Former Congressman Learns About Streisand Effect 527
corbettw writes "Ted Alvin Klaudt, a former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters, has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent." The story says Klaudt maintains "no one can use his name without his consent, and anyone who does would owe him $500,000."
Lawyer in a Can (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did this poor fool get his law training? Despair can make a fool out of a man but then again raping one's daughters sort of establishes that he is warped to begin with. It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
+1 Sad.
Scarring two teenage girls probably for life = Not Funny.
Re:Wait, slow this train down (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot copyright a legal name. I.e., if a word or phrase is your official identifier it cannot be copyrighted. There is no precedent being set here; this man is simply stupid.
Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:1, Insightful)
What's the chance Fox News runs this with a (D-SD) next to his name?
Typical Republican "do as I say, not as I do"
While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders, including "community safety zones," prohibiting sex offenders from residing, working, or entering within 500 feet of schools, public parks and swimming pools. He also co-sponsored the bill that required South Dakota to be included in the National Sex Offender Registry, a bill that requires the Department of Social Services to inform parents about abuse or neglect involving their children in state custody, and a (defeated) bill that would have prohibited the distribution of birth control to high school students.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, but I think more noteworthy than this copyright claim is that he was sentenced to 44 years for rape.
Seems excessive doesn't it? I read the affidavit [66.231.15.194] describing what he did exactly and it seems very predatory and wrong, but 44 years is a lot...
Re:Four Factors (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Even I found that tasteless.
Yeah, even for the Internet, that was bad.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a whole lotta love (Score:2, Insightful)
The last sentence should be "A copy of this edition is being provided, free, to every inmate at his place of incarceration."
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.
Re:Wait, slow this train down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not in Jail long enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst this mans acts are undoubtably horrifying, the pride with which people from the US regard further crimes taking place in gaol disgusts me.
A prisoner once jailed is under the protection of the state and should not be subject to violence.
The obvious enjoyment of this is sickening.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
You clearly have no idea the impact this has on children. The odds of sexually abused children becoming self-destructive adults is almost 1. I'd rather he kill them than repeatedly rape at that age - at least, there won't be a way of perpetuating the cycle of abuse.
44 years is about life-44 years too short.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying a temporary nullification of one persons rights is worth a permanent nullification of another's? If you are picturing prison as a man-built hell as I think you are, you are also saying that a man getting raped in prison over and over is not the same as a woman getting raped once.
You are no better than he is if that is what you are condoning.
Re:Title wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that those girls didn't have a choice about he was going to do with them. He had the choice, and he made the wrong choice. Now he gets to spend a good portion of the rest of his life in jail. He wasn't some 18 year old kid who grew up in a violent home and made some poor decisions with his girl friend and her sister. He was a grown man with the mental capacity to understand the heinous nature of his actions and yet he went through with them anyway. Why anyone is feeling sorry for him is far beyond me.
Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the act? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.
Some states allow thirteen year olds to have sex with other minors (some caveats) and still others allow sex with adults so long as parental consent is given (as in married).
I completely agree with your post. Its important for people to keep in mind that murders often receive far, far lighter sentences. Likewise, often the biggest trauma associated with this type of rape is that which is brought about by societal stigma; as it doesn't appear to be a crime of hate, range, violence, etc. True rape is more often than not a crime of hate, rage, and violent. This type of "rape" is not really rape at all but a crime of inappropriateness.
Like you, I'm not trying to defend him. But let's put this into perspective. Either this guy's sentence is far, far, far to much or ALL those convicted of murder and homicide need to be given the death penalty without question - if fairness is to be obtained.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone who would do something like that has probably suffered a life of abuse them selves and is probably more in need of mental help than life in prison.
