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."

Comments

Fair Use?

[EraserMouseMan]

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

Re:Fair Use?

[Tetsujin]

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

Well, I think his line of defense there has been that the girls laughed at his penis: therefore the entire act falls into the "parody" category.

Re:Fair Use?

[0100010001010011]

+1 Sad.

Scarring two teenage girls probably for life = Not Funny.

Re:Fair Use?

[Sponge Bath]

Wikipedia says 8 times proven in court. He must have gone to the Larry Craig/Mark Foley School of Family Values.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[digitalunity]

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 describing what he did exactly and it seems very predatory and wrong, but 44 years is a lot...

Re:Fair Use?

[timmarhy]

and how many years will those young girls suffer for what he has done? 44 years isn't enough.

Re:Fair Use?

[Tubal-Cain]

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders...

They say that like some congresscritters haven't done something similar.

Re:Fair Use?

[Tezcat]

I'd happily argue for lighter and proportional prison sentences for a variety of reasons; from prison populations to rehabilitation and education. Just not when I'm fired up after reading about a hypocritical incestuous rapist. Screw his vile guts. Like many people who are socially liberal, I admit my bias towards forgiving the 'victims of society', the poor, mentally disturbed and undereducated. That people given a good break in life still behave abominably is deeply depressing.

Re:Fair Use?

[maxume]

Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.

Re:Fair Use?

[megamerican]

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders,

Ted Alvin Klaudt was simply thinking of the children by making sure no one like him would be around them, ever. That's what is known as a compassionate conservative.

Re:Fair Use?

[selven]

I find it hard to imagine that they're now suffering anything close to the way in which being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day is suffering. 44 years is way more than I would give even for a double murder.

Re:Fair Use?

[Aeros]

wrong? I think 44 years isnt't nearly enough for doing that do someone. I would rather see someone who does that put away for life!

Re:Fair Use?

[master5o1]

I think his first line of defense is to claim that he is the content creator. It might work, but then again, he's not 'The Creator' so probably not.

Re:Fair Use?

[Thoggins]

4 counts of rape, convicted, 11 years each. straightforward enough. if he wanted less time, less rape would have been a better plan

Re:Fair Use?

[jaymz2k4]

44 years is way more than I would give even for a double murder.

Boy am I glad you're not in charge of sentencing guidelines.

Re:Fair Use?

[geekoid]

the act of doing so isn't funny, that doesn't mean someone can't make a joke. Learn the difference.

Re:Fair Use?

[OakDragon]

I find it hard to imagine that they're now suffering anything close to the way in which being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day is suffering. 44 years is way more than I would give even for a double murder.

Don't worry, he'll never make it to 44 years, once the general population finds out what he's in for.

Re:Fair Use?

[OakDragon]

if he wanted less time, less rape would have been a better plan

Yes, but who's got time to think about that when you're busy raping?

Re:Fair Use?

[digitalunity]

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.

Re:Fair Use?

[AdamTrace]

Ugh. I just read that affidavit.

That is some seriously messed up shit. I've seen a lot of crazy stuff on the internet, but that makes me feel a bit sick...

Re:Fair Use?

[selven]

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. And yet they're below the US in overall murder rates.

Re:Fair Use?

[Onymous Coward]

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?

[NeutronCowboy]

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?

[interkin3tic]

Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.

He was a politician, he disgraced himself and refused to resign, debasing the political office he held. He was a hypocrite who claimed to stand for "family values" while committing adultery, and did so in order to get into office. Same thing for gay rights while getting handjobs from men.

So sure, he's not a -sexual- predator. Maybe we can agree he's a "parasite"?

Re:Fair Use?

[Onymous Coward]

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?

[pizzach]

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:Fair Use?

[SecurityGuy]

Possibly not that many, considering they consented to what they thought was a medical exam. It doesn't HAVE to be a life altering event, and I think the media (including those of us who post about such things) do harm by telling people they should be forever scarred by things they can get over. They learned the really hard way that there are bad people in the world who will take advantage of you for their own gain or gratification.

Which, incidentally, is reason enough to put this guy away forever. If he will do this to his own foster children, he doesn't belong in society with the rest of us. We should really get rid of this idea of justice balancing the scales in some way. Putting someone in jail doesn't undo the harm they've done. It gets them out of circulation so they can't do more.

