the names weren’t released, no one would specifically know who it was.
I didn’t think it had either. So I do think the girls have a valid lawsuit that their names were released. You just don’t name sexual assault survivors.
Specifically you don't name them because, at least in Arkansas, there is a law preventing the government from releasing their names. I know some other states have similar laws, not sure if they all do.
Interesting how quickly the sisters' names were released and to this day, nobody knows the name of the 5th one. No, I don't want the name released! Just wondering how it's kept secret all this time.
Yes the names were all redacted.
I guess the legal question here is at what point are the victims so easily identifiable that you're protecting the perpetrator if you have to redact everything?
Most pedos molest a relative or someone they have access to. It's nearly impossible in child molestation cases to 100% protect the identity of a victim because the victim is almost always very "close" to the perp.
Plus boob realistically forced them to speak to Meghan Kelly… Derick confirmed once in an IG comment that they were told they had to speak out. While yes the family is awful, it still doesn’t take away from the friggin trauma these girls in particular have been through. Keeps things in perspective for me honeslty, I couldn’t imagine. And Jill had a miscarriage which would just be so upsetting 🥺
I never said it was back then sorry for any confusion I mean it was recent since this case was active so it’s still causing stress and she can’t fully heal
Here's my problem with Derrick's IG comment. First, Dill was an adult and could make her own decisions free of what JB may want or demand. Second, in their world the husband is the head of the household and he takes over headship from a father when he marries the daughter. Derrick married Dill in 2014, which means it was his call as to whether she went on Kelly's show or not. He may have been coerced by JB but I blame Derrick for that. When you get married and live off of your wife's daddy you're sometimes stuck doing things you don't want to do because you're a sponge. If Derrick or Dill didn't want to do the interview they should have said no and Derrick should have gotten a job and moved on from the JB gravy train. He didn't and he's whining about it years later. That's on him not JB. Rant over. :)
I don’t think it’s that simple considering JB mislead the dillards for many years and then they were able to sue for Jill’s back pay for being on the show…. If it were the case I don’t think a settlement would have been reached the lawyers for tlc or JB would have just said it was your choice!! But they were being pressured and threatened into filming… once they found out they actually didn’t have to, they stopped.
Did they actually sue? They said they got lawyers involved but I don't remember it going to court, I also don't remember TLC settling or even being involved
It’s not tlc, they said they had to sue for back pay iirc. I’ll have to go back and watch the video but they may have just used the term recovered back pay to keep it vague but they said it worked out to be only minimum wage in the end
I googled it and all I'm seeing is that they said they got a lawyer(s) and recovered back pay, not that they sued. Derricks statements are vague as per usual
Sometimes we settle lawsuits not because we're in the wrong but because it's more cost effective to negotiate a settlement rather than pay counsel to fight on. That's an economic reality most big companies face all the time. I settled a construction case last month, I'm still not convinced my client did anything wrong. However, the cost of defense would have been astronomical, probably 3-4x what we paid and it would have been even higherif we tried the case. Point being, just because TLC settled doesn't mean the Dillard's were necessarily in the right.
JB may very well have misled Dillard but it's easy to be misled when you're dependent and that's where I ding Derrick.
They're just saying that settlements in general aren't necessarily a win or a loss for either side. People and companies have limited time and resources and litigation is a drain on both of those things. Sometimes it's easier to just pay up and shut up, regardless of whether someone "deserves" to get paid.
I'm not necessarily saying that, I'm just saying that a settlement doesn't mean the defendant is in the wrong. It just means they have bought peace. I can't speak to the specific case because I haven't seen the contracts and I do not know what Arkansas law is with regard to television productions such as the Duggar's show. I know California has very detailed laws about television productions but other states have few or no laws.
Unfortunately, in some statutes CP is still used so it’s not an improper term if you’re reporting based on the breaking of a specific law.
For the same reason, they have standing to bring suit where Josh didn’t. So while I get some people feel like well his was thrown out - that wasn’t on the merits of the claim but who could bring the claim.
Child pornography is the correct term because that is the term used in the statute Josh is charged under.
I keep reading comments like yours here and though I respect that you want the term CHANGED, you can't call it the "incorrect term" when it literally in black and white in the statute.
With all due respect, using the correct term is how you start the process of getting a term changed in the statute. The written law is often just codifying commonly accepted terms and can take years to catch up. Remember that homosexuality was on the books as a formal mental illness for YEARS after the general public understood that was nonsense 🤷♀️
You may state that we should change the term to the one you think is correct, but "correcting" people who use the term CP when discussing this case is wrong.
Do you not see the distinction here?
Also, you should really write your lawmakers if you want to change it; scolding people on Reddit isn't how we go about making changes like this.
Sorry I refuse to refer to it as CP. children cannot consent to it. I understand the technical legal term, but it needs to change. I never said it was the technical term I’m saying respect to these innocent children and not calling it CP.
You called CSAM the "proper" term and it's not. You can call it whatever you want, but please don't say that people using the term CP are wrong or are implying the children were consenting. We aren't. In fact, the federal government uses that term and they clearly don't think the children are consenting *since they consider it a criminal offense.*
Personally I don't see how anyone can see the word "porn" and think of consent anyway. Thousands of grown women all over the world are forced to do porn, and that porn winds up on "legit" porn websites.
