Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government It's funny.  Laugh. News Entertainment Games

Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing 333

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the master-of-free-publicity dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing

Comments Filter:
  • by pushing-robot (1037830) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:27PM (#20758223)
    Were they from your private stash?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:44PM (#20758463)
      This thread is useless without pics
      • by geekboy642 (799087) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:48PM (#20758515) Journal
        Actually, I'm pretty sure pics would lower the value of this thread into the sub-prime-mortgage-loan category.

        They were, after all, self-portrait.
        • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) * on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:04PM (#20758703) Homepage Journal
          He is obsessed with gay sex.

          Against it or for it - you know that when he's obsessed - he's a Homo.
          • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:14PM (#20758803) Journal
            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.
              • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @04:52PM (#20760087) Homepage
                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.

                Thompson's bizare actions on the other hand...

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by MightyMartian (840721)
                  Excellent post! Utterly off-topic, but an excellent post.

                  Whatever your particular ideological stripe, I think it's very important to understand bin Laden, and, in general those who advise him, help him and serve him. I agree, the word "coward" has been spread around, despite the fact that the motif of the pursued hero hiding from evil, powerful forces is a widespread one in many cultures (for example Robin Hood), and certainly is not meant to demonstrate the hero's cowardice, but rather his cleverness and
                  • by crucini (98210) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @02:47AM (#20764851)

                    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.
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by crucini (98210)

                  He was quite happy to co-operate with the US when it suited him

                  From what I understand (sorry, I don't have a source) during the jihad against the USSR, Bin Laden never knew the extent of American support. The Pakistani ISI served as a buffer.
                  Of course the US was importing, sheltering and encouraging global jihadists, including the sheik who would later attack the WTC for the first time, but I think the ISI insulated the muj in Afghanistan, giving them weapons and supplies without making them feel like tool

                • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                  by somersault (912633)
                  You know far too much detail about this - you must be a terrorist!! :O
            • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@nOsPAm.hotmail.com> on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:52PM (#20762955) Journal
              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.
              http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf [oogachaga.com]
              • I applaud your attempted misreading of your quoted citation:

                Quoting "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" (Adams, et al.):
                "Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating
                psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these ap-
                proaches would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic re-
                sponse to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory
                would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by ho-
                mophobic individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing
                notions can and should be e
                • 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.

                  Homophobes are either queer or wimps.

                • Confused Christian (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Thursday September 27, 2007 @03:39AM (#20765159) Homepage
                  > 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.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Raven42rac (448205) *
          • by Svartalf (2997) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @04:43PM (#20759925) Homepage
            Couldn't be because of this incident [ctrlaltdel-online.com]?
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      I wonder if he is going to offer another $10,000 challenge for a specific gay porn pose/scene. Just like he did with his video game suggestion [wikipedia.org].
    • by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:00PM (#20758673) Journal
      I'm glad the case wasn't about NAMBLA.
    • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @04:02PM (#20759353)

      Were they from your private stash?
      When I read the headline, I thought that's what happened. Holy fucking shit, that would have been the world's most ultimate copy-paste self-pwn ever.

      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by davidsyes (765062)
      Hee... weel... bee.. ass-.eem-lated...

      Do you see the REAL deepthroats in this court room?

      I'm sure the judge was nothing short of agog to issue a BINDING GAG order for this non-condomnable act inasspicious.

      Filing paper beats ORAL discourse, I'm sure.

      Will the judge hold him IN CONTEMPT IN court?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vimh42 (981236)
      More to the point. It's a public filing. He made porn available in a public place. Won't someone think of the children! No seriously.
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:27PM (#20758227) Homepage Journal
    It's filling my mind with disgusting images!

    s/filling/filing
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Can we turn the tables on him and sue him for making these inappropriate images available to minors?
  • Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:28PM (#20758243)

    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.

    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)

    by PlayItBogart (1099739) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:29PM (#20758245)
    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.

    How will you top this, Mr. Thompson? Are you gonna shoot the Pope?
    • Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Informative)

      by dmatos (232892) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:38PM (#20758363)
      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.
      • by Mikkeles (698461) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:06PM (#20758713)
        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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by rde (17364)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by e4g4 (533831)
        And here I thought your nopennies idea was that he's on his way to being disbarred, ostracized and flat-fucking broke.
    • by Mix+Master+Nixon (1018716) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:04PM (#20758705)

      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.
    • by klenwell (960296) <klenwellNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:16PM (#20758829) Homepage Journal
      He's like the Andy Kaufman of the US legal system.

      Someday REM will sing a song about him.
      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:25PM (#20758929) Journal

        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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by sharkey (16670)
        Can you believe,
        He stuck his
        Head up his ass...
        Head up his ass...
    • "How will you top this, Mr. Thompson? Are you gonna shoot the Pope?"

      Let's see, according to the article, he included "several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males." Maybe he should include several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult females. I am sure he would get far fewer objections.

      BTW:The definition of obscenity is "whatever gives a judge an erection. [quoteworld.org]"

  • Next... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xyph0r (1153429)
    Next, he'll link to here, to prove that gamers and people in the IT world are HOMOPHOBIC and must be stopped. It's all part of his larger plan. Seriously.
    • by User 956 (568564)
      Next, he'll link to here, to prove that gamers and people in the IT world are HOMOPHOBIC and must be stopped. It's all part of his larger plan. Seriously.

