Leaderboard 728 X 90

Monday, November 21, 2016

"Objectionable content" warning appears at LS after our recent reports about explosion in interest re: U.S. Judge Bill Pryor and his ties to 1990s gay pornography



A redacted version of the nude Bill Pryor photo,
which apparently caused some readers to
become verklempt and complain to Google.
Legal Schnauzer readers are getting a preview of what life might be like under a President Donald Trump. It comes in the form of a warning about "objectionable content" on our blog, which began to appear last Thursday after a post about an explosion in reader traffic related to our reporting on U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor and his nude appearances in 1980s and '90s gay pornography.

On the surface, it appears a "groundswell" of disturbed readers (maybe as few as 1) complained to Google (owner of the platform we use for Legal Schnauzer) about a nude photo we included of Pryor at the bottom of the Thursday post -- after not one, but two, warnings (one at the top of the post in bold letters) that advised readers who did not wish to view a naked judge to not scroll past the end of the post.

So what does it appear that somebody did? Naturally, they ignored both warnings, scrolled past the final words in the post, and became verklempt at the sight of Bill Pryor and his erect penis -- an image we ran twice back in September 2013, apparently without causing fainting or other symptoms. The only reason we ran the full-frontal version of the image this time -- we generally had been running a redacted version, with a black box placed strategically over Pryor's genitals -- was that we had found a higher-resolution version of the earlier photo and figured readers might as well see the whole thing.

After all, the story is about a prominent legal figure who posed nude while he was in college, so inclusion of a nude photo should not be a shock to anyone. As I read the Google content policy, it is not a violation to include nudity that has news, educational, or artistic value. (Note: Google's content policy seems to change regularly, so I'm not sure if I'm looking at the current one or not.)

Here is what readers have begun to see when they call up Legal Schnauzer. In the Web biz, it's called an "interstitial warning":

Content Warning

Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about our content policies, please visit the Blogger Terms of Service.

I UNDERSTAND AND I WISH TO CONTINUE 
I do not wish to continue

The reader only has to click on "I understand and I wish to continue" to reach Legal Schnauzer, so it's not as if a major hurdle has been placed in our path. But there is a larger issue at play.

Donald Trump has listed Pryor as one of 21 individuals he would consider prime candidates to be nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court -- and thanks to the death of Antonin Scalia, and Republican efforts to block Obama nominee Merrick Garland, we will have an opening at the outset of the Trump era. Thanks to his close ties to U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Trump's nominee as attorney general, Pryor probably is at, or near, the top of Trump's list.

That makes Pryor's background in gay porn a potentially national news story come early 2017. With our discovery of a second Pryor nude photo, which we will be publishing soon (multiple knowledgeable individuals connected to Louisiana have confirmed it is him), that story could become super-sized big.

We are in the process of getting the interstitial warning removed. It is not justified under Google policy, and it almost certainly is based on bogus "concerns." Readers who complained likely don't care one iota about nudity, but they do care about accurate reporting on Bill Pryor, the kind that yanks his gay-porn past into public view. This provides insight, we think, into the Trump mindset. In a battle between the First Amendment and censorship, the president-elect and his followers are likely to side with "the c word" every time.

In fact, the "objectionable content" warning is a form of light, or threatened, censorship. We are in the process of getting the warning removed. If Google is hard-headed about it, I always have the option of moving to another platform.

Were the complaints that landed at Google -- again, it could be as few as one -- really about nudity? Of course not. They were about politics, about protecting Bill Pryor so that Team Trump still will think highly of him, even though he has dabbled in gay porn and probably lied about it once already to the FBI and Congress, during his original confirmation to the federal bench.

Lying to Congress and the FBI, by the way, is a crime. If proven, it could not only keep Pryor off the Supreme Court, it could get him booted from the bench altogether and land him in a federal prison. This is from a recent report about retired U.S. General James Cartwright, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI:

Cartwright's guilty plea was for his false statements to FBI agents, not for speaking to the reporters, said Cartwright's attorney Gregory Craig, of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, in a separate statement: "His effort to prevent publication of information that might harm American lives of national security does not constitute a violation of any law."

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on the hearing. A false statements conviction carries a maximum prison sentence of five years, but prosecutors and Cartwright's attorneys agreed his offense merited a sentence ranging from zero to six months.

We explained in a previous post how a future confirmation hearing could prove hazardous for Pryor:

What is the public to make of revelations that Pryor once was featured on a gay porn Web site? It clearly raises questions about rank hypocrisy, dating to the beginnings of Pryor's political career. It also raises the specter of Pryor being ethically compromised to the point that he is the victim of not-so-subtle blackmail, forced to participate in rulings that he knows are unlawful, at risk of his secrets being revealed. Most importantly, federal nominees typically are asked during the confirmation process about potentially embarrassing or compromising information in their backgrounds. If Pryor failed to disclose the gay-porn photographs, or did not answer a specific question truthfully under oath, it could be grounds for a Senate investigation.

Is Pryor narcissistic and vainglorious enough to risk five years in the federal slammer by letting Donald Trump nominate him to the nation's highest court? Does Pryor think he can shoot for SCOTUS because Jeff Sessions will protect him from possible criminal charges? I would say the answer to those questions is yes -- in fact, even asking them makes me chuckle. Pryor long ago proved that he has an estimation of his abilities, and characteristics, that is far beyond reality.

That trait, which might have driven Pryor to appear in gay porn to begin with, could make for some very interesting news in the coming year.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

So these people ignored your warning and then whined when they saw what you had warned them about? Sheesh!

Anonymous said...

No wonder these people voted for Trump. They are too stupid to do anything else.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the world of Trump. This is what many Americans voted for.

Anonymous said...

In my view, these complaints confirm that the individual in the nude photo is Judge Bill Pryor. If it wasn't him, why would the complainers care about the photo.

JOHN KOKTOSEN said...

LS,

I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LET GOOGLE OR ANY OTHER PLATFORM DICTATE YOUR RIGHT TO SPEECH; FREE, CRUDE, OBNOXIOUS OR BULLYING AS IT MAY BE.

YOU ARE THE LEGAL FUCKING SCHNUAUZER, FOR GOD SAKES. THEY DONT KNOW WHO THEY ARE MESSING WITH.

PUT THAT DICK PIC BACK UP, FRONT AND CENTER. I FOR ONE LOVE SEEING THAT CLOSETED CASE, NAMBLA MEMBER, UNMANSCAPED, ROBE WEARER'S HALF WOOD.

FILE A LAW SUIT POST HASTE AGAINST GOOGLE. YOU CAN WIN. YOU NEED TO WIN. YOU NEED TO NOT LET THEM PUSH YOU AROUND, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS THINK THEY CAN DO.

FIGHT! CARPE DIEM.

AND REMEMBER....THEY DREW FIRST BLOOD, THEY DREW FIRST BLOOD!

Anonymous said...


I voted for Trump and don't regret it but would very much dislike if Sessions got in. Don't trust Sessions and I don't think most of Alabama trusts him either.

legalschnauzer said...

Hah! Good comment, John. BTW, are familiar with the powers of Xanax

Brian said...

One flaw about your "warning": because the image is on the same page as the "warning", it is still downloaded to the computer viewing the page. Meaning even if you say there is a NSFW image on the page, by the time the reader sees that message, the NSFW image is in that reader computers memory whether or not they wanted it to be. Essentially, even though you think you are warning users, you are not giving then a choice. Anybody monitoring their usage will see that they viewed an image of a naked man.

JOHN KOKTOSEN said...

LS
I prefer adderall, which I had just taken prior to my last post (midterm prep before tgiving break, it aint easy staying in UAB, ya know??)
Fuck them up LS...

legalschnauzer said...

Good luck on your finals John K., and go Blazers!

legalschnauzer said...

Brian:

Maybe I don't follow you completely, but sounds like you are describing readers who are concerned about a nude image appearing on their computer memory, even though they haven't seen it. If they haven't seen it, how do they know to complain about it?

Also, are they worried about some kind of Computer Cops Unit that is going to come to their house and say, "Hmmm, there is a nude image in your computer memory, that will be about 50 years in the slammer for you?"

I wasn't aware of such units. Is that something Trump already has passed? If so, I guess Melania is in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

Schnauzer -- I'm thinking Pryor and his gang are trying to mess with your computer and Web because you now live in Missouri, and it's probably harder for them to throw you in the Big House, like they did before.

Maybe they should have left you alone in Shelby County.

legalschnauzer said...

Hah, that's quite an idea there, @5:17. You might be onto something. Would serve them right to force us to God-forsaken Missouri and then have it blow up in their seedy, oily faces.

Brian said...

