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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media The Courts United States

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This discussion has been archived.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

Former Congressman Learns About Streisand Effect

Comments Filter:
  • Son of Sam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wireless Joe ( 604314 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @06:29PM (#30465406) Homepage
    Assuming for a second that he actually has any ground to stand on.

    Since his name is related to his crime (and felony conviction), wouldn't newspapers be protected by South Dakota's Son of Sam law, preventing him from profiting from stories/descriptions of his crimes? I guess he could win and give the money to charity, but that would mean even more publicity. The whole thing's ridiculous and he deserves whatever he gets.
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @06:29PM (#30465414)
    To quell any speculation on the legitimacy of Klaudt's claims:

    Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

    "Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark," Malone said Tuesday.

    "There is no legal substance to these claims," she added.

  • by langelgjm ( 860756 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @06:33PM (#30465498) Journal
    Seriously. The guy wouldn't have a leg to stand on under federal law - words and short phrases cannot be copyrighted. That's why he sent the notice asserting common law copyright (which varies by state, mind you). In any case, even if that common law claim is technically legitimate, the compelling public interest in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., would likely ensure this case was thrown out. And the title of the /. article is right on - all this idiot has done is drawn more attention to himself.
  • Been tried before (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @06:42PM (#30465674) Homepage Journal

    This particular scam has been tried before, [interesting-people.org] especially by convicts. At best it creates a lot of spurious legal paperwork that has to be dealt with. It's a great way to cause headaches for the legal folk.

  • Re:Title wrong (Score:2, Interesting)

    by edsousa ( 1201831 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:08PM (#30466124) Journal
    And as former state legislator guess what legislation he pressed on..... Wait for it....

    While Ted Klaudt served in the legislature, his name was attached to several bills designed to protect children from sex abuse. Klaudt served in the South Dakota House from 1998 to 2006. He served on the appropriations as well as the government operations and audit committees. And while in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders.

    http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6371.cfm?Id=0,57165 [keloland.com]

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitalunity ( 19107 ) <digitalunity@yah o o . com> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:23PM (#30466310) Homepage

    Sex is used as a basis to sell products across the nation every day. The media and advertisers have rammed it down our throats that beauty and sexual attractiveness mean being a skinny 19 year old girl. Whats the difference between a 19 and 17 year old girl? Essentially nothing on average. Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.

    Mix that with a society that consumes copious amounts of growth hormones in milk and meat products and has girls reaching physical sexual maturity at younger and younger ages and you're bound to have men attracted to younger and younger girls. It's a natural conclusion. For most of human history, sex, marriage and childbirth all followed closely after sexual maturity. Even now, some backwards countries like Saudi Arabia allow child marriage before puberty, but I agree this is wrong.

    What this man did was wrong. I'm not trying to deny that. I'm merely saying that 44 years is a lot for succumbing to a desire that advertisers have implanted in his head. This man needs treatment. Incarceration won't give him that.

    Additionally, what kind of idiot do you have to be to allow your stepfather to use a dildo on you to see if your eggs are healthy.... Jesus Christ what a moron.

  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:23PM (#30466322) Journal

    A google search for "Ted Alvin Klaudt" [google.com] currently gives the following first hits:

    "Lawmaker, Convicted Of Raping Foster Kids, Claims Name Is ... - 3 hours ago
    Ted Alvin Klaudt was convicted of raping his two foster daughters a couple years ago. Rep. Ted Alvin Klaudt was convicted of raping his two foster daughters ..."

    "Ted Alvin Klaudt | FreakBits
    Dec 16, 2009 ... Former lawmaker Ted Alvin Klaudt, who was previously convicted of raping his two foster daughters, has sent copyright threats to news ..."

    I'm sure more is yet to come.

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by selven ( 1556643 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:29PM (#30466384)

    Maybe here people are much more tough-on-crime than I am. In Finland, at least, murder gets you locked in for only 10 years [wikipedia.org]. And yet they're below the US [nationmaster.com] in overall murder rates.

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Onymous Coward ( 97719 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:29PM (#30466388) Homepage

    Ah, good catch. An important distinction.

    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.

    This kind of thing seems so common that it's growing reflexive to narrow one's eyes at the more vocal bashers of child molesters and gays.

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Onymous Coward ( 97719 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:35PM (#30466478) Homepage

    This sentiment may be unpopular with most folks, and Hammurabi, but I don't believe that people should be made to suffer for the sake of some kind of balancing out.

    Sentences should be given for deterrence or containment. Not retribution.

    I know it sounds kooky. I know it flies in the face of intuition. But that's what I think.

