Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing

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.

Comments

Re:I love this guy.

[dmatos]

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.

Re:Just Jack!

[Khaed]

Of course they do, that's not the point OP was making. Recently, the president of Iran claimed "we have no homosexuals in Iran." He said it three times in a row at Columbia U. At first, the students laughed at him, then started booing (lightly) the ridiculous statement.

The reality is, they probably don't have anyone who will admit to being gay since it carries the death penalty.

Re:I love this guy.

[shystershep]

Technical merits aside, it is accepted practice to cite to internet materials (usually by url + date last visited, which is at least a nod to the fact that the medium isn't fixed). In general, if it's a document only you or the other party has, you attach it as an exhibit; if it's publicly available -- book, journal, website, etc -- you cite to it but don't attach it.

Re:Just Jack!

[Jherek Carnelian]

Recently, the president of Iran claimed "we have no homosexuals in Iran." He actually said something in Farsi that was translated as, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Given the complexities of translation, it isn't hard to interpret his meaning to be that in Iran, most homosexuals are in the closet, they don't advertise their orientation the way they do in your country.

But of course that doesn't make as good fodder for the evening news round of sound-bites.

Re: Brilliant!

[rkcallaghan]

satire mode="on"

You do understand the use of the conjunction "and", don't you? The AC writing the comment asserts that actions described in phrase A ("you make a joke mocking the person for being unaware of the information you ignored") are combined with the conditions in phrase B ("And it's modded "Funny"?").

So he's not being crabby just because you misread the sentence, but because you also got modded funny for your off-base mockery. This whole explanation is Tongue-in-Cheek jest.

Cheers,
~Rebecca

re: poor citation, try again (temptation != sin)

[pbhj]

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 evaluated by future research."

Basically the summary (which this is not) makes it clear that the study is inconclusive for several reasons.

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..

The you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument is quite an intriguing one (I hate bananas!). 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. ...

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)>

Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"?

[crucini]

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 tools of one empire against another.

IIRC, the muj always seemed to drive Japanese mini-pickups, where US client states got Jeeps, etc. (Long before the Humvee).