Just playing the devils advocate.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmm... I disagree in some ways. While the ages of consent are somewhat arbitrary, there is a more important condition to be taken into account here: Ted Klaudt chose to put himself in a position of responsibility and authority over two girls whom the law says must have a guardian. If he had any inkling that he would want to molest them, then he would need to recuse himself from that responsibility. Instead, he chose
While I do agree that the American advertising culture is really rather sick, we are not machines. We are not some sort of Pavlov's monkeys, conditioned to screw at the drop of a dress. We are sentient beings, and Ted Klaudt is (ostensibly) an adult who, at various points in his adult life, has been considered capable of making his own decisions for right or for wrong, and for choosing for himself what he should or should not do. Regardless of what Klaudt has seen on television or in magazines, he -- just like everyone -- is responsible for his own actions. At the very least, he is responsible for recognizing himself as capable of molesting females to whom he has a legal responsibility for.
Moreover, he lied to the girls and tricked them into this situation. Again, he abused his position of authority.
The bottom line is that this was not consensual. It was rape. You might call them 'morons,' but there was nothing I saw in the articles that said that his molesting of them was consensual. They didn't want it, he did it anyway: Rape, pure and simple. It was his choice.
All this being said... I do agree that incarceration should be rehabilitative rather than punitive. IN the vast majority of criminal cases, locking someone up does no go whatsoever, and in fact has been shown to make a person even worse. In addition... not to put too fine a point on it, but Klaudt is not a spring chicken. American prison populations have a justly-deserved reputation of being incredibly bad (to put it mildly) for child rapists. I would not bet Vegas odds on Klaudt getting through even one of his prison terms. And for the record, I do not approve.
So, in conclusion: He chose of his own free will to rape his stepdaughters, and he needs to be put away so that, somehow, that can be rehabilitated out of him so that the thought of it never happens again. No magic moving-pictures box put those ideas into his head, nobody forced him to be a rapist. At the same time, locking him away and throwing away the key does society no good. We need better rehabilitative incarceration rather than punitative. How, though, I'm afraid I don't know.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
the act of doing so isn't funny, that doesn't mean someone can't make a joke. Learn the difference.
Consider the case of Tiger Woods for a current example:
Difference between a Cadillac and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a golf ball over 300yds.
Why did Phil Michelson call Elin? To find out how to beat Tiger
Where was Elin the night Tiger crashed? Out clubbing.
and on it goes. Humor is a way of dealing with the awful. We'd all be happier if it didn't happen in the first place, but if it did happen, we might as well derive something positive from it.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying this detracts from what your going for, but Labeling Theory seems to create a self fulfilling prophecy in the whole thing. I've always considered if an interesting thing. You call them hard criminals, you treat them like hard criminals, they become hard criminals.
Re:Four Factors (Score:3, Insightful)
It absolutely does affect marketability. Even if the loss of virginity doesn't affect marketability, the girls' issues forming an initmate relationship with a boyfriend (because they have flashbacks to what their foster-father did) will cause issues with future boyfriends/husbands.
Re: Lawyer in a Can (Score:3, Insightful)
He's already in prison. It's not like he has anything to lose, really.
It seems like "filing pointless/bogus lawsuits" is one of the major hobbies for prisoners.
Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.
So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees. Both are wrong.
Craig and Klaudt were "moral values" Republicans who sponsored numerous bills attempting to outlaw acts or discriminate against people that were guilty of things they themselves did. Both ran on campaigns that portrayed themselves as highly moral people on issues of sexual behavior (which inherently imply or explicitly state themselves to be superior to their opponents on these issues) all while engaging in pure hypocrisy. Klaudt backed numerous tough anti-pedophile laws in South Dakota and fought to keep children from getting contraception at schools in a bid to keep children from having sex. Craig has voted consistently against gay rights over the past decade. Both are utter hypocrites.
Just because people might be more sympathetic to gay sex in a bathroom, compared to child molestation, doesn't mitigate the fact that they themselves harped on the immorality of such actions, that they profited from votes gained from "taking the high road," and that they did so while engaging in the very acts they vilified.
(Side note: Craig was rumored as far back as 1982 as having been involved with male, teenage pages, so he might actually be a predator, but that's irrelevant to my point.)
Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
I find hypocrisy offensive, but I see no reason for it to carry punishment under the law (but I do think it is fine that Congress has ethics that they are supposed follow and such). Rape, on the other hand, deserves punishment.
So I see some value in not lumping hypocrites in with rapists just because the hypocrites happen to be rapists.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Implying a causal relationship is way off base. It could just as easily indicate that Finland's low murder rates imply that strict punishments are not necessary.