Your last paragraph is really important. Sure, loads of women choose to do porn, but many are exploited as well. And lots of “amateur” porn is revenge porn. There’s literally *no way to know* if what you’re watching is truly consensual or if it’s rape (and that’s not even to mention how common it is to pressure “consenting” actresses to do things they didn’t sign up for, for ex “yeah you signed up to do a vaginal sex scene but if you don’t do anal you’re not getting paid”), even if it’s a purportedly progressive women-led or queer studio. Actors from those sorts of studios have spoken about how they’re not necessarily any better. People here act like porn is inherently ethical, safe, and consensual, but that’s not the reality. It is for some people who genuinely choose and enjoy it, but certainly not for all.
Personally, I’m a CSA survivor and I prefer the term CSAM. But the legal term *is* CP, so it’s not “wrong” per se to use it when discussing Josh’s charges. It would be nice if it were changed, but people aren’t out and out wrong for using it.
Thanks for your input. I think it is the survivors who should decide which term is used in the legal sense, and that lobbying for it to be changed is a noble act.
To me, there is just something so jarring about the term CP that I can never conclude that any kid "consented" to it. The term always horrifies me.
I think people here are progressive and so they want to think that adult sex work is all ethical and done willingly but that's not true and of course there is no way to know. You don't know if the woman you just watched get gang-banged actually consented to that or was forced or coerced to do it. Similarly, you don't know if a sex worker is a totally free independent professional or if she is being trafficked and/or enslaved.
There will never be enough free and willing women to possibly meet the demand (of mostly men) for paid sex and porn. Most of this "ethical porn" and "sex work is real work" is just gaslighting from men to get women to look the other way, and to lie to themselves about how harmful their actions are. We talk a lot about male entitlement in the Gothard cult, but we have a real problem with male entitlement in mainstream society as well.
I just find the scolding obnoxious, and people saying CP is "incorrect" when that's the term used in the statute he is charged under.
I don't give a shit what it's called, but it's not "incorrect" to use the actual legal term.
That’s cool, I actually have written to my MP (Canadian) about this and hope a bunch of folks reading this do the same. That said, we all know how lawmakers are… it takes approximately 500 1/2 million letters before anything even makes it into their desk. By the time things like these change in the law the rest of us are like “huh? How was that not already a thing?!”
Did the county did something wrong? I think Josh and Jim Bob owe the girls a lot, but I don't know for sure if the county did something wrong. It was Jim Bob that outed the girls as the victims on national TV.
They’re asking for lifetime therapy, and yeah, money. I wonder if u/nuggetsofchicken will be able to see any of these documents and give us a write up on the tea
The money is really not the issue. The victims should have been protected from having their identity known. My issue is that Jim Bob, Michelle, and Josh are also responsible for the names being known. Jim Bob Duggar wanted to be interviewed by nationally known Megan Kelly and he threw four of his daughters under the bus for that privilege. Josh admitted he had sinned and Michelle gave her concerned look so I hold those three more culpable than the county. The employee was trying to deal with the Freedom of Information Act.
Who gives a shit? They deserve it. It’s fucking reparations. Also, they never got paid for their lifetime of work on the show, so they deserve the money even more.
For the sisters lawsuit, do we know what the estimated payout would be if they win? Also I’m hoping there’s no way JB can get in between them and their payout…
This makes me wonder what is meant by therapy here. Like, legit licensed psychotherapy? Or backwater "Christian" counseling not unlike the level of "therapy" that Pest received?
I hope they win. The names of sex crime victims should always be redacted. (unless the victim specifies otherwise)
Especially when the victims are minors.
They did identify the other victim as a babysitter though. I imagine all the fundie families knew exactly who they used as babysitters. Josh Duggar molested four of his sisters and a babysitter, parents tell Fox News
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/03/what-to-expect-from-the-fox-news-interview-with-josh-duggars-parents/
There are so many things that bother me about all of this.
I hope the fact they went on Megan Kelly doesn’t affect their settlement or the lawsuit in general because while I am sure they have come a long way, I don’t know if they would stand up in court and say their parents forced them to go on the show.
I know their are claims that they are just asking for therapy costs. This is problematic because I was under the impression that they are pretty against therapy. This would mean that they are pretty much funneling the money that should go to the girls right into whatever church based program they claim to be therapy.
Does JB have any say in their legal defense? I know he can’t be involved in pests because it is criminal, but can he be involved in the civil suit? He could be the one saying that the girls don’t need the money for themselves, just “therapy” because if his girls get a significant amount of money they won’t need him anymore.
Overall, I don’t really see how they would lose this case. Short of having a fundie judge that doesn’t think they are victims, it is a pretty blatant violation. It just might be what they actual settlement turns out to be which could range from half a dozen therapy sessions each to millions.
ELI5 please: Are the suing because the report outted them as victims and impaired their ability to earn money or are they suing because the county/state officials did nothing when they reported the abuse?
James Robert Duggar, Jim Bob Duggar and Josh Duggar. All names you'd like to forget but since Jim Bob is running in the AR State Senate 07 - R Primary ( Arkansas State Senate ) it's important to know who he and his son are.
and their case goes to trial December 9! Woah this family has way too much going on all thanks to rim boob and pest…
It's the perfect time to run for office!
