An anonymous reader writes "Jack Thompson has done it again, now by making available gay porn for unlimited viewing on public records. Judge Jordan wrote on an issued order: 'The attached exhibit, which includes several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males, was filed electronically in the docket in this case, without prior permission from the court... To the extent that the other attorney's alleged conduct is in any way relevant... there was no need for Mr. Thompson to file these graphic images in the public record. A simple reference to the website and its alleged links would have sufficed...'" I'm usually not a fan of giving Thompson continued free publicity, but some of the things he does are just too outlandish not to share.
While I sometimes think accusing political homophobes of being closet homosexuals, I often wonder whether some of these individuals are or not. I remember the first time someone told me about fisting, it was a rather venemous Fundementalist Christian on Usenet laying out in detail the "disgusting" practices of homosexuals. The guy's attention to detail was such that I read his post and thought "Who but a homosexual would be that interested in the explicit sexual activities of homosexuals?" I get that feeling from a few of the more vocal homophobes out there, they're just too in tune with the gay sex.
In Thompson's case, I doubt it. The guy is just an attention whore. He'd do anything providing it got him attention.
it's hard to say. osama bin laden has an obsessive hatred and knowledge of the united states it's scary. do you think deep down he wishes he was american? I don't think so. it's all for shock value.
it's hard to say. osama bin laden has an obsessive hatred and knowledge of the united states it's scary. do you think deep down he wishes he was american? I don't think so. it's all for shock value.
The fact that X is the likely cause of outcome Y in situation Z does not mean that X must be the likely cause of outcome Y in all situations. That is a false generalization. This morning my telephone rang because I had placed a wake up call the night before. That does not mean that this is always the reason that a telphone rings or even the most likely reason for a telephone to ring, it is however the most likely reason in a hotel.
Bin Laden has a deep seated hatred of all the inconvenient obstacles that lie between him and control of Saudi Arabia. He was quite happy to co-operate with the US when it suited him. When he fell out with the Saudi monarchy he resented the fact that it would be difficult to replace them with so many US bases on Saudi soil.
Bin Laden has since fallen in with Zawahiri who has provided him with a means of rationalizing his hatred. Zawahiri in turn is obsessed with the idea of replacing the government of Egypt. He was instrumental in the assasination of Sadat in 1981 and took over the leadership of Islamic Jihad. Zawahiri's proximate complaint was the peace treaty with Israel.
It is difficult to discuss Bin Laden rationally due to the propensity of wingnuts to deliberately take statements out of context for their own purposes. Bill Moyer was quite right to point out that the epithet 'coward' is thrown arround as if it were a purely normative ethical statement. It is necessary to proceed in small steps. Understanding the enemy in their true light is always important. The flaw in Bin Laden's ideology is the fact that he starts from utterly false premises, not a mere flaw in his logic or an inability to apply logic (aka irrational). He is not irrational in the sense of being entirely unpredictable or acting from entirely arbitrary impulses. Nor is his behaviour is self-defeating, on the contrary he has been allowed to achieve many of his political goals, in particular the demand that every terrorist makes and almost none achivies: to be treated as a political actor rather than a common criminal.
Whatever your particular ideological stripe, I think it's very important to understand bin Laden...
There's a tension between understanding and demonizing. To win, you must often adopt a false, derogatory image of the enemy. In WWII, the US created a propaganda image of Germans as pompous buffoons. In reality, they were probably the best military on the planet. But we needed to mock them; how else do you get the nerve to face the most efficient killing machine on the planet?
When Bush first called the 9/11 attackers "cowards", I was very displeased by the inaccuracy of the remark. Over the next several years, I gradually realized that it's not his job to provide accurate analysis of those guys; it's his job to fling feces at the other team, attacking their confidence and self-image.
I would like him to go further, and attack the whole idea that shahids (martyrs) will be rewarded in Paradise. Not that I expect prospective martyrs to believe GW Bush, but when party A has a very clear story, and party B has no rebuttal, it's hard to blame people for siding with party A.
While I sometimes think accusing political homophobes of being closet homosexuals, I often wonder whether some of these individuals are or not.
Most likely they are.
There was a study performed in the '90s where both normal and homophobic men were shown heterosexual and gay porn. They found;
Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic
men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I applaud your attempted misreading of your quoted citation:
And I applaud your ability to spin even the most minor quibble by the authors into a denial of the finding.
The section I quoted was from the précis of the full article. A summary if the findings, in other words. That summary states clearly that homophobic men were observed to respond to gay sex where non-homophobic men did not.