Nope, no Computer Cops Unit, but how about a Human Resources department at a reader's employer? How about a spouse (who may be insecure)?

And you might not understand how your webpage flows. Even though you gave a warning about scrolling down, On the desktop site, you have to scroll past the image to get to the comment section. On the mobile version, you can get to the comment section without seeing the image.

Anonymous said...

Schnauzie..it sounds like they , meaning those politicans out to get you, have backed you in a corner and you are coming across as flustered. Let's get after them !

legalschnauzer said...

Brian --

I think you are grasping at straws. It's beside the point anyway because I've replaced the full nude photo with a redacted version.

You don't make it clear how someone can complain about a picture they have not seen.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @7:21 -- @7:26

Contact me directly at rshuler3156@gmail.com or (205) 381-5673. Would be glad to discuss your theories and your expertise for making them. Look forward to hearing from you.

legalschnauzer said...

7:19 --

"Backed into a corner"? How? "Coming across as flustered?" How? You seem to be coming from your own peculiar reality. Contact me directly and ID yourself, and I would be happy to discuss. How flustered is that?

Anonymous said...

For those trying to convince us that's not Pryor in the nude pix, based on the hair part, here is something to consider. In the days of darkrooms, it was very easy to reverse a negative, making right become left and left become right. Happened a lot, either accidentally or intentionally. There's a good chance that happened on the original print back in early 80s. I've tried reversing the image again and placing it next to Judge Pryor, and the two are pretty much identical, right down to the crossed eyes, the arched left eyebrow and the attached ear lobes, which are quite rare. No doubt it is him.

Anonymous said...

My name is Ben Dover but I'm not sure how that will help you. Just an observation Schnauzie. I've been a big supporter of yours and would hate for these cannibalizing politicians censor you !

legalschnauzer said...

Good point, @8:03. Also a protruding front tooth is clear in the second nude photo, which I have not run yet, along with pix of the judge. It's him. The nervous-Nelly commenters know it's him, and that's why they whined to Google -- and why they never will contact me directly to explain their various theories, which don't hold water.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:06 -- Good one, Ben Dover. Taken right from the Simpsons. Gotta love that.

Anonymous said...

Hello. I flagged your blog. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. I have nothing to do with any of the people mentioned and I've never heard of either since I am not American. I just thought that it was appropriate that the warning was in place and since it is Google's policy to host adult content (such as sexual nudity) behind a content wall. The flag also allows content filtering software to know to block minors which I am sure you do not have a problem with. I am not completely familiar with the platform but I believe you have the ability to set the warning yourself which you probably should have if you are going to post this or you could have done as you have done now and pixelate the "offending" part of the image. As I said, don't get too worked up about it. It's not a conspiracy. You just didn't follow Google's policy as per flagging your own adult content so I did it for you. Next time I suggest you read up on the terms and conditions of the site (as any legal schnauzer should really do). I know nobody does but then, if you don't, things like this happen. Perhaps you should be happy Google didn't close your blog down for that. Cheers.

P.S. Someone above made the very valid point that anyone surfing at work would have already downloaded the photo possibly in contravention of their work policy. I think you should really just be a lot more considerate instead of complaining that Google enforced their own policy that you should really have been aware of.

Anonymous said...

You need to run that second photo. Screw Pryor and all those scared Trumpistas. Let's nail the judge and show the world their hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Will some federal court please put a stop to this madness and file a PMO {penis measurement order)NOW!!! A PMO order is a rare mostly unknown tool of the court that could answer the question of just who it is that is attached to this penis. When the family value God fearing far right took control of our courts we have been faced with a flood of penis issues that had to be address. It seems that the penis is at the top of the list of the far right so the courts had to find a way of connecting which penis went with which family value judge. The answer has been with the court order PMO. The penis measurement order is a high tech scientific method of using computers along with the skilled hands of conservative family value Carl Rove loving republicans to take a "hands on" approach to finding answers. It is past time for the court to order a PMO and demand that this judge, whipped it out so that the republicans can get their hands around this problem before it blows off in someone face. Do your part to make Alabama great again, pardon Mike Hubbard before he gets rear ended by Bubba.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:42 --

This is from Google's policy for reporting inappropriate content:

"If an author’s contact information is listed on their blog, contact them directly to ask them to remove or change the content in question."

