@midnight_r0: A 10 missing… #bikerboy #biketok #BookTok

Midnightr0

Open In TikTok:

Region: GB

Tuesday 04 August 2026 10:51:32 GMT

17292

2625

121

54

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (4.61MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (3.31MB) Watermark .mp4 (0MB) Music .mp3

Comments

Call_centr 𓆩❤︎𓆪 :

You can bite your hand off with a helmet like that 😂😂

2026-09-12 09:55:59

0

𝓐𝓶𝔂 :

2026-08-04 19:28:18

7

Blaney :

How tall are you bro cus I make them R1s look small and I’m 6ft 😅

2026-08-10 10:27:31

1

Mary(^^) :

damn..

2026-08-04 10:55:12

1

Double Click Pics (Lorz) :

You are all over my fyp 😳🫣

2026-08-04 13:01:32

1

To see more videos from user @midnight_r0, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Teri Meri Kahaani #foryou #vampire_queen1 #my_cat #indiansong #fypシ

Teri Meri Kahaani #foryou #vampire_queen1 #my_cat #indiansong #fypシ

HELLNAH, something simple#owm #onewheatmark #mikewheeler #byler #fpyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy @TikTok

HELLNAH, something simple#owm #onewheatmark #mikewheeler #byler #fpyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy @TikTok

A man in South Korea took his dog to the vet. What happened next almost sent him to prison. In 2017 he brought his dog to a clinic for treatment. He believed the animal was put through excessive testing, steered toward a surgery it didn't need, and left at risk of losing its sight. He wanted to do what any person does after a bad experience with a business. Write down what happened, name the clinic and the vet, and post it where other pet owners could read it and decide for themselves. But in South Korea, doing that could send you to prison for up to two years. Even if every single word is true. The law is Article 307, Paragraph 1 of the Korean Criminal Act. It's called defamation by stating facts. Paragraph 1 punishes anyone who publicly damages another person's reputation by alleging facts: up to two years in prison or a fine of five million won. Paragraph 2 covers false facts with a heavier maximum of five years. Truth lowers the ceiling on the penalty. It does not erase the crime. There is one exit. Article 310 spares a true statement only when it was made purely in the public interest. But the speaker has to convince a prosecutor and then a court that their motive was public rather than personal. That's a judgment about an interior state nobody can fully see, applied after the fact, by someone who was not there. The man challenged the law in front of the Constitutional Court. In February 2021, he lost by a single vote. All he wanted was to give other pet owners enough information to make their own choice about where to take an animal they loved. The law's answer was that the choice was not his to hand them. So the question becomes: whose reputations are being shielded, and what exactly are they being shielded from?

A man in South Korea took his dog to the vet. What happened next almost sent him to prison. In 2017 he brought his dog to a clinic for treatment. He believed the animal was put through excessive testing, steered toward a surgery it didn't need, and left at risk of losing its sight. He wanted to do what any person does after a bad experience with a business. Write down what happened, name the clinic and the vet, and post it where other pet owners could read it and decide for themselves. But in South Korea, doing that could send you to prison for up to two years. Even if every single word is true. The law is Article 307, Paragraph 1 of the Korean Criminal Act. It's called defamation by stating facts. Paragraph 1 punishes anyone who publicly damages another person's reputation by alleging facts: up to two years in prison or a fine of five million won. Paragraph 2 covers false facts with a heavier maximum of five years. Truth lowers the ceiling on the penalty. It does not erase the crime. There is one exit. Article 310 spares a true statement only when it was made purely in the public interest. But the speaker has to convince a prosecutor and then a court that their motive was public rather than personal. That's a judgment about an interior state nobody can fully see, applied after the fact, by someone who was not there. The man challenged the law in front of the Constitutional Court. In February 2021, he lost by a single vote. All he wanted was to give other pet owners enough information to make their own choice about where to take an animal they loved. The law's answer was that the choice was not his to hand them. So the question becomes: whose reputations are being shielded, and what exactly are they being shielded from?

aimons nous vivants #motivation #conseil #developpementpersonnel #pourtoiii

aimons nous vivants #motivation #conseil #developpementpersonnel #pourtoiii

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy