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.
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.
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.
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
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").