Re:Fair Use?

[linhares]

thing is the American prison system is like an MIT PhD for turning anyone into an ultra-violent animal. Then after your years, it's back to society, pitbull; go have some fun out there.

Re:Fair Use?

[Ethanol-fueled]

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!

Re:Fair Use?

[dave562]

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.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anachragnome]

"I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission."

Perhaps it is the daughters turn to use HIM?

"Klaudt's daughter, Roxy, reached by telephone at the family ranch near Walker, confirmed that her father had sent the copyright notice but would not explain why."

Maybe they are trying to secure funds to keep the ranch afloat now that the guy is no longer able to provide income? Do they have rights to his funds, as victims? Were they awarded some sort of compensation by the courts? Capitalizing on his name? Drumming up publicity for a movie deal?

Just a thought.

Re:Fair Use?

[camperdave]

...being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day...

You've just described my job.

Re:Fair Use?

[quickOnTheUptake]

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.

Re:Fair Use?

[Zibblsnrt]

I find it hard to imagine that they're now suffering anything close to the way in which being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day is suffering.

The fact that one of the two parties, y'know, did something to earn their suffering might factor into things a bit here.

Re:Fair Use?

[GooberToo]

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?

[steelfood]

Nah, he's not actually going to serve the full 44 years.

They do special things to pedophiles in prison. Very special things.

Granted, he's technically not a pedophile, but "raping a minor" amounts to the same thing inside.

Re:Fair Use?

[boombaard]

Boo fucking hoo. So he was in a position of power and got away with it at first, and then felt strengthened by that knowledge enough to continue until he was caught.
Advertisers also tell you that you should own a bigger house than your neighbor, but "keeping up with the joneses" has never yet been an excuse for murder or fraud (though it may or may not be a motive). If you get caught, however, it's your own responsibility. So many things on TV are unrealistic.. why is this suddenly an excuse? Next you'll be arguing that kids watching violent movies and videogames are more prone to violent acts...

Contemporary society doesn't accept some things that were fine before. Murder, too, was quite acceptable once, if only as a way to cull the group of young males. Today, however, it isn't anymore. Too bad; if you can't live with that fact, you have no place in modern society, and you might as well be put down.

Re:Fair Use?

[hondo77]

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...

A child who trusted that her stepfather was looking after her best interests and didn't know he was just a perv. Kids aren't idiots for having bad parents. Perhaps if you had had good parents you wouldn't have grown up to be such a dick...though that's a big "if".

Re:Fair Use?

[some_guy_88]

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?

[binarylarry]

I don't think the word "parody" means what you think it means.

Re:Fair Use?

[Ethanol-fueled]

From the Wikipedia:

In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled 'roman polanski' (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "...he had sex with me. He wasn't hurting me and he wasn't forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion".

You may be right, but it's also possible that she embellished a lot of what happened to save face or for other reasons. Nobody wants to look like a whore in a "he said, she said case". Age at the time of the act means nothing, as kids are capable of lying and are even more susceptible to being "coached", especially when a lot of money is at stake.

Re:Fair Use?

[Nyckname]

Screw his vile guts.

No doubt that will be happening very, very often.

Re:Fair Use?

[icebraining]

Then why do places like Finland have much lower prison sentences, and have a lower murder rate too?

Re:Fair Use?

[socz]

I think you hit the head on the nail with that comment, "perpetuating the cycle." It's very sad that they're more than likely to continue what has been done to them. But then again, they could become reps and senators and pass bills that protect themselves... 44 years is several lifetime's too short in my book.

Re:Fair Use?

[c6gunner]

Bingo! I mean, I find his actions despicable, but then I think it's despicable any time a person misleads another purely for personal gain. Why should this man go to jail for 44 years just because he happens to have a weird sexual perversion, while a "miracle healer" who indirectly causes the deaths of dozens of people gets to live a free life while rolling in dough? Just because his victims were 15? So what? If they had all been 19, we'd still consider him an immoral asshole, but we wouldn't lock him up. Yet one of One of them WAS 19, and clearly her "greater maturity" didn't lead her to make any wiser decisions, so what does age really matter in a case like this?