My e-mail address is on the front page of the blog; it's hard to miss, on right-hand side. Did you contact me directly, as Google's policy directs? No, you did not. So, you violated Google policy in order to report my alleged violation of Google policy, which you acknowledge is no longer a violation of Google policy.

Why don't you contact Google, admit you violated their policy, and withdraw your complaint?

Peter M. said...

Re Roger at @8:42

You have shown you do not understand US child protection laws and are also oblivious to the fact you are putting your users at great risk with that image. As soon as I saw the image of the nude boy I reported it, just as I am obligated to do by law.

Roger you spout all sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo and then turn around and do something beyond foolish. This makes me realize that you probably don't have a clue in other areas either.

No choice but for me and others to report you to the authorities. You can sort it out with them.

legalschnauzer said...

Peter M --

Methinks you are a little too cocky for your own good. Fist, the image is not of a "nude boy." It is of Bill Pryor while he was a student at NE Louisiana and was 18-22 years of age. I've interviewed law-enforcement folks who were involved in the investigation, and I have those interviews on tape.

To whom did you report this? If you reported it to Google, you violated their policy, which requires you to contact the blogger first (when contact information is available, and mine is).

Who do you mean by "authorities"? If you mean law enforcement, and you reported it to them, you are going to wish you hadn't. Filing a false report with law enforcement is a crime, and I will seek to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. It also is a civil wrong, and I will sue you for every penny you've got.

Again, you are a bit too cocky for your own good. This might be a game to you, but it's not to me. You might have set yourself up for some serious legal trouble.

Peter M. said...

Roger, there is nothing the least bit cocky about what I did. I am legally and morally obligated to report content online that I reasonably believe does not comply with the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Period.

Your reporting and speculation concerning the image is one thing -- I don't really care about Bill Pryor, honestly. But publishing what may well be child pornography is a whole other matter entirely. You cannot prove that the nude image you published is of a person 18 years of age or older. This is not in dispute.

Threaten me all you want. There is nothing false about what I and others have reported. I know I stand on solid legal ground. More than that, we all have a moral obligation to stop child exploitation. This is a substantial moral failure on your part, I have to say. I'm disgusted by your behavior, but at least you're consistent.

Do yourself a favor and Google "2257 Regulations".

legalschnauzer said...

If you don't like the word cocky, we will call you stupid. You just admitted you have no idea if it's child pornography or not. I can prove it's of a person who is 18 or over, and you can't prove it is someone under 18. That is what's not in dispute.

It's not a matter of threatening you. We live in a world where there are penalties, criminal and civil, for making false allegations against people. And I guarantee you will pay those penalties, to the fullest extent of the law, if you've done what you say you've done. There is no "child exploitation" here. If there were, you would be contacting badpuppy.com and other Web sites that have run it. In fact, it's on the Web (unredacted) right now, but you've done nothing about that, based on your comments.

Why? Because you do care about Bill Pryor, and only Bill Pryor, and your child protection BS is just a ruse. If you want to look at "substantial moral failure," look in the mirror and count up the number of lies you've laid out there.

As for me, I hope you have reported this to somebody because I'm going to enjoy coming after your whiny ass. So, we got that cleared up -- you aren't cocky, you are very, very stupid.

Anonymous said...

I am quite familiar with 2257 and its regulations and you, Mr. Schnauzer, do not even come close to meeting the definition of a "producer," which is what the law is designed to regulate. Peter M., to put it mildly, is full of shit.


http://gregpiccionelli.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202:ten-frequently-asked-questions-about-the-2257-regulations&catid=87&Itemid=1258

Anonymous said...

@5:44 is correct. 2257 is designed to regulate adult-entertainment businesses. Your blog hardly qualifies. Peter M must think stupid people read your blog and will fall for his con game. He is wrong about that.

Brian said...

Google's policy on what to do about content varies on which page you visit.

Go to www.blogger.com/content.g?hl=en and you will notice there is nothing about contacting the blog owner, just please report it to us".

Go to support.google.com/blogger/answer/76315?hl=en and it does state to contact the blog owner first.

Google itself is not consistent in their policies.

legalschnauzer said...

Brian --

You are correct, Google is very inconsistent. Makes it pretty hard to follow their policies, but I'm looking into it. The warning appeared to be gone last night from laptops/desktops, but it still appeared on mobile devices. Now, it seems to be back across board. Working on solution, but Google is like trying to deal with the Federal Reserve.

Wendy said...