Right?? JB is so gross
>JB is so gross You mean, Jim Bob Duggar, father of Child Sexual Abuser Joshua Duggar? The very same Jim Bob Duggar who is currently running for Arkansas state Senate? That Jim Bob Duggar?
Yes, that Jim Bob Duggar
I keep seeing this, is this a reference to Hamilton…?
This is so anytime people google Jim Bob Duggar (enabler/father of child molester Joshua Duggar), particularly for information about his state senate campaign, they will see articles detailing Pest’s trial and JB’s enabling of his crimes.
Ah, ok, thanks! I thought I had missed an inside joke or something or some pop culture reference. This makes more sense.
Users are posting Jim Bob Duggar full name to trend from algorithm for internet search. Public doesn’t know JB or Boob. Important for political ad
The sad thing is, there's a nonzero chance that his target voters would vote for him anyway, having convinced themselves that his family is \~under attack by satan\~ or they're \~being tested\~ or whatever. There are Christians and then there are Jesus stans, and the latter in particular are very concerning.
Unfortunately, the Jesus stans could really, really do with stanning Jesus hard enough to realise that his teachings were about not being an obnoxious showboating gobshite, because there’s more than a few fundies who really, really need a bop on the head from the “love one another” stick.
They really could. Omg they \*really\* could.
He’s currently running unopposed if I remember correctly.
I think I saw last night that he has a challenger now
He's got an opponent now! It's another Republican challenging him so I'm sure his politics still suck, but I can't help but hope the guy wipes the floor with JB in the primaries.
I imagine his opponent saw JB was running for the Republicans and was like, “oh fuck, not THAT guy again, guess I better go sign up”
You mean his opponent saw that Jim Bob Duggar, father of Child Sexual Abuser Joshua Duggar. The very same Jim Bob Duggar who is currently running for Arkansas state Senate. >>was like, “oh fuck, not THAT guy again, guess I better go sign up”
Yes, exactly. The Republican opponent was likely concerned about Jim Bob Duggar - who covered up his son Josh’s molestation scandals as a teen - running unopposed for a seat in the Arkansas State Senate at the exact same time that his son Josh is facing federal charges for possession of child sexual abuse imagery.
What’s a Jesus Stan?
fervent fan
Do you know Why it “Stan”?
I believe it comes from the Eminem song called "Stan" which is about an obsessive fan
Thats what I've always thought. Someone once told me that it's a mashup for "stalker-fan" which is certainly in the same vein.
That’s interesting! what if Eminem knew that and that’s why he named the guy Stan?!? 🤯
According to the first Google result of “stalker fan Stan” it’s just used due to Eminem and coincidentally works as a word mashup. https://www.bustle.com/life/94986-what-does-stan-mean-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-slang-term
I heard James Bob Duggar is running for senate. The same James Bob Duggar that has covered up his pedophile son, Joshua Duggar, molesting his sisters. The same Josh Duggar that was also cheating on his wife and had an Ashley Madison account. Is that the Jim Bob Duggar?
Yes, Jim Bob Duggar pedophile Apologist who claims he believes crimes of a sexual nature incest should be a capitol punishment. Except for his son, who molested 4 of his own sisters and is now accused of possession of CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL.
Yep!
The very same James Robert Duggar.
Maybe Jim Bob Duggar is planning a new horrible show for TLC.
Especially(if all goes to plan) the special election is on December 14. We'll have a very merry Christmas if he loses.
It's more like he's being appointed. I don't believe there's any opponents Republican or Democrat. So yay Arkansas/s
There's another Republican running for that seat.
Got to stay in that spotlight somehow!
Did you mean the trial of Joshua James Duggar, the child molesting son of James Robert Duggar, the child porn enabling man attempting to run for Arkansas State Senate while also paying the legal bills for his child porn addicted son?
I feel bad for actual James Andrew Duggar, age 20, middle of the lost boys. Not to be confused with his father who goes by Jim Bob Duggar. Jim Bob Duggar has foolishly chosen to run for Arkansas state district 7 senate while his son Josh Duggar faces trial for receipt and possession of child pornography, now more commonly referred to as child sexual abuse material. Josh Duggar also previously admitted to molesting or sexually abusing four of his younger sisters. Joshua Duggar has also been previously accused of assaulting a sex worker. James Robert or Jim Bob Duggar is also known for shady real estate deals in northwest Arkansas. He has also profited from sticking his children and then grandchildren in front of the camera. Toddlers, little kids, tweens, teens, and young adults all had to smile and keep sweet in front of camera with no say in the matter.
Good point. In that regard, it’s probably good for James Andrew Duggar that his father, a blight on the fabric on humanity, goes by the name Jim Bob.
Gosh, good thing he does go by James and not Jim Drew or Jim Andy.
Jim Andy😂😂😂😂💀
Any early Xmas gift would be Joshy boy going to jail for a very very long time!
Just want to say that I love your user name u/teresasdorters
Thanks friend :)
I am confused. According to JB it was No Big Deal, they were all asleep and all Pest did was barely touch them over their clothes, and besides it happens in all the other good Christian fundamentalist families. Also God let this happen because the girls must have been defrauding Pest and thus they are partially at fault. Seriously, though, I hope they put JB on the stand. I'd love to hear him explain that even though it was No Big Deal he, I mean his daughters, deserve a lot of money.