I don't have any easy answers on this one, but I do know that setting arbitrary age limits for the commission of a crime is completely ridiculous.

Re:Fair Use?

[tolkienfan]

Terrorism has never shown any sign of being deterred by sentencing.
If it's true that no terrorist is deterred in any way by sentences, as appears to be the case, should there be no punishment for their crimes?

Re:Fair Use?

[Dirtside]

Some states have laws that define statutory rape as having an age range limit -- e.g. you can have sex with a minor as long as you're no more than 2 years older than they are. So technically an adult and a minor can legally have consensual sex, but only if they're very close in age. This is to deal with the obvious problem of someone who's 17 yr 364 days old having sex with someone who's 18 yr 1 day old -- they're apart 2 days in age, it makes no sense that it would be illegal for them to have sex just because one's technically still a minor, so the law accounts for it. (For example, apparently Texas allows a 3-year age difference as long as the younger partner is 14+.)

Re:Fair Use?

[Labcoat Samurai]

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?

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

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.

That's just nasty of you.

Re:Fair Use?

[Caraig]

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?

[ewieling]

His "registered sex offender" status is a lifetime sentence. There is no parole, no appeal, it's for life.

Re:Fair Use?

[randy of the redwood]

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?

[Foobar of Borg]

and how many years will those young girls suffer for what he has done? 44 years isn't enough.

Not as long as the girl who is alleged to have been raped and murdered by Glenn Beck!

Re:Fair Use?

[ramsejc]

I don't think the word "parody" means what you think it means.

Channeling some Inigo Montoya there, binarylarry?

Re:Fair Use?

[roguetrick]

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:Fair Use?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Humans live a heck of a lot longer than most other mammals, learn, communicate, teach others, consume resources produced by society, etc; plus, if just possibly your actions end up hurting them emotionally, they'll almost certainly be shamed, coerced, and otherwise meant to believe that they themselves are wrong.

There will always be people that can get through something like that perfectly healthily in mind and body. However, for whatever reason, this is one of those things where society pretty well agrees they don't want to take the risk that the girl (or boy) won't. Children are held sacred in that way.

Re:Fair Use?

[Foobar of Borg]

Channeling some Inigo Montoya there, binarylarry?

Hello. My name is Foobar of Borg. You have accused me of copying. Prepare to die!

Re:Fair Use?

[netsharc]

Someone should really pre-empt this and tell the propaganda channel known as Fox News to double-check their chevrons...

Re:Fair Use?

[lgw]

One of the reasons your crime rate is lower probably has to do with the forced sterilization of those deemed unfit by the state that was practiced from the early 60's through the early 80's thereby sterilizing an entire generation of "undesirables" and preventing them from reproducing. We could likely lower the US crime rate by doing such things but frankly believe that doing so is akin to taking away a persons essential liberty for no cause.

Some have argued that legalization of abortion in America achieved the same effect, self-applied. Others that the prevalance of crack cocaine in the 80s and early 90s is what caused our precipitous drop in crimes rates - crack kills quickly and efficiently.

Re:Fair Use?

[tool462]

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?

[electrons_are_brave]

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.

It's true that the incidence of mental illness among prison populations is far, far higher than the general population, and the lack of mental health services for prisoners is an outrage.

However, the key point in this case is that he had control over what he was doing - he was able to maintain a public face of respectability while routinly vitimising vulnerable girls behind closed doors. So this demonstrates that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. Which is why the word predator is appropriate. And why it's difficult for most people to frame his as a victim.

This is different from my ex-next door neighbour who moved in and began standing at his window exposing himself to passing women. It turned our that he had 43 (count 'em!) charges over a 30 year span for doing this, and as many addresses. Now there was a man with a compulsion over which he had no control and which clearly ruined his life. Overall, we felt sorry for him more than anything else.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[gbarules2999]

Terrorism has never shown any sign of being deterred by anything.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Fair Use?

[blueg3]

I agree that statutory rape is a bit of a crock (19 yr old boy and 17 year old girl scenarios)

The correct phrasing here is probably, "statutory rape can be a bit of a crock".