I will keep reporting your site, forever if need be! to make sure that your abusive exploitation of children and adults is flagged by Google. I think you can expect us to never give up this fight. You produce fake news that abuses women and children.

Peter M. said...

Rage rage rage, Roger!

You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it, can you, Roger?

I do not give two shits about Bill Pryor, I really don't. He's just another right wing asshole. I wish it were Pryor in that photo, but we both know it isn't.

You know what all that anger amounts to, Roger? Nothing. It's just noise. You're impotent, and everyone knows it.

You've never won a court case in your life and suing me sure isn't going to change that. Please, come after me. I dare you. I double dare you. It would be fun.

legalschnauzer said...

Peter M:

Sounds to me like you are the one filled with rage. I have won a court case, and if the law is actually applied, I've won every court case I've been involved in. (Although if judges actually applied the law, I would have been involved in only one case.) Look it up yourself, although I'm sure you are too lazy to do any real work. File a false report against me, and you will get your wish, both criminally and civilly. And I can promise, it won't be fun.

legalschnauzer said...

Wendy:

So you are admitting that you intend to violate Google policies in order to step on my First Amendment rights. I suspect you just have a big mouth, but if you actually try that, you had better be prepared to lawyer up and put your money where your big mouth is.

Anonymous said...

Peter M,

If LS is "impotent," why are you reading his blog, getting riled up about it, and making numerous comments. For someone who is "impotent," LS sure seems to be under your skin.

Anonymous said...

Wendy:

Can you give any examples of fake news from LS, exploiting women and children? Those are big, tough words. Can you back them up?

legalschnauzer said...

Wendy informs me that she doesn't respond to anonymous queries, even though she herself is essentially anonymous, with only a first name that may or may not be real. Anyway, I will pose the same question to Wendy that @1:30 posed above:


Wendy:

Can you give any examples of fake news from LS, exploiting women and children? Those are big, tough words. Can you back them up?


legalschnauzer said...

Memo to Peter M --

I suspect you are mostly bluster, and not much else. If you truly believe one who falsely reports child-porn charges can't be sued, you aren't smart enough to be engaging in this conversation. On the off chance that you proceed as you've stated, don't say you haven't been warned. You've admitted you have no facts to support your child-porn claims, so you will be waving a big red "sue me" sign in front of a bull -- not to mention possible criminal charges.

Good luck, but you could be heading for the biggest mistake you've ever made. I will nail you, and it won't be pleasant.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:25 -- Can you share links to some of these forums? I would be interested in taking a look at them. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

From @8:25

The open organization is going on at http://8ch.net/

and specifically
https://8ch.net/pol/

You might notice that this site openly discusses child porn. No coincidence you are being attacked based on the nude photo you published. That should tell you a lot about the mindset of the people attacking you. They're monsters.

These discussion groups do not retain posts for very long and that is why you may or may not see attacks against you, but you will always see multiple targets being discussed.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for the info, @7:52. That adds to the evidence that these people have several screws loose. I've done the legwork to know that it is of Bill Pryor, from Northeast Louisiana U in Monroe, LA, and he is in 18-22 age range. I've interviewed the law enforcement personnel who investigated this. I get the feeling these ding dongs have not bothered to read my posts about how this photo came to light. It's been on my site since 2013, and it's right now at two spots on the Web, with no blurring or redaction.

These folks are just screwballs; thanks for shining light.

Anonymous said...

Roger 8ch not 'just screwballs' they are VERY dangerous. They are the digital 'brown shirts' that do dirty work for Trümp & what used to be the fringe (now mainstream) right. Modern Nazis adept at psychological attacks. Sadists who stop at nothing.

Do not visit 8ch. Do not engage them. Strongly suggest you move on & stop mentioning Trümp by name, but don't give up on Pryor.

Anonymous said...

Roger you've got nothing to fear from a bunch of net trolls do you? I can't imagine anyway.

Anonymous said...

ONE WARNING, CUCK. THIS IS IT.

legalschnauzer said...

One warning about what? And who is "Cuck"?


Is this supposed to be all scary and stuff?

Mark Hayden said...

The real issue is Pryor used Tainted evidence to send Walter Leroy Moody to Death Row. Read
Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne Pryor used fake evidence to get murder conviction and then gives immunity to Robert S Vance for orders giving orders while not the judge assigned to case. read about frederick whitehurst FBI whistleblower scandal