To use the obligatory car analogy, it's like a small rural town not having any emissions laws for vehicles because the net pollution from a dozen cars isn't worth the effort of enforcement while a dense metropolis may require strict emissions laws to limit pollution.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, right, sorry. Once you have kids, you're allowed to throw all logic and reason out the window. I forgot about that.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
The act may not be funny, but it's funny to make fun of a guy who first of all does it and then has the audacity to pull a stunt like that.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't _look_, you should have several important hormone producing organs checked. Any parent or caregiver of children who hasn't thought about it is probably repressing something even more insidious. The difficulty is when you _act_ on those impulses: partly for genetic, cross-breeding reasons, and partly for our culture's understandable fear of abuse of such powerful relationships, such sexual relationships are taboo. But make no pretense that sex with teenagers, for example, has always been forbidden. Even homosexual rape and sexual mutilation has had its place in some "coming of age" rituals.
If you think I'm kidding, take a good look at the history of clitorectomy and circumcision.
You're forgetting the historical function... (Score:3, Insightful)
...of the Justice System.
Historically, "Justice" was a function of the family. This led to private feuds and vigilantes that literally tore towns and cities apart. There is a man in prison today who harmed one of the women in my family. He was caught, tried, convicted and sent to prison. Every man in my family can look himself in the mirror and say "Justice was done," and because of that, no one has done anything rash.
Have you thought about how you intend to satisfy the families under your new sentencing guidelines? Because if you don't take them into account, they're going to write some new Greek and Shakespearean plays for you.
Re:Not in Jail long enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all people from the US feel this way.
It's a fair guess that most actually do not feel this way, considering that the Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed in 2003, during a time when those whose political ideals seem most likely to approve of retributive prison violence were in control of all major branches of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Rape_Elimination_Act_of_2003 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, murder is probably a lesser crime. You can kill someone in a fit of rage, or by accident. You can be defending yourself. You can't accidentally rape your kids, even foster kids.
These kids were in his care, it was his job to look after them and protect them and instead he raped them. That's pretty much the most despicable thing you can do. He might not have been their father, but he was acting as their father, if you do that sort of thing to kids you're supposed to be caring for 44 years is far too lenient.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:1, Insightful)
But I might nuance that further. Interestingly, Craig and Klaudt do share the hypocritical-persecution-of-similar-others quality. They are jerks of a stripe this way.
It's not hypocritical and they're not jerks. They do it to protect themselves. It's a false appearance so as to cover up any chance of someone suspecting them of doing similar acts. You know, the stuff that the typical moron believes (eg. people that believe in politicians).
It's part of that idiotic fake/lying thing that humans do.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
As to the question of nature v. social convention and training, I'm willing to admit it may well be something trained into us (not to think of those under our care sexually), but I would say that it is very basic, and well-placed convention.
As to whether sex with teenagers in general is the same sort of norm, I think it is not. In fact, my point was that statutory rape (based solely on age) isn't the kicker, it's the guardian-child relationship.
Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees.
Actually, the difference in that example is highly likely to be intent - and intent is a non-trivial differentiator.
Back to the original discussion, there's also the fundamental difference between consensual acts between adults, and child abuse - not just differences of "degree".
Re:Not in Jail long enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, let's be as brutal as we can be to the evil criminals. And those people who were wrongly convicted, well, they aren't me, and it's 100% impossible for me to ever be in that position, so I don't give a shit. Sure sucks to be them.
In principle, I'm actually on board with the shoot-them-behind-the-courthouse school of justice. I think some crimes warrant it. But in practice, I find it very hard to accept the argument that our justice system should be dishing out that sort of thing. Too much potential for corruption, for frame-ups, for regular old honest mistakes. Would you be OK with receiving the kind of unplesantless and brutality you advocate for criminals? No? But there are lots of innocent people sent to jail. It happens. If you wouldn't be willing to be one of them, then you should be standing up for humane jails, JUST IN CASE YOU ARE ONE OF THEM SOME DAY. It's the rational thing to do.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
No more kooky than thinking that pink fairies live on the moon. You can think whatever you like, but what you think had better be backed by some solid evidence and reason as to why that's better.
