PEDOGATE 2020 | PART 4
In PEDOGATE 2020, Mouthy Buddha investigates evidence of pedophilia and child trafficking hiding in plain sight.
Thank you for supporting Dauntless Dialogue! Because we’ve been censored from many video platforms, we’ve had to use a video streaming service that won’t censor our content. You may experience buffering delays or slower loading times than what you’re accustomed to on larger platforms. Please be patient and try re-loading the video content or using a different browser. Thank you for your understanding and for supporting free speech content creators.
Mouthy, keep up the excellent work. You’re definitely on to something here. Just recently, a video from Nick Crowley, a Youtuber who makes content regarding dark and disturbing events just revealed some new information regarding Piper Bynes:
Hope he keeps going….the last video was made for YT though and is still censored.
I feel sick. This is outrageous!!
DOST TEST
This article discusses the case United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986); not United States v. Dost, 575 F.2d 1303 (10th Cir. 1978)
The Dost test is a six-factor guideline established in 1986 in the United States district court case United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D.Cal. 1986). The case involved 22 nude or semi-nude photographs of females aged 10–14 years old. The undeveloped film containing the images was mailed to a photo processing company in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California.[1]
Criteria
In order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B), the court developed six criteria. Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.[1][2][3] For example, in United States v. Johnson, three Dost factors (sexually suggestive setting, inappropriate attire or unnatural poses, and a suggestion of sexual coyness) were absent from the videos taken by the defendant, but the Eighth Circuit ruled that a reasonable jury could still find that he had acted lasciviously.[4]
Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area.
Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.