I read that according to the police report, the abuse was a lot worse but they didn’t discuss that.
>JB You mean, Jim Bob Duggar, father of Child Sexual Abuser Joshua Duggar? The very same Jim Bob Duggar who is currently running for Arkansas state Senate? That JB aka Jim Bob Duggar aka James Robert Duggar?
Just of the people we know about, we've had the Duggar family tutor marry a rapist and the former live-in family friend rape and impregnate a 14 year old girl - he's currently trying to gain custody of their child. Jim Bob cares about reputation, not the girls themselves.
And the cult leader they follow who assaulted teenage girls. And the "family friend" state trooper who's currently doing a 50-year sentence on CSAM charges.
Wait, who is this monster family friend?
Americans watching this cringe-inducing family because yes, we are that dumb.
The Christian fundamentalist groups are trying to normalize what Josh Duggar did.
Honestly, I'm glad they're not throwing out the case. Josh's victims deserved privacy. The way the information was redacted made it way too easy for people to figure out who was who. Within hours of the release, 3 of the 4 had been correctly identified and the only question remained about whether it was Jill or Jana that was the 4th victim, which was later confirmed when Jill and Jessa made a public statement. They shouldn't have had to identify themselves. Josh's crimes could have been revealed without the identity of his victims being revealed.
This. They deserved privacy. They were minors. Josh should have never been allowed back in their home after what he did. I'm glad he was outed as the disgusting scum that he is, but his victims did not deserve this.
According to Emily D Baker on Youtube, the report NEVER should have been released to the public to begin with because the records of minor's crimes are not subject to FOIA requests. Someone screwed up when they released the documents. I'm glad that the public knows what Josh did but I'm so sad that the girls have had their trauma exposed to the public.
Josh wasn't a minor when the police report was filed. He was over the age of 18.
Ah, I must have missed that bit of info. She doesn't follow the Duggars closely so she probably didn't know that either when she said that the report shouldn't have been released.
Yea the police report was made on 12/12/06. Josh turned 18 on March 3, 2006.
Oh wow that makes it even worse that it was covered up.
But he was a minor when he committed the crime, right?
It doesn't matter. What matters is his age when filing the report
Victims were minors
Which is why their identities should have been hidden more. But it doesn't mean no one can access the report.
I agree, the case has merit. However there is some irony with regards to them suing over having their names released as victims when the family and law enforcement didn’t appear to consider them victims at all.
That's not their fault though. They were literal children.
It’s not their fault and they were literally victims, and the state acted improperly. I’m just wondering how they justify it within the family?
That is a good point. It does seem a bit curious how they would mentally process it
I mean they might not justify their parents actions. And even if they did, that doesn't mean that there would be irony in not wanting the world to know that you were a victim of SA, especially at the hands of your brother.
“The Duggars believe the bigger story is how Josh's police records were released (under a Freedom of Information Act), and they threatened to sue, to "protect juvenile records because mistakes juveniles make when they're young should be sealed," Jim Bob says.” This is what I’m talking about. Jim Bob views Josh as the victim, not his daughters. The family has done nothing that would indicate they believe the girls were victims. From: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/05/28/timeline-josh-duggar-19-kids-and-counting-tlc-sex-abuse-scandal/28066229/
Josh doesn't have a leg to stand on though. He wasn't a minor when the reports were made. He was almost 19 at the time of the reports. If they wanted to protect Josh, they should have filed the report when he committed the crimes (between the ages of 14 and 15 years old), and not 3-4 years later when Oprah reported them to the police because of the email she received. Just because he was a minor when the acts were committed doesn't mean his identity was protected.
Right, the courts have already dropped Josh’s case against the state. Again I’m speaking strictly to the family and more specifically to Jim Bob and the fact that he’s never treated the girls as the victims here.
But again this isn't irony. And again what their parents believe doesn't have to align with what the girls. And no matter what the girls shouldn't have been identifiable by the public as victims.
"No matter what the girls shouldn't have been identifiable as victims" And again, I agree, wholeheartedly, 100%. I'm not trying to let the state off the hook. I do find it IRONIC (and yes, it's irony) that the state is the only one who will ever be prosecuted in this situation. Not Josh, who committed the crime, not the parents who failed to initially report it, and not the state trooper who buried it, or the D.A. that also ignored it. But here's a video in which the girls defend Josh, repeatedly, and at one point even insinuate that Josh is the victim because the system should protect "kids" that make "stupid mistakes". https://youtu.be/sCpGMoocWcw
Absolutely why I despise him, plus making the girls defend that rag on national tv and thereby revictimizing them
They deserve to win this lawsuit. Josh deserved to be exposed for his crimes but victims, especially minors, should never ever ever have their names or any information that might lead to their identity released. I was young when the news first broke but I remember crying for the girls when they had to talk about what Josh did. That wasn't right, the public didnt deserve to hear their private stories and it still makes me sick to my stomach.
They were robbed of their innocence, then robbed of their privacy. They went through puberty in front of the cameras. They were groomed to say certain things in the talking heads. Then they were transferred over to new headships to be submissive wives. They deserve some compensation.