Retribution against a person who has violated another by placing them in cold hard prisons is the only way to quench the primal *need* for retribution by the victim, the victims people and the victims community.
Ignore humanities primal needs at your peril, justice will be done either through the state apparatus in an orderly fashion, or in the style it was largely done before the 1900's; by the victims people metting out quick, harsh, brutal justice (occasionally against the wrong person). You see the state convinces the individuals in it that it's preferable to let it met out justice. But to be sure, if it fails to give a sense of justice to those wronged then the individuals will take the dishing out of justice back into their own hands.
And *I think* that you and the tiny fraction of people that think like you are just western middle class individuals who've been swaddled in cotton wool for your entire lives and have never suffered true violation at the hand of another. Not only that you have been led to believe that criminals are the true victims of the crime that they commit, and the victims are inanimate objects, whose feelings and needs are completely irrelevant to the matter. As you have just inferred.
That's what I think.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Being sexually abused doesn't make you somehow less-human and less capable of being "normal". This is a stereotype that's more damaging than you realize.
Re:Four Factors (Score:5, Insightful)
"While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders"
Ha!
Re:When doves cry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we should start referring to this guy as the CONVICTED CHILD FUCKER formerly named 'Ted Alvin Klaudt'?
Having been somewhat of an asshole in times past, I thought a bit of clarification was in order. An asshole is someone that cuts you off on the freeway... Now, there's a good chance he will be someone's special asshole every night, but I don't think that's the way you were using the word.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can the grandparent post get modded a "5" and the parent get a "0"? There's nothing insightful at all about the GP. It's just vocalizing the popular opinion. It certainly doesn't make a good argument.
I've noticing more and more that Slashdot mod points are used to express agreement and disagreement rather than quality of post. Slashdot is showing more mob-censorship and conformity of opinion than just about any other site.
The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It's ludicrous to think that molestation is anywhere near as traumatic as beating, psychological abuse, torture, or imprisonment. I'm not saying any of those are ok, but Americans have some way distorted views of anything sex. I swear, if the kid is still traumatized after many years, it's because the traumatic response was manufactured by counselors and psychologists.
Yeah, parents really sympathize with the whole "tough on crime" philosophy. Two eyes and an arm for an eye. Until, at least, their boys and girls grow up and start getting in trouble and the parents realize that their kids aren't quite the princes and princesses they thought they were. And now the parents get to grow old and die with nobody to take care of them because their kids are in jail for a long, long, time.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Murder, slavery, and imprisonment are absolute violation of others' rights. Beating, raping, maiming, bullying, are lessor violations of others' rights. It's only because of society's screwed up sensitivities that you put rape on the level of murder.
Look, some convicted slavers in New York got sentenced. The man got 3 years and his wife 11 years. Yes, for absolute violation of others' rights. They got off easy because they didn't touch any genitals. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2007/12/200852512175449709.html [aljazeera.net] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/nyregion/28slave.html [nytimes.com]
No, it has nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with sex. And children.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that change what I said?
No.
Did I even make that claim?
The claim you made was that "Males of any species prefer young females because they're the healthiest."
You said this in the context of a discussion about whether it is natural for men to be attracted to young females in the broader context of a story about about a man who raped his foster-daugeter.
I took it that you agreed that it was natural for a male to be attracted to a young female because young = healthy = attractive.
Perhaps I should have read your post in a narrower context - i.e. as part of a discussion about why girls reach puberty younger these days.
What exactly was the point of your post?
The point of my post was that I doubted that he chose the healthiest/most attractive female. Only the most accessible.
Re:Four Factors (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that these days, looking at what congress-critters are most fervently trying to make illegal is the easiest way to find out what kind of activities they partake in on the weekends.
The sad part is that's only about 20% joking.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, murder is probably a lesser crime. You can kill someone in a fit of rage, or by accident. You can be defending yourself. You can't accidentally rape your kids, even foster kids.
You can't accidentally murder anyone. That would be manslaughter, and it carries lower penalties. Murder is premeditated killing of a person.