      I hear the next part of his plan is to sue someone for $54 million over a pair of pants. [wjla.com] Which brings him to step 3, profit.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by squiggleslash (241428)
      I seem to remember him attacking Janet Reno for being a lesbian (which she isn't, I might add, making the attack doubly bizarre) so I doubt he's going to attack gamers for being homophobic.
  • Sad part... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jythie (914043) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:32PM (#20758291)
    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.
  • by Jeian (409916) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:33PM (#20758311)
    I don't want to know... I don't want to know...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:34PM (#20758325)
    Throw him in the slammer. That'll learn him gay porn first hand!
  • This guy should be inside a strait jacket or at least get some serious counseling. He used to be funny, but now I pity him. :(
    • by Otter (3800)
      In fact, that's exactly correct. 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.
      • Re:Honesty... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Applekid (993327) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:47PM (#20758507)

        . . . 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.
        • by Otter (3800)
          Actually it's you guys who have been tricked, but thanks for your concern.

          Here's Google News [google.com] on Thompson. I got three pages in, finding a single non-negative reference to him. If someone has the energy to dig deeper, please let me know where all the "interviews" and "lawmakers" come in.

          Sorry, kids, but if you want to Do Something Really Important, it's going to have to be more ambitious than ridiculing this irritating but unfortunate guy.

      • Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SIIHP (1128921)
        "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.

        • "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."

          And then...

          No, the reason he gets attention is because he's trying to infringe on our rights and has enough power to be dangerous.

          Lots of people try lots of things. It doesn't mean that they should be taken seriously. It's a fact that the only people that still take Jack Thompson seriously ha

      • Re:Honesty... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Khaed (544779) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:07PM (#20758719)
        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.
        • 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.

          Tell me about it. This fucker is like a dog that won't die. As another poster said this guy used to be funny, now he is just pathetic.

    • Re:Honesty... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:43PM (#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.
    • The more this guy gets insane in his claims and suits, the more it becomes obvious, even for people who know neither law nor games, that his claims are simply and plainly stupid. And, well, who wants to have the same opinion as a known idiot?

      Give this guy enough rope to hang himself and his agenda.
  • Just Jack! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mysticweed (593354) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:36PM (#20758349)
    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.
    • I'd root for a gay guy protecting us from Jack.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:44PM (#20758453)
    ...I know that you're desperate, but bribing the judge with your home videos will almost certainly NOT work.
  • Can the judge order the stuff stricken from anything publically viewable? I imagine he can.
    • by DM9290 (797337)
      "Can the judge order the stuff stricken from anything publically viewable? I imagine he can."

      On what basis? Gay porn is not illegal to view. No one's life is in danger. The court is not in the business of obfuscating from the public what happens in the courtroom. Once you go down that road then you may as well start correcting grammatical errors and spelling of affidavits, witnesses' testimony and whatever else the Judge thinks the public may not want to see. What if there was no porn but material which cr
  • Wheres the images?

    (after reading article)

    EWWWWW!! I dont wanna know!!
    • by HTH NE1 (675604)

      Wheres the images?
      Redacted according to this footnote of the order issued on Monday [gamepolitics.com]:

      <sup>1</sup> Immediately upon being aware of the contents of the exhibit, I [Judge Adalberto Jordan] requested that the Clerk of the Court take appropriate action to prevent public access to the exhibit.
  • who the hell is Jack Thompson? I mean in every major city there are nuts who spend all their free time suing people. Why is this guy any different?
    • who the hell is Jack Thompson?

      What rock have you been living under? Is there room under there for two?

  • Seriously! Besides being a nuisance to the entire game industry including the gamers themselves, he goes and he does stuff like this. Wasn't he on trial just a few months ago for being in contempt of court? He's a nuisance to the entire legal system of the United States; all he does is create more troubles and headaches for everyone, and makes himself look like a complete asshole in the process. Worse, he gives people who don't want to blame thinks such as poverty or psychological issues a way to use th
  • ..... Who may still be in the closet.
  • Slashdot trolls tried this YEARS ago with goatse.cx; can't you be a little bit more original?

    What's next, is he going to call Rick Astley [yougotrickrolled.com] as a witness?
  • I got a copy of his court filing. Here it is [theonion.com].
  • by Devir (671031) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:15PM (#20758813) Homepage
    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.

    • by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:30PM (#20758995)

      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.

      • by darkmeridian (119044) <william.chuang@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @05:34PM (#20760729) Homepage
        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.

        Sigh.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Chris Burke (6130)
        I think Jack Thompson and Rick Santorum need to get together and go bowling... and see what develops from there.
  • FTA:

    Kent, who publishes the National Gay News website, was criticized by Thompson in last week's court filing for "distribution of hardcore porn to anyone of any age."
    What, like displaying them on public record? JT is an i-ron.
  • by theantipop (803016) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:34PM (#20759045)
    Maybe he needs to rename his porn stash to something other than "importantevidence001289.JPG".
  • Until the man is disbarred from coast to coast, let's continue to feed the fire.
  • by Stanislav_J (947290) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @04:06PM (#20759399)

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by StringBlade (557322)
      There's also a difference between filing uncensored hardcore pornography into public record, and censoring (blurring, black box, smiley, you-name-it) the image strategically and filing that. It's more tasteful and it serves its purpose.

      I'm not just talking about gay porn here, I'm talking super-violent images or anything else that would normally be considered "inappropriate" for the public record.

      Now on the other hand, I think it's a double-standard that one could file a motion and attach a graphic image o
  • by JustNiz (692889) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @04:27PM (#20759661)
    Its probably just photos of him and his friends from his private collection

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".

Working...