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) * on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:49PM (#30466618) Homepage Journal
    I agree wholeheartedly. Society has become a self-hating dichotomy thanks to ceratin religions, which teache people to hate themselves and their urges which come naturally to them. Instead of recognizing them and dealing with them in a healthy manner, they end up repressing their urges and then snapping and performing acts like child rape. See also: Catholic Priests.

    Much of the damage of rape comes not from the actual act (unless it was particularly violent) , but from all of the stigma and media circuses surrounding it. Parents freak out and yell, "OH, MY GOD!" and start screaming and crying, which dosen't help matters for the victim. Sex crimes are sexy - not to you and I, but to the media and to the prosecution who know they will profit from the circus, usually causing considerable anguish to the victim because rape is excessively emotionally-charged in our society.

    People loved to foam at the mouth with regard to Roman Polanski, but they don't realize that things like that were widespread in funkier times. Even his so-called "victim", who consented and enjoyed the act, just wanted everybody to drop it and shut up about it. Gore Vidal dismissed the incident in an interview, saying , "Meh. That was the norm, and she was a hussy." Mick Jagger had sex with his friend's 13 year-old daughter and I don't see anybody wanting to cart him to the gallows. Pete Townshend was caught looking at boy porn and his music still graces the introductions of CSI shows! The people who love or hate Michael Jackson may not agree with what he did, but those who understand his childhood also understand why he's a weirdo.

    We must end the cognitive dissonance in society and learn to see things for what they are. It makes no sense that we have a lifetime registrant list for rapists and not for murderers!
  • by DoninIN ( 115418 ) <don.middendorf@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:00PM (#30466762) Homepage
    Yeah, what's up with that? Americans (I am one, I'm proud of it generally) seem to take a perverse satisfaction in the fact that we have control over our prisons and they're essentially a playground for the worst, most violent despicable of our criminal elements. Prison isn't so bad if you're a monster, all the drugs, sex and violence you want. This really doesn't seem like proper punishment, and it's certainly not rehabilitation. Why is it we have essentially the most severe sentencing policies of any civilized nation, and the highest crime rate of any civilized nation?
  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Labcoat Samurai ( 1517479 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:26PM (#30467038)
    What makes rape worthy of being lumped in with murder? When you kill someone, you take away everything they are and everything they will ever be. When you rape someone, you take away their dignity and possibly cause them physical harm. This is bad. It should definitely be a crime. But in our grand hall of the horrors of humanity, what puts rape on the pedestal next to murder? Is it our traditional notions of crimes against women being worse than crimes against men? Would we think raping a man is as grave a crime as raping a woman? Does it come back to purity, chastity, and maidenhood?
  • trademark? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by glebovitz ( 202712 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:25PM (#30467608) Journal

    I am not sure what to make of the claim. Can you really copyright your name. I would think that this is trademarking not copyrighting.

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:48PM (#30467816)

    Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects. Doing so is not merely succumbing to a normal drive, it is a pretty fundamental perversion of basic relationships.

    Actually it isn't, incest is pretty much a cultural thing, there's other cultures where it's the norm more than the exceptions.

    It was common in egypt, for one. Cleopatra, in adition to Julius Caesar's, bore the children of 2 of her brothers, to name just one famous exemple.

    As far as the "much younger girls" argument is concerned, it's also a cultural thing, I don't think you're going to slap me with a [citation needed] on that one.

    So I would say it's pretty much succumbing to normal drive. Now, in our society, we deem it undesirable for people under 18 to have sex with people over 18. Which is pretty much a legal thing to prevent abuses of positions of authority and influence.
    I don't disagree that rape is undesirable, or abusing one's position of authority (which this person clearly did have and did abuse) is equally undesirable, but it is succumbing to a normal drive. Just because we, as a society, attempt to weed out that particular trait does not make it any less natural.

    And, before you label me a pedophiliac/rapist apologist, I discovered 3 days ago that my 15 year old niece was having a relationship with her 27 year old teacher. They both claim to be in love etc. While I don't doubt the potential validity of their feelings, I also realize that it is not a good thing in the current times in the society they live in, ergo I put an end to that...

  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Labcoat Samurai ( 1517479 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:41PM (#30468260)
    Wait, what? That's your response? I'm just observing that we as a culture, put the two crimes together as though they are similarly bad. Even you put them together in the post I responded to. Have you changed your mind since then? Do you no longer think that it makes sense to lump rape in with murder? Exactly what part of my post do you object to, anyway? The part where I say the punishments for rape and murder are universally equivalent in the American justice system? Because that part doesn't exist.
  • Re:Fair Use? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17, 2009 @09:42AM (#30472544)

    And most industrialized countries don't have the death penalty or problems with prison rape.

    So the tough-on-crime attitude in the US is quite obviously in no way beneficial (and if I had to guess, I'd say that it's quite possibly counterproductive).

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...