It is an observation, where Barlow's paper suggests that anxiety causes the response is a hypothesis.
If you choose to believe a large collection of random homophobes simultaneously produced boners at a gay stag movie because they were scared, when an equal number of non-homophobes did not, then I'll not argue, but that still lives us with an obvious conclusion.
> Incidentally (and I'm guessing this is where you're coming from) being a "homosexual > offender" (1 Corinthians 6:9) means doing something sexual to someone of the same sex. If > you refuse to follow the stimulus then no "sin" is committed (YMMV). Just as if you're > tempted to steal but don't you are not a thief, etc..
It is not really relevant, as the accusation of being homosexual in this context refers to being attracted to your own gender.
> The you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument is quite an intriguing one (I hate bananas!).
If you really emotionally hate bananas, rather than just disliking the taste of them, I'd believe some interesting psychological artifact must lie behind. Could it be that they a vaguely phallic, and thus remind you of sides of your own sexuality that makes you uncomfortable?
> It's logically flawed, of course, but is a "stronger" argument for those lacking any > factual basis than a simple ad-hominem attack as it's hard to refute against a weak > minded opposition....
In general yes, like many generalizations, but for a specific case, no.
I came independently to the conclusion in my youth because a (at the time) common "rational" argument for suppressing homosexual practice was that if everyone were allowed to practice homosexual sex, there would be no children, and the human race would go extinct. That argument makes only sense for someone who is attracted to his or her own gender.
> Of course the reason you hate theists is because you realise the truth about your > relationship with god but don't want to admit it.:0)>
I believe people who hate theist have some deep emotional problems, typically dating back to their childhood, growing up in a suppressive theist environment. Atheism is, by nature, not something the "believers" tend to feel strong about. There really isn't anything there to feel strong about. All the fanatical atheists I have meet have been reformed theists. Their hate is part of their liberation process. Similar to how the most fanatical anti-smokers and anti-drinking people are former addicts.
Apparently, this is not something new for good ole JT. He's been cautioned before about including pornography in his filings. From the article:
... this isn't the first time Thompson has been warned by a court not to include suggestive photos in those case filings. An April 12th entry in the Florida Supreme Court docket covering the Florida Bar's case against Thompson includes this notation:
...the Court notes that [Thompson] has attached inappropriate and pornographic materials to his petitions that are irrelevant to his arguments. Respondent is warned that should he continue to submit such inappropriate filings, the Court will consider imposing sanctions which may include, but are not limited to, a limitation on Respondent's ability to submit further filings without the signature of an attorney other than himself.
I'm kind of disappointed. I want him to come up with some new tricks to amuse me.
While including materials irrelevant to the case in court documents may be worthy of censure, I am curious as to how the future review or study of a case will be done based on "A simple reference to the website and its alleged links" in place of hard documents (e.g.: paper or a CD) given the ephemeral nature of many web sites.
Technical merits aside, it is accepted practice to cite to internet materials (usually by url + date last visited, which is at least a nod to the fact that the medium isn't fixed). In general, if it's a document only you or the other party has, you attach it as an exhibit; if it's publicly available -- book, journal, website, etc -- you cite to it but don't attach it.
You keep thinking he couldn't get any wackier and do anything more outlandish than subpoena the President, and then he goes and does this. There's a progression; subpoenas -> pornpenis -> nopennies Expect him to protest the new one-cent coins on the grounds that Lincoln was of questionable sexuality, and wholly undeserving of a coin of his own.
How will you top this, Mr. Thompson? Are you gonna shoot the Pope?
Sounds like a win-win situation to me, though the pope could easily deflect the bullets by using the immense power of the Dark Side of the Force and then it's just a crazy-ass lawyer who's out of bullets up against an incredibly powerful Emperor who could crush all of his internal organs into sandwich paste with sheer will power. We'd still have Pope Palpatine but at least we'd be rid of Thompson.
He's like the Andy Kaufman of the US legal system.
Someday REM will sing a song about him.
And Jim Carrey will star as Thompson in a bio, and will give a stirring speech at the end talking about how filing explicit pictures of gay sex and trying to censor anything that makes him angry is the American way. Carey will go on to win his first Oscar, and Thompson will file suit against him for character assassination, and will include pictures of beastiality.
The sad part really is... when doing this he honestly believes that he is discrediting Norm Kent rather then himself.
He is over estimating how 'horrified' people are by homosexuality, believing that by bringing these images to the courts attention that he is somehow unmasking the horrors of Mr Kent's orientation.