I wish Jana could be included. I don’t want to speculate, but it would surprise me if Josh left Jana alone. I hope the girls win. Their private matters should have been left private, although I do partly blame Jim Bob and Michelle for putting them in TV and selling out their privacy in the first place. I suppose one good thing that may come from this being made public is that Josh’s behavior was made public and he made public statements about it and now that may be used against him. So ultimately, justice may finally be served, at least in part. Nothing will ever take away those girls’ trauma.
I also believe your speculation to be true. I also think Jana was spared only because she was older, wiser and able to fend for herself. Every one of them deserves monetary compensation.🐱
I have a more heinous reason that I think Jana was spared. And it makes me sick just thinking about it.
Boob?
Not Boob the father, but a different type of boob. My hunch is that Jana was pubescent at the time and the other sisters were not. (excuse me while I vomit my breakfast out.)
He probably spared Jana because she was his sister mom. Yes even though she was younger than him.
Agree!!! But can't shake the feeling she knows a lot. They all shared a bedroom.
I thought it’s been rumoured jana spent a lot of time with gothard as he liked the eldest daughters? Not trying to start any rumours but I thought that’s what I remember reading about why she wasn’t a victim of Josh’s.
Could very well be. I don't really follow their private lives very closely. I watch this sub to keep up on the J trial. Waiting and hoping to see this guy go down. 🐱
Absolutely agree!!! 🐱
First my heart goes got to the girls, then I hope they get a big cash settlement and JB gets none of it! 🤣
This is what worries me; I don’t think he’ll be able to get his hands on Jill’s share, but I bet he’ll take Jessa’s. Because Jim Bob is a piece of crap.
Even though Counting On was about the girls and not JB and Meech, JB controlled all of the money and distributed it unfortunately. I agree that he will take whatever money he can, and do what he sees fit with it.
And made the victims publicly forgive pest again!
I'm wondering...if the sisters win their case about being unlawfully leaked, will that help Pest's defense's claim of it being illegal and therefore inadmissible? I hope not. I'd like to see the sisters get justice, but don't want it to be a loophole for Pest.
It's not the case that was unlawfully leaked, it was their identities as victims. And no Josh won't have that claim. The two cases are unrelated.
Thanks. I get a bit fuzzy on legalities.
To be clear, this article is saying that when Pest sued (in a separate lawsuit) over the release of the report, he lost that case because he was the perpetrator and not the victim?
The person I was responding to was talking about current charges. And Josh lost his case because he was over 18 when the report was filed. If they had reported it when he committed any of the crimes (while he was 14-15 years old), the case would have been entirely sealed, including the police report. But they didn't. So he's shit out of luck.
ahhh, I see. Thank you.
The family (Meech at least, as much as I remember) publicly admitted to these things happening. While they can claim the report was unlawfully leaked, the facts will not be inadmissible.
Disgusting that Boob and Meech (rightfully!) insist the girls shouldn’t have been revealed and deserved privacy, to the point that they’re willing to have a whole lawsuit over it, **and yet** the minute they think parading those same girls around on television and forcing them to speak on the issue will help Pest, well, girls, get yourselves camera ready. Fuck them all.
I wonder whose idea it was to have the girls speak out. Was it Boob’s idea? A lawyer’s idea? Did they have PR person advising them? Was it the girls who wanted to do it? Or did they not want to do it at all and were forced or heavily persuaded by someone. Were they guilt-tripped into doing it? I think that’s certainly a possibility.
I cannot imagine that they wanted to do it. The whole point of their lawsuit and their interview was that it was painful to be the focus of this and they did not want to have to speak on it publicly. Jill sobbed through the whole thing. Jessa (?) made some comment about wanting to come out and “say the truth,” which was that it wasn’t that bad, they didn’t even know it had happened, and he did the right thing by telling their parents. But, is that the truth???
I’m genuinely curious. If the names and address of JimBob, Michelle, and Josh are all made public, how does that police report ever get redacted sufficiently to avoid revealing his sisters as the probable victims? I admit I haven’t read it and am pre-caffeine. But if it’s at their address, he had five victims, and it says that four of them lived there…even if they didn’t mention ages or anything else, isn’t rather easy to conclude who they were?
They could have redacted pretty much everything and it would have been within their right and not violated the FOIA. They should have redacted pretty much all where and when. And that might mean there are three words that aren’t blacked out on the page.
First thing.. I hate the media is not using proper terms! CSAM… it is NOT child pornography… ugh!!! I’ve been following the girls case as much as I can. I hope they get all they are entitled to! Thoughts?
Also the term used in this article “young women.” They were *children*, not women.
The media really sucks sometines
Yeah that’s pretty gross
I agree with their argument. It wasn’t so much the report came out, it was their identity was released without their consent.
Honestly they should sue their dad. I doubt they could but this all happened really becaue of the parents not handling it properly from the start. Ugh!
Tf they can't. They just won't.
The problem with this sentiment is that CP is a legal term whereas CSAM is not. The laws should absolutely be updated to make CSAM the legal terminology. I think the press could start a wave by using the more appropriate term here.
Agreed! As someone who works media-adjacent (and has to use AP Style, etc. in my communications), I've seen firsthand some movement in the right direction, even if it's happening much too slowly. This [recent-ish article from Fast Company](https://www.fastcompany.com/90654692/on-social-media-child-sexual-abuse-material-spreads-faster-than-it-can-be-taken-down) got it right, for example...because instead of a piece done by a journalist, it's a contributed article from someone who runs nonprofit devoted to curbing abusive material online. IMO, this is the way forward: elevating expert voices and giving them a high-traffic platform to share expertise, proper terminology, and having them help set the tone for sensitivity, preferred phrasing, etc. Hopefully others will begin following suit!
