Slashdot Mirror
Former Congressman Learns About Streisand Effect
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."
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.
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.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Wikipedia says 8 times proven in court. He must have gone to the Larry Craig/Mark Foley School of Family Values.
Wow. Even I found that tasteless.
Yeah, even for the Internet, that was bad.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Even Disney cannot copyright "Disney". What they have is a trademark.
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.
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.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
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.
Are you seriously trying to peddle the thought that rape is "just something that happens to you. don't worry about it, you'll get over it"? Ugh. Sure, you can talk people into a PTSD, or whatever, but the problem with rape really isn't that it's happened; the trouble is with trying to cope with the fact that you (as a woman) apparently do not have full autonomy over your body, over the fact that sensations were produced in it against your will by your assailant, etc., and then trying to talk yourself into the fact that that doesn't mean that you wanted it (as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human). The effects that has on a person, especially a (pre-)teen, who is still forming his/her personality, are enormous. How is that not a permanent effect of your "temporarily nullifying someone's right to autonomy"?
I agree that statutory rape is a bit of a crock (19 yr old boy and 17 year old girl scenarios), but look, these are his (foster) daughters. 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.
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
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.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
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.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
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.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh, right, sorry. Once you have kids, you're allowed to throw all logic and reason out the window. I forgot about that.
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.
He was a Republican, not that I think it's really relevant. But it is kind of funny, given that he was an advocate for the type of hollow tough-on-crime/perversion measures that a certain segment of the Republicans favor. From Wikipedia:
"While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders"
Ha!
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?