Just be grateful he's spending long hours, night after night protecting us from the gays. Maybe he should move to Iran I hear they don't have gay people there.
Of course they do, that's not the point OP was making. Recently, the president of Iran claimed "we have no homosexuals in Iran." He said it three times in a row at Columbia U. At first, the students laughed at him, then started booing (lightly) the ridiculous statement.
The reality is, they probably don't have anyone who will admit to being gay since it carries the death penalty.
Jack Thompson's "moral crusade" against video games, obscenity, rap and well anything morally devient is due wholely to his own immoral desires. Jack cannot control his porn cravings and his lust for violence. So he goes on a holy crusade to eliminate the corruption of the world as a cover. In reality he is fighting his own internal demons.
Jack Thompson feels that by cleaning the world, his internal struggle will diminish and he will become a normal and productive human in the near future. The fool crusade he runs is selfish and in no way there to benefit humanity as a whole.
There is possibly quite a bit more 100 million video game systems out there. Yet if video games turned people violent, then there's be at least 1-20 million murders a year related to video games, providing that is 1-20% conversion rate. yet the fact is that quite possibly 0.00004% video gamers turn criminally violent.
There are over 17,000,000 registered gun users in the USA alone, yet we dont have murder numbers that even come close to that. 99.99901% of gun crime is done by Illegaly obtained fire arms. I've known many gamers who play violent games and own real guns. Yet somehow they have failed to kill anyone.
Jack plays a numbers game formatted to his own crusade. He wants to win for once, since pretty much every other crusade he has taken up failed in some way.
Jack needs a psychiatrist to help him, not an end to the worlds deviance. Any lawyer who sends his photo ID with batman pasted over it, has some sort of mental ailment that needs professional help.
To JAck, I hope you get well. Just dont bring down the rest of the world because of your war with your inner demons. Just fight youw own internal battle and let us govern ourselves.
Jack Thompson's "moral crusade" against video games, obscenity, rap and well anything morally devient is due wholely to his own immoral desires. Jack cannot control his porn cravings and his lust for violence.
The sad thing is that you are probably right. From my experience, the most adamant moral crusaders are usually those who have trouble leading a life according to their own sense of morality. So, they try to force others to live morally while applying a form of psychological violence to themselves. Developing as a moral human being requires growth and maturity, not (for example) flogging yourself whenever you have naughty thoughts about women you are not married to.
Jack is clearly an overly aggressive person (I know, "No shit!"). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were a closet homosexual, or at least a latent homosexual who tries violently to deny it to himself.
It's kind of like David Hager, a gynecologist who worked for the FDA. Hager stopped the emergency contraception pill Plan B from being sold over-the-counter despite the science advisory committee suggesting that it should be. For the second time in fifty years, the suggestion of the committee was ignored. The objection was that it would encourage unprotected sex. Eventually, Plan B was sold OTC but the fact that the FDA was politicalized made news.
During a divorce, Hager's wife alleged that he had raped and sodomized her while she was asleep under the influence of prescription medication. His defense was that he had gotten lost and hadn't meant to sodomize her. (I forget how he got around the whole unwanted sex part of the charges.) Yes, a gynecologist couldn't find his wife's personal parts.
I'd be the last to defend this wacko in general, and I can't read his pea brain to fathom his motives, but when dealing with images from websites that are to be used as some sort of evidence in a lawsuit or other court filing, it may be that simply providing a URL to the images has its potential pitfalls. Websites and links, especially for pr0n, come and go, and it would be pretty frustrating to provide the URLs, then to find that by the time someone gets around to viewing them, there's nothing but a 404 or some abandoned domain holding page there. Sure, maybe there's a cache of it on Google or Wayback or somewhere, but maybe there isn't. Then you have to try to see if there is a cache of the page sitting on some other server somewhere, and it gets more complicated.
Personally, if I had a legal case that depended on some image or text on a website, I'd rely not on an image, transcript, or URL reference, but would want to take a screenshot of a browser displaying the page in question, as well as the date and time stamp. That would seem to be of far more evidentiary value in the event that the site gets nuked in an attempt to cover someone's ass.
(And yes, I realize that last sentence left y'all wide open to make some humorous gay pr0n reference....have at it.)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 26 2007, @01:43PM (#20758435)
Thompson becomes a little more like Ann Coulter every day. So sad and crazy that you feel pity, but then they open their yap and you remember why you despise them more than pity them.