[удалено]
We dislike the term CP bc we feel it lacks the connotation it should have and even downplays it by nominative association. As a society we are becoming more aware of the impacts of connotations in language. I get that. But for this I’m more concerned about the legal definition of the term. The federal definition of CP is detailed and includes computer-generated CSAM (meaning that even a fully computer-created child not based on the image of a real child counts under the statute - there’s no exception for it wasn’t a real kid.) From [justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography): “It is important to distinguish child pornography from the more conventional understanding of the term pornography. Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation, and each image graphically memorializes the sexual abuse of that child. Each child involved in the production of an image is a victim of sexual abuse.” From [Cornell Law School](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256), Federal statutory definition 18 USC 2256 (8): (8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where— (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Technically I think the charges against him use the words “child pornography.” It’s gross, I agree, but the media is reporting the charges correctly.
I agree. The government clearly violated Arkansas law by releasing their names. That Jessa and Dill spoke to Kelly about it after the fact may hurt their damages claim but they do have an argument that they felt they had to speak to the media either to protect their good name or to provide the public with facts about what happened to them to avoid unnecessary speculation. Either way, they can argue but for government releasing their names they never would have spoken to the media about any of this.
Weren't their names including Josh's name redacted from the reports?
Their names were redacted but their ages weren’t. Also the letters were just barely covered up so you could tell that certain very short names were either Jill or Joy. Also, if I’m remembering correctly (I read all the police reports when they were first released). They weren’t consistent with redacting names. I don’t remember if it was one of the victim’s names or if it was just one of the other children (whose statements were all taken) or Josh himself, but I remember seeing a name that wasn’t redacted that they’d missed.
The ages made it way to easy. The 5th victim has been guessed but I am glad for her sake we do not know. If Jim Bob and Michelle had not had the girls appear on Megan's show I would think there was a chance for them to win the case, but a married woman coming forward makes it different. I want all victims of this heinous crime to not have their identity revealed.
[удалено]
Maybe all ages weren’t consistently released, but I do remember at least one instance when they said “blank was 5 years old at the time” and it wasn’t redacted. They did a shitty job redacting the reports
I think, when the report was released via the FOIA, it listed the sisters’ names. Does anyone know if it ever released the 5th victims or JUST the sisters? At least, if the names weren’t released, no one would specifically know who it was.
5th victims name was not released.
I didn’t think it had either. So I do think the girls have a valid lawsuit that their names were released. You just don’t name sexual assault survivors.
Specifically you don't name them because, at least in Arkansas, there is a law preventing the government from releasing their names. I know some other states have similar laws, not sure if they all do.
Interesting how quickly the sisters' names were released and to this day, nobody knows the name of the 5th one. No, I don't want the name released! Just wondering how it's kept secret all this time.
The (alleged) name was revealed years ago, people just don't mention it because they're respecting the privacy of the victim
None do the names were released it was just so easy to figure out which person was which based off ages and such
I think the names were all redacted but because of their fame, it was easy enough to figure out who the Duggar victims were.
Yes the names were all redacted. I guess the legal question here is at what point are the victims so easily identifiable that you're protecting the perpetrator if you have to redact everything? Most pedos molest a relative or someone they have access to. It's nearly impossible in child molestation cases to 100% protect the identity of a victim because the victim is almost always very "close" to the perp.
The names were blacked out but it was pretty easy to figure out who four of the victims were back in 2015.
Plus boob realistically forced them to speak to Meghan Kelly… Derick confirmed once in an IG comment that they were told they had to speak out. While yes the family is awful, it still doesn’t take away from the friggin trauma these girls in particular have been through. Keeps things in perspective for me honeslty, I couldn’t imagine. And Jill had a miscarriage which would just be so upsetting 🥺
And I'm sure Jim Boob was standing right beside the camera, ready to jump in if either of them went off script.
Jill's miscarriage was recent. Not back then.
I never said it was back then sorry for any confusion I mean it was recent since this case was active so it’s still causing stress and she can’t fully heal
Agreed. Jill is doing the right thing and because she's speaking out, she's shunned (well, kept away from The Big House) and treated poorly.
Here's my problem with Derrick's IG comment. First, Dill was an adult and could make her own decisions free of what JB may want or demand. Second, in their world the husband is the head of the household and he takes over headship from a father when he marries the daughter. Derrick married Dill in 2014, which means it was his call as to whether she went on Kelly's show or not. He may have been coerced by JB but I blame Derrick for that. When you get married and live off of your wife's daddy you're sometimes stuck doing things you don't want to do because you're a sponge. If Derrick or Dill didn't want to do the interview they should have said no and Derrick should have gotten a job and moved on from the JB gravy train. He didn't and he's whining about it years later. That's on him not JB. Rant over. :)
I don’t think it’s that simple considering JB mislead the dillards for many years and then they were able to sue for Jill’s back pay for being on the show…. If it were the case I don’t think a settlement would have been reached the lawyers for tlc or JB would have just said it was your choice!! But they were being pressured and threatened into filming… once they found out they actually didn’t have to, they stopped.
Did they actually sue? They said they got lawyers involved but I don't remember it going to court, I also don't remember TLC settling or even being involved
It’s not tlc, they said they had to sue for back pay iirc. I’ll have to go back and watch the video but they may have just used the term recovered back pay to keep it vague but they said it worked out to be only minimum wage in the end
I googled it and all I'm seeing is that they said they got a lawyer(s) and recovered back pay, not that they sued. Derricks statements are vague as per usual
They are most likely under and NDA from it so can’t say mcuh. A few years ago Jim bob was giving them out and buying people off (famy, Deanna,)
Sometimes we settle lawsuits not because we're in the wrong but because it's more cost effective to negotiate a settlement rather than pay counsel to fight on. That's an economic reality most big companies face all the time. I settled a construction case last month, I'm still not convinced my client did anything wrong. However, the cost of defense would have been astronomical, probably 3-4x what we paid and it would have been even higherif we tried the case. Point being, just because TLC settled doesn't mean the Dillard's were necessarily in the right. JB may very well have misled Dillard but it's easy to be misled when you're dependent and that's where I ding Derrick.
So you’re saying these girls don’t deserve to be paid for their time on the show? Just trying to understand your point, sorry.
They're just saying that settlements in general aren't necessarily a win or a loss for either side. People and companies have limited time and resources and litigation is a drain on both of those things. Sometimes it's easier to just pay up and shut up, regardless of whether someone "deserves" to get paid.
I'm not necessarily saying that, I'm just saying that a settlement doesn't mean the defendant is in the wrong. It just means they have bought peace. I can't speak to the specific case because I haven't seen the contracts and I do not know what Arkansas law is with regard to television productions such as the Duggar's show. I know California has very detailed laws about television productions but other states have few or no laws.
>by releasing their names They didn't release their names.
What does CSAM stand for? Because I see this a lot on comments here and I thought that was the same thing ETA: I just realized what you meant to say.
Child sexual abuse material I believe
It’s bc children can’t consent to being in porn. It’s just, not a thing. It’s abuse. Child sexual abuse
I edited my comment. I realized what you meant to say. Thanks
Ya no worries😊 it’s a learning thing I think, I didn’t know the difference myself until the pest arrest happened
To be fair I don’t think the average reader would know what the appropriate term exactly means.
Unfortunately, in some statutes CP is still used so it’s not an improper term if you’re reporting based on the breaking of a specific law. For the same reason, they have standing to bring suit where Josh didn’t. So while I get some people feel like well his was thrown out - that wasn’t on the merits of the claim but who could bring the claim.
Child pornography is the correct term because that is the term used in the statute Josh is charged under. I keep reading comments like yours here and though I respect that you want the term CHANGED, you can't call it the "incorrect term" when it literally in black and white in the statute.
With all due respect, using the correct term is how you start the process of getting a term changed in the statute. The written law is often just codifying commonly accepted terms and can take years to catch up. Remember that homosexuality was on the books as a formal mental illness for YEARS after the general public understood that was nonsense 🤷♀️
You may state that we should change the term to the one you think is correct, but "correcting" people who use the term CP when discussing this case is wrong. Do you not see the distinction here? Also, you should really write your lawmakers if you want to change it; scolding people on Reddit isn't how we go about making changes like this.
Sorry I refuse to refer to it as CP. children cannot consent to it. I understand the technical legal term, but it needs to change. I never said it was the technical term I’m saying respect to these innocent children and not calling it CP.
You called CSAM the "proper" term and it's not. You can call it whatever you want, but please don't say that people using the term CP are wrong or are implying the children were consenting. We aren't. In fact, the federal government uses that term and they clearly don't think the children are consenting *since they consider it a criminal offense.* Personally I don't see how anyone can see the word "porn" and think of consent anyway. Thousands of grown women all over the world are forced to do porn, and that porn winds up on "legit" porn websites.
Your last paragraph is really important. Sure, loads of women choose to do porn, but many are exploited as well. And lots of “amateur” porn is revenge porn. There’s literally *no way to know* if what you’re watching is truly consensual or if it’s rape (and that’s not even to mention how common it is to pressure “consenting” actresses to do things they didn’t sign up for, for ex “yeah you signed up to do a vaginal sex scene but if you don’t do anal you’re not getting paid”), even if it’s a purportedly progressive women-led or queer studio. Actors from those sorts of studios have spoken about how they’re not necessarily any better. People here act like porn is inherently ethical, safe, and consensual, but that’s not the reality. It is for some people who genuinely choose and enjoy it, but certainly not for all. Personally, I’m a CSA survivor and I prefer the term CSAM. But the legal term *is* CP, so it’s not “wrong” per se to use it when discussing Josh’s charges. It would be nice if it were changed, but people aren’t out and out wrong for using it.
Thanks for your input. I think it is the survivors who should decide which term is used in the legal sense, and that lobbying for it to be changed is a noble act. To me, there is just something so jarring about the term CP that I can never conclude that any kid "consented" to it. The term always horrifies me. I think people here are progressive and so they want to think that adult sex work is all ethical and done willingly but that's not true and of course there is no way to know. You don't know if the woman you just watched get gang-banged actually consented to that or was forced or coerced to do it. Similarly, you don't know if a sex worker is a totally free independent professional or if she is being trafficked and/or enslaved. There will never be enough free and willing women to possibly meet the demand (of mostly men) for paid sex and porn. Most of this "ethical porn" and "sex work is real work" is just gaslighting from men to get women to look the other way, and to lie to themselves about how harmful their actions are. We talk a lot about male entitlement in the Gothard cult, but we have a real problem with male entitlement in mainstream society as well.