Re:Fair Use?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Whats the difference between a 19 and 17 year old girl

Speaking as a father of two girls (now 23 and 18) the difference in maturity across two years is rather dramatic. At 17 years, there's still a lot of emotionally dependent behaviour. At 19, knowledge of the outside world and their ability to deal with the emotional effects of theirs and others' actions is much advanced. Maturity isn't just growing in that range, it's accelerating as their minds grow and reach their strides. What's likely a scarring, emotional trauma at 17 is easier to deal with at 19, and if their development at 17 is interrupted while they have to deal with a highly-emotionally laden betrayal of trust, then they may never feel at ease around people again. That's the crime, and it can stunt a person's emotional health for the rest of their lives. It isn't just all about physical maturity.

That said, the true crime is treating people like objects, which is the source of pretty much all I consider evil in the world today.

Re:Fair Use?

[c6gunner]

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

You deserve the +5, but in the interest of accuracy I should point out that the answer to your question is "zero".

Re:Fair Use?

[Opportunist]

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?

[cellurl]

The WOODY-Allen effect.

Re:Fair Use?

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re:Fair Use?

[Opportunist]

If you have sex with someone who doesn't want it it's rape.

I'm kinda glad we don't have to discuss the question of 17 year olds having consensual sex with their partner that lands said partner in jail. We have a pretty clean cut case here.

Re:Fair Use?

[TapeCutter]

Not the first time something like that has happened. Rock spiders love the term "sex offender", it dilutes the gravity of their crimes by lumping them together with streakers, public urinators, etc. IIRC one of the main congressional supporters of the sex offender list in the US was caught sending sexually expicit messages to 13-15yo boys serving as interns.

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

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 disagree - the desire for revenge when someone does us wrong seems to be an instict which we share with other primates.

In our society, we have no right to vengence - and rightly so. None of us would like to live in a world where and "eye for an eye" principle operated, if only because it would soon degenerate into "might means right".

So, being civilized, we have exchanged revenge for justice. If someone commits a crime against me, the matter in the hands of the court who can consider both sides and (in theory) come to a balanced judgement.

I think that we came to this point because, as a species, we like to at least attempt to balance fairness and self-interest. So it's part of the social contract that we want sentencing to address all three factors: (a) rehabilitation (because we understand that people can repent and change) (b) containment (because we want to protect ourselves against predators) and (c) punishment (because we things to be fair).

Of course, it all gets distorted all the time and never works the way it should.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Jason Levine]

I know reading articles is too much work for some people, but Ted Alvin Klaudt isn't serving 44 years in jail for one act of rape. He's serving 44 years in jail for being convicted of 4 counts of second degree rape. Each count carries an 11 year prison sentence which add up to 44 years. (There's also another 10 years for witness tampering in there, so his total sentence is really 54 years.) I don't think 11 years in jail is an excessive sentence for raping someone, especially someone underage whose health and well-being depended on you (like a foster daughter depends on her foster father). A father raping his daughter has no reason to complain when he loses his freedom for 11 years per court-convicted count. The daughters are going to need to live with this 24/7 for the rest of their lives so why should we feel bad for the father who is put in a prison cell?

Re:Fair Use?

[TapeCutter]

Make way, dead man walking!

If there is one thing the general prison poulation hate more than law makers and enforcers, it's rock spiders.

Re:Fair Use?

[selven]

That's where the containment part comes in.

Re:Fair Use?

[SanguineV]

Way to ignore the other half of the original poster's statement, I believe it was "deterrence or containment".

I would like to add that rehabilitation should also be considered in sentencing and is a better goal than containment and far better than retribution.

Re:Fair Use?

[Eskarel]

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?

[digitalunity]

I've seen a lot of responses here regarding our instinctual nature to avoid sexual relations with family. You likely missed one relevant detail, as did many others.

She wasn't his stepdaughter. She wasn't even related to him. She was a foster child whom he had not known all his life. She was also 17, on the brink of legal adulthood.

That doesn't justify what he did, and I wouldn't even try to justify it. I'm simply saying his harsh sentence is far beyond what we give for other much more dangerous and heinous crimes like murder and drug distribution.

Re:Fair Use?