You give Thompson a lot of credit... Ann Coulter is a very smart woman. She's made a career from shock politics - talking about her like she's insane or something only plays into the image that she's selling. It keeps her in the limelight, sells books, and gets her column space. Don't play her game by buying it.
. . . they think it's amusing to kick around a mentally incompetent person.
Don't be tricked: mentally incompetent or not he's still dangerous as long as he is consulted for interviews in which he can spew ignorance and has the ear of lawmakers to which he can spew FUD.
"The guy is mentally ill, is not in any way a policymaker and the only reason why he keeps getting attention here and from the gam3r media is that they think it's amusing to kick around a mentally incompetent person."
No, the reason he gets attention is because he's trying to infringe on our rights and has enough power to be dangerous.
If he was some nut screaming on a street corner, we'd ignore him, but he shows up on MSNBC, so he needs to be rebutted.
It has nothing to do with him being mentally incompetent. We didn't just go out and pick someone who is mentally ill to kick around. This guy came after us. He made threats, he lied about us as gamers, he's trying to infringe on other people's free speech.
He gets attention from us because the media takes the man seriously. At least, they did before this -- I'm not sure how many interviews he'll get after this.
He is ridiculous, no one will argue that point (except perhaps Jack Thompson), but he is still a threat because he believes he is right and has not yet been discredited in the media.
Actually, I'm surprised the nut isn't cohosting a show with Nancy Grace yet, now that I think about it.
No, I'm talking about Janet Reno [wikipedia.org]. The incident is actually one of the great celebrated examples of Jack's kookiness. Quoth Wikipedia (which, alas, cites paper sources):
Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Thompson said that Reno then put her hand on his shoulder and responded, "I'm only interested in virile men. That's why I'm not attracted to you."[10][11] He filed a police report accusing her of battery for touching him. In response, Reno asked Florida governor Bob Martinez to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate.[12] The special prosecutor rejected the charge, concluding that it was "a political ploy." Reno was ultimately re-elected with 69% of the vote. Thompson repeated allegations that Reno was a lesbian when she was nominated as U.S. Attorney General, leading one of her supporters, lieutenant governor Buddy MacKay, to dismiss him as a "kook."[10]
Actually, it is, in a public venue. JT was in violation of Florida obscenity laws by doing what he did. Just as much as if he had posted straight porn to a court docket.
Had he presented this in a court-room, it likely would have been a different story.
Uh, thanks, Jack. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uh, thanks, Jack. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Uh, thanks, Jack. (Score:4, Funny)
They were, after all, self-portrait.
Parent
Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:5, Funny)
Against it or for it - you know that when he's obsessed - he's a Homo.
Parent
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Thompson's case, I doubt it. The guy is just an attention whore. He'd do anything providing it got him attention.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that X is the likely cause of outcome Y in situation Z does not mean that X must be the likely cause of outcome Y in all situations. That is a false generalization. This morning my telephone rang because I had placed a wake up call the night before. That does not mean that this is always the reason that a telphone rings or even the most likely reason for a telephone to ring, it is however the most likely reason in a hotel.
Bin Laden has a deep seated hatred of all the inconvenient obstacles that lie between him and control of Saudi Arabia. He was quite happy to co-operate with the US when it suited him. When he fell out with the Saudi monarchy he resented the fact that it would be difficult to replace them with so many US bases on Saudi soil.
Bin Laden has since fallen in with Zawahiri who has provided him with a means of rationalizing his hatred. Zawahiri in turn is obsessed with the idea of replacing the government of Egypt. He was instrumental in the assasination of Sadat in 1981 and took over the leadership of Islamic Jihad. Zawahiri's proximate complaint was the peace treaty with Israel.
It is difficult to discuss Bin Laden rationally due to the propensity of wingnuts to deliberately take statements out of context for their own purposes. Bill Moyer was quite right to point out that the epithet 'coward' is thrown arround as if it were a purely normative ethical statement. It is necessary to proceed in small steps. Understanding the enemy in their true light is always important. The flaw in Bin Laden's ideology is the fact that he starts from utterly false premises, not a mere flaw in his logic or an inability to apply logic (aka irrational). He is not irrational in the sense of being entirely unpredictable or acting from entirely arbitrary impulses. Nor is his behaviour is self-defeating, on the contrary he has been allowed to achieve many of his political goals, in particular the demand that every terrorist makes and almost none achivies: to be treated as a political actor rather than a common criminal.
Thompson's bizare actions on the other hand...
