Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing

Comments Filter:
  • 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?
  • by Weegee_101 ( 837734 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:50PM (#20758561) Homepage
    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 the legal system to blame other, mostly unrelated activities, such as gaming. They really need to disbar Thompson. This has gotten rather ludicrous.
  • Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:52PM (#20758579)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:02PM (#20758691)
    Can we turn the tables on him and sue him for making these inappropriate images available to minors?
  • 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.
  • Re:Next... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:09PM (#20758751)
    Actually, I think you're confusing Reno with his "outing" of Hillary Rosen. They were running in the same election, and he said that her sexual preference would be a liability, because others could use it to blacklist her (ignoring the delicious irony of the fact that now that *he* had outed her, that was no longer a possibility.)
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @03:21PM (#20758875)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • 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...

  • by Jabrwock ( 985861 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @05:20PM (#20760507) Homepage

    On what basis? Gay porn is not illegal to view.
    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.
  • by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <william.chuang@g[ ]l.com ['mai' 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.
  • by StringBlade ( 557322 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @05:45PM (#20760869) Journal
    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 of violence and gore without reprimand, but a graphically explicit sexual image is problematic. The double-standard is applied to our laws though as well. Walking around nude in public is usually illegal, but walking around with a sandwich board of gored and mutilated fetuses to protest abortion is perfectly fine. Frankly I find the gore more offensive than the naked guy -- he's just kind of funny (is it really that cold out?)
  • Re:Honesty... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rew190 ( 138940 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @06:23PM (#20761363)
    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.
  • by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <aussie_bob@hoMOSCOWtmail.com minus city> 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:

    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.

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Working...