[Rabbitbunny]

Terrorism has never shown any sign of being deterred by ignoring the problem.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Fair Use?

[StellarFury]

What I'm condoning is the sequestration - the removal and subsequent isolation - of someone who has willingly forfeited the right to participate in society. If the sequestration is being stuck in a tiny box full of rape for 44 years, so be it.

I know this is going to make me sound like some sort of wannabe hardcore high schooler with a trenchcoat, but seriously, I think the Saints said it best:

"Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace! These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost!"

That's all I'm saying. We're talking about rape and murder - in most cases, especially this one, these actions are indefensible. Of course there can be mitigating circumstances, and the court should take them into account more than they do. But not with this case.

Re:Fair Use?

[TapeCutter]

Chemical castration was practiced in most western countries including the US. Alan Turing was a victim of the UK version due to his homosexuality.

I doubt "undersirablity" is a genetic trait but I do think rock spiders should have their balls removed.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[StellarFury]

Can you get the death sentence for rape? No. Sorry to burn down your straw man.

Re:Fair Use?

[selven]

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.

I agree with this, and so does the legal system - hence the different categories of premeditated murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc. If I'm reading my sources correctly, even premeditated murder gets little over 10 years.

Re:Fair Use?

[I cant believe its n]

Indeed, but I think more noteworthy than this copyright claim ...

What a fool he was to believe that his mere name would be protected under copyright law. Obviously he should have filed for a patent instead.

USPTO forever!

Re:Fair Use?

[quickOnTheUptake]

Okay, when I said "look" I meant more than notice. Yes, it is perfectly natural for a parent to be aware of his children's attractiveness and sexual development. It is not healthy for him to fantasize about them. There is I think a major psychological step that lies between merely noticing and external action, that I was calling "looking".
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:Fair Use?

[Labcoat Samurai]

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?

[drsmithy]

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

Arguably, they shouldn't even be given for deterrence. Containment or _rehabilitation_ should be the goals of the justice system.

If you need punishment to deter people from breaking a law, chances are pretty high it's a bad law.

Re:Fair Use?

[twostix]

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?

[sg_oneill]

rape comedy?

Stay classy slashdot!

Re:Fair Use?

[gbarules2999]

Well, see mine already included yours, because "anything" is a blanket term that includes ignoring the problem. Not much of a fix if you ask me.

Re:Fair Use?

[PhrstBrn]

I'm sure the fact that while one went to a high school, which is run like a prison, and one is either semi-independant/going to college/working at a job has nothing to do with the dramatic difference in maturity levels.

When you treat people like adults, they act like adults.

17 vs 19 barrier is more of an environmental change than anything. In reality, there is no reason why people can't mature faster, it's just that we treat them like they're kids until they're 18, and POOF, all of a sudden you're an adult now and have to act like one, so people are forced to change.

The maturity difference is nothing short of arbitrary. They don't act mature because we don't want them to be mature.

Re:Fair Use?

[ImOnlySleeping]

It's not like the post says no jail time for rape. In my opinion, sentencing for rehabilitation is a much more effective system. Then people actually have to make a change before release. Right now, you have the option of waiting out a sentence.

Re:Fair Use?

[SpeZek]

You clearly pulled that number out of your ass. People can go through all sorts of trauma and lead fairly normal lives after. Kids are especially known for being able to "rebound" from trauma.

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:Fair Use?

[SpeZek]

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.

Correlation =/= causation.
Males of any species prefer young females because they're the healthiest.
Girls tend to start puberty when they accumulate enough body-fat to support a baby. The reason girls are starting puberty younger is much more likely because of increased obesity rather than growth hormones in milk -- there's always been tons of growth hormones in milk, for the calves. That's why you have those 17 year old Chinese gymnasts who haven't had a period yet - their body fat is too low.

Just thought I'd point those things out. It's not a natural conclusion at all.

Re:Fair Use?

[stuntpope]

I don't think he could fit in one that size.

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/article_4afffff0-61e1-5d06-b6f3-882369aefebb.html

Re:Fair Use?

[ChipMonk]

So you're saying a temporary nullification of one persons rights is worth a permanent nullification of another's?

Temporary? Temporary?!? These girls will carry the memories, the fear, the anger, the self-loathing, the betrayal, etc etc etc with them for the rest of their lives.