Parent
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a tension between understanding and demonizing. To win, you must often adopt a false, derogatory image of the enemy. In WWII, the US created a propaganda image of Germans as pompous buffoons. In reality, they were probably the best military on the planet. But we needed to mock them; how else do you get the nerve to face the most efficient killing machine on the planet?
When Bush first called the 9/11 attackers "cowards", I was very displeased by the inaccuracy of the remark. Over the next several years, I gradually realized that it's not his job to provide accurate analysis of those guys; it's his job to fling feces at the other team, attacking their confidence and self-image.
I would like him to go further, and attack the whole idea that shahids (martyrs) will be rewarded in Paradise. Not that I expect prospective martyrs to believe GW Bush, but when party A has a very clear story, and party B has no rebuttal, it's hard to blame people for siding with party A.
Parent
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most likely they are.
There was a study performed in the '90s where both normal and homophobic men were shown heterosexual and gay porn. They found;
Parent
Re: poor citation, try again (temptation != sin) (Score:4, Interesting)
And I applaud your ability to spin even the most minor quibble by the authors into a denial of the finding.
The section I quoted was from the précis of the full article. A summary if the findings, in other words. That summary states clearly that homophobic men were observed to respond to gay sex where non-homophobic men did not.
It is an observation, where Barlow's paper suggests that anxiety causes the response is a hypothesis.
If you choose to believe a large collection of random homophobes simultaneously produced boners at a gay stag movie because they were scared, when an equal number of non-homophobes did not, then I'll not argue, but that still lives us with an obvious conclusion.
Homophobes are either queer or wimps.
Parent
Confused Christian (Score:4, Insightful)
> offender" (1 Corinthians 6:9) means doing something sexual to someone of the same sex. If
> you refuse to follow the stimulus then no "sin" is committed (YMMV). Just as if you're
> tempted to steal but don't you are not a thief, etc..
It is not really relevant, as the accusation of being homosexual in this context refers to being attracted to your own gender.
> The you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument is quite an intriguing one (I hate bananas!).
If you really emotionally hate bananas, rather than just disliking the taste of them, I'd believe some interesting psychological artifact must lie behind. Could it be that they a vaguely phallic, and thus remind you of sides of your own sexuality that makes you uncomfortable?
> It's logically flawed, of course, but is a "stronger" argument for those lacking any
> factual basis than a simple ad-hominem attack as it's hard to refute against a weak
> minded opposition.
In general yes, like many generalizations, but for a specific case, no.
I came independently to the conclusion in my youth because a (at the time) common "rational" argument for suppressing homosexual practice was that if everyone were allowed to practice homosexual sex, there would be no children, and the human race would go extinct. That argument makes only sense for someone who is attracted to his or her own gender.
> Of course the reason you hate theists is because you realise the truth about your
> relationship with god but don't want to admit it.
I believe people who hate theist have some deep emotional problems, typically dating back to their childhood, growing up in a suppressive theist environment. Atheism is, by nature, not something the "believers" tend to feel strong about. There really isn't anything there to feel strong about. All the fanatical atheists I have meet have been reformed theists. Their hate is part of their liberation process. Similar to how the most fanatical anti-smokers and anti-drinking people are former addicts.
Parent
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Uh, thanks, Jack. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Uh, thanks, Jack. (Score:4, Funny)
As it stands, I'm still wondering what this has to do with videogames and am a little scared to RTFA for fear of getting goatse.cx'd.
Parent
Gack! Fix the headline -- quick! (Score:5, Funny)
s/filling/filing
Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
So you made it a story on /.?
Here's to you, Mister Hide It in Plain View Guy!
I love this guy. (Score:5, Interesting)
How will you top this, Mr. Thompson? Are you gonna shoot the Pope?
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I love this guy. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a progression;
subpoenas -> pornpenis -> nopennies
Expect him to protest the new one-cent coins on the grounds that Lincoln was of questionable sexuality, and wholly undeserving of a coin of his own.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like a win-win situation to me, though the pope could easily deflect the bullets by using the immense power of the Dark Side of the Force and then it's just a crazy-ass lawyer who's out of bullets up against an incredibly powerful Emperor who could crush all of his internal organs into sandwich paste with sheer will power. We'd still have Pope Palpatine but at least we'd be rid of Thompson.
Parent
How can you not love this guy? (Score:5, Funny)
Someday REM will sing a song about him.
Parent
Re:How can you not love this guy? (Score:5, Funny)
And Jim Carrey will star as Thompson in a bio, and will give a stirring speech at the end talking about how filing explicit pictures of gay sex and trying to censor anything that makes him angry is the American way. Carey will go on to win his first Oscar, and Thompson will file suit against him for character assassination, and will include pictures of beastiality.
