Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing 333
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.
Next... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Honesty... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Honesty... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sad part... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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:Uh, thanks, Jack. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 stamina. This sort of motif applies to the suicide bombers as well; heroes who sacrifice themselves to win a struggle against a powerful enemy (ie. Samson)
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty cool. Once you get over the need to thing that there is an ultimate "gods eye view" truth, and accept the idea that the 'truth' depends on perspective, it makes a lot of sense.
For eg, hawk eats mouse. To the mouse, that is bad. To the hawk, that is good. How can a situation, the same exact situation, be both bad and good? Depends on the perspective.
Kind of sucks. I wish it were not true. But the truth is subject to time and place. Bummer.
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.
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.
Re:Just Jack! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, of course not; it carries the death penalty.
Either way, the man is a nut.