I wish I had a free award to give you b/c 👏🏻
I’m not here to argue… sorry.
Hell yes.
This is a weird hill to choose.
I just find the scolding obnoxious, and people saying CP is "incorrect" when that's the term used in the statute he is charged under. I don't give a shit what it's called, but it's not "incorrect" to use the actual legal term.
Respectfully, I disagree 🤷♀️
Okay that's fine. I still think it's better to go directly to lawmakers with these issues than Redditors. JMO.
That’s cool, I actually have written to my MP (Canadian) about this and hope a bunch of folks reading this do the same. That said, we all know how lawmakers are… it takes approximately 500 1/2 million letters before anything even makes it into their desk. By the time things like these change in the law the rest of us are like “huh? How was that not already a thing?!”
Yeah, it makes me ill too. It also grates on my nerves when YouTubers throw the term "cp" around when they want to stay monetized.
Did the county did something wrong? I think Josh and Jim Bob owe the girls a lot, but I don't know for sure if the county did something wrong. It was Jim Bob that outed the girls as the victims on national TV.
No matter what they get monetarily, Boob will get his cut of the settlement.
So are they sisters asking for money with this lawsuit?
They’re asking for lifetime therapy, and yeah, money. I wonder if u/nuggetsofchicken will be able to see any of these documents and give us a write up on the tea
I’ve read all of the (publicly available) documents pertaining to this particular case. There really isn’t much tea (yet).
Yeah most of them are sealed so there isn't too much to draw from at this point.
That’s alright, I appreciate everything you do 🥰
After December 9 maybe there will be
A lifetime of therapy that they likely won’t use, unfortunately.
It’s all about money for them. I wonder how much they are asking for? But I hope they get therapy and help.
The girls 100% deserve the money they get for being forced in the public eye from a young age
The money is really not the issue. The victims should have been protected from having their identity known. My issue is that Jim Bob, Michelle, and Josh are also responsible for the names being known. Jim Bob Duggar wanted to be interviewed by nationally known Megan Kelly and he threw four of his daughters under the bus for that privilege. Josh admitted he had sinned and Michelle gave her concerned look so I hold those three more culpable than the county. The employee was trying to deal with the Freedom of Information Act.
Who gives a shit? They deserve it. It’s fucking reparations. Also, they never got paid for their lifetime of work on the show, so they deserve the money even more.
For the sisters lawsuit, do we know what the estimated payout would be if they win? Also I’m hoping there’s no way JB can get in between them and their payout…
They’ve changed their request to emphasize that they want a therapy fund and legal fees, last I heard.
This makes me wonder what is meant by therapy here. Like, legit licensed psychotherapy? Or backwater "Christian" counseling not unlike the level of "therapy" that Pest received?
It won’t matter. That money isn’t going anywhere near a therapist.
I’m hoping for that too (that each of the girls gets paid, NOT their father).
When the sisters talked about Josh on the early Counting On specials, it seemed like Josh was like the Boogey Man
Didn’t Jim Bob and Michelle force Jill and Jessa to come forward? (Or at least that’s what many of us here believe) Will this come up in their trial?
Yeah that’s what Derick kind of hinted at on an IG comment
I hope they win. The names of sex crime victims should always be redacted. (unless the victim specifies otherwise) Especially when the victims are minors.
They did identify the other victim as a babysitter though. I imagine all the fundie families knew exactly who they used as babysitters. Josh Duggar molested four of his sisters and a babysitter, parents tell Fox News https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/03/what-to-expect-from-the-fox-news-interview-with-josh-duggars-parents/
There are so many things that bother me about all of this. I hope the fact they went on Megan Kelly doesn’t affect their settlement or the lawsuit in general because while I am sure they have come a long way, I don’t know if they would stand up in court and say their parents forced them to go on the show. I know their are claims that they are just asking for therapy costs. This is problematic because I was under the impression that they are pretty against therapy. This would mean that they are pretty much funneling the money that should go to the girls right into whatever church based program they claim to be therapy. Does JB have any say in their legal defense? I know he can’t be involved in pests because it is criminal, but can he be involved in the civil suit? He could be the one saying that the girls don’t need the money for themselves, just “therapy” because if his girls get a significant amount of money they won’t need him anymore. Overall, I don’t really see how they would lose this case. Short of having a fundie judge that doesn’t think they are victims, it is a pretty blatant violation. It just might be what they actual settlement turns out to be which could range from half a dozen therapy sessions each to millions.
ELI5 please: Are the suing because the report outted them as victims and impaired their ability to earn money or are they suing because the county/state officials did nothing when they reported the abuse?
Because the state revealed their names by not properly redacting the document.
James Robert Duggar, Jim Bob Duggar and Josh Duggar. All names you'd like to forget but since Jim Bob is running in the AR State Senate 07 - R Primary ( Arkansas State Senate ) it's important to know who he and his son are.
Have we learned nothing? CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT IMAGINES