Parent
Sad part... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is over estimating how 'horrified' people are by homosexuality, believing that by bringing these images to the courts attention that he is somehow unmasking the horrors of Mr Kent's orientation.
Re:Sad part... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sad part... (Score:5, Funny)
There, fixed.
Parent
"Court filling"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Court filling"? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I Motion To... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Motion To... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Just Jack! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just Jack! (Score:5, Informative)
The reality is, they probably don't have anyone who will admit to being gay since it carries the death penalty.
Parent
Jack, c'mon... (Score:4, Funny)
It all makes sense now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack Thompson feels that by cleaning the world, his internal struggle will diminish and he will become a normal and productive human in the near future. The fool crusade he runs is selfish and in no way there to benefit humanity as a whole.
There is possibly quite a bit more 100 million video game systems out there. Yet if video games turned people violent, then there's be at least 1-20 million murders a year related to video games, providing that is 1-20% conversion rate. yet the fact is that quite possibly 0.00004% video gamers turn criminally violent.
There are over 17,000,000 registered gun users in the USA alone, yet we dont have murder numbers that even come close to that. 99.99901% of gun crime is done by Illegaly obtained fire arms. I've known many gamers who play violent games and own real guns. Yet somehow they have failed to kill anyone.
Jack plays a numbers game formatted to his own crusade. He wants to win for once, since pretty much every other crusade he has taken up failed in some way.
Jack needs a psychiatrist to help him, not an end to the worlds deviance. Any lawyer who sends his photo ID with batman pasted over it, has some sort of mental ailment that needs professional help.
To JAck, I hope you get well. Just dont bring down the rest of the world because of your war with your inner demons. Just fight youw own internal battle and let us govern ourselves.
Re:It all makes sense now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack is clearly an overly aggressive person (I know, "No shit!"). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were a closet homosexual, or at least a latent homosexual who tries violently to deny it to himself.
Parent
Re:It all makes sense now. (Score:5, Interesting)
During a divorce, Hager's wife alleged that he had raped and sodomized her while she was asleep under the influence of prescription medication. His defense was that he had gotten lost and hadn't meant to sodomize her. (I forget how he got around the whole unwanted sex part of the charges.) Yes, a gynecologist couldn't find his wife's personal parts.
Sigh.
Parent
Rename your files, Jack! (Score:4, Funny)
Only possible justfication... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be the last to defend this wacko in general, and I can't read his pea brain to fathom his motives, but when dealing with images from websites that are to be used as some sort of evidence in a lawsuit or other court filing, it may be that simply providing a URL to the images has its potential pitfalls. Websites and links, especially for pr0n, come and go, and it would be pretty frustrating to provide the URLs, then to find that by the time someone gets around to viewing them, there's nothing but a 404 or some abandoned domain holding page there. Sure, maybe there's a cache of it on Google or Wayback or somewhere, but maybe there isn't. Then you have to try to see if there is a cache of the page sitting on some other server somewhere, and it gets more complicated.
Personally, if I had a legal case that depended on some image or text on a website, I'd rely not on an image, transcript, or URL reference, but would want to take a screenshot of a browser displaying the page in question, as well as the date and time stamp. That would seem to be of far more evidentiary value in the event that the site gets nuked in an attempt to cover someone's ass.
(And yes, I realize that last sentence left y'all wide open to make some humorous gay pr0n reference....have at it.)
Re:Goatse! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Honesty... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Honesty... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Honesty... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Honesty... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the reason he gets attention is because he's trying to infringe on our rights and has enough power to be dangerous.
If he was some nut screaming on a street corner, we'd ignore him, but he shows up on MSNBC, so he needs to be rebutted.
Re:Honesty... (Score:4, Interesting)
He gets attention from us because the media takes the man seriously. At least, they did before this -- I'm not sure how many interviews he'll get after this.
He is ridiculous, no one will argue that point (except perhaps Jack Thompson), but he is still a threat because he believes he is right and has not yet been discredited in the media.
Actually, I'm surprised the nut isn't cohosting a show with Nancy Grace yet, now that I think about it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Next... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I'm talking about Janet Reno [wikipedia.org]. The incident is actually one of the great celebrated examples of Jack's kookiness. Quoth Wikipedia (which, alas, cites paper sources):
Heh.
Parent
Re:Maybe the judge is closeted? (Score:5, Interesting)
Had he presented this in a court-room, it likely would have been a different story.
Parent