Re:Fair Use?

[Dr. Hellno]

Is forced sterilization really worse than 44 years in the US prison system? I wonder how many cons would opt for the former if given the choice. Not that such an either/or proposition would make sense in a sentencing, of course.

Re:Fair Use?

[hairyfeet]

Which is why I say we need reform of the laws and less of the "save the childrens!" knee jerk bullshit. And frankly, and some here may hate me for saying this, but IMHO there ought to be a difference between a 25 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old (what we old guys used to call a "statutory story") and some scumbag raping a 9 year old.

The problem with the laws as currently passed by the "save the childrens!" brigade, which I believe this ass clown was a member of, is that we don't differentiate between consensual and rape, and 17 and 9, hell with having sex or just using your privates in public, like pissing on a bush. it is just all lumped under "sexual offender" and its bullshit. I think personally that like the late George Carlin said, it is all about language. Before we had rape and rapists, and just about anybody could tell you what rape was and what made a person a rapist. But then the politicians got rid of rape and made "sexual offenders" which frankly depending on the state like you said could mean you mooned someone.

So while I'm glad this dirtbag is gonna spend the next 45 years in a box, and personally would like it if they sent him down here to AR where we could introduce him to the Hoe Squad, where they would work his ass 12 hours a day doing back breaking labor for those 45 years and make him earn his keep, ultimately I believe sanity needs to be brought back into the law with regards to the whole "sexual offender" mess. But sadly anyone that tries will most likely torpedo their career, as the opposition will cook up commercials making them pro "sexual offenders".

Re:Fair Use?

[Dr. Hellno]

Offtopic: a few fascinated clicks on wikipedia later, I've discovered that capital punishment is also on the books in Cali for "train wrecking causing a death". Yeah, I guess that comes up all the time down there.

Re:Fair Use?

[stinerman]

Thanks for the Info. If I feel like committing Murder I will make sure to stop by Finland as it will only cost me 10 years. Can I also torture the murder victim and only get 10 years? What a wonderful system for repeat offenders.

Yeah, oddly enough their system doesn't make for repeat offenders like ours. I wonder if that is something to look at mimicking or just go with our gut and create harsher penalties.

As the good Senator from Virgina, Mr. Webb once said, either we're the most evil country in the world or something is wrong with our prison system.

Re:Fair Use?

[MaskedSlacker]

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.

And it's a lousy example, because it WAS NOT common in ancient egypt, or anywhere else in the Mediterranean, or anywhere in the world really. The exception was Royal families (where it was common), but it was not common in the general population.

Most societies have some exceptions to the taboo (and which specific relations are considered incestual can vary quite a bit), but the exceptions are always very limited and the taboo is always there.

Re:Fair Use?

[StuartHankins]

Actually I would favor public execution for raping kids. That just might deter others.

Re:Fair Use?

[StuartHankins]

You can't fix everyone. Some people should lose the right to live for their crimes. We use capital punishment far too little. Locking up people for 30+ years doesn't help anybody, they just learn how to be sneakier when they get out.

Re:Fair Use?

[Sir_Lewk]

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

How about we kill the fucks. Nice, clean, and painless. The illness in society they represent is contained and those hurt by their crimes can feel some sort of justice.

Best of both worlds.

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

I disagree somewhat - the frontal lobes of the human brain are still developing during adolescence. In other words, we reach sexual maturity long before we fully develop adult decision making and risk-assessment capacity. Which is why teenagers do so many stupid things without considering the consequences.

Like everything else, the rate of maturity differes. But I would say that the average 17y.o is going to be somewhat different from the average 19y.o. in maturity.

So, when speaking about thinking, women don't really reach maturity till we are out of our teens. Males, IMO, don't reach full brain maturity till they are 45 or so, and they swiftly regress to 14-year-old boy level after age 50.

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

Males of any species prefer young females because they're the healthiest.

OK. But he didn't choose his victim because she was healthy. He chose her because she was available and vulnerable.

Re:Fair Use?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, dear. We have forgoten our Freud, haven't we. An occasional fantasy is _normal_. We're a species that fantasizes about sex with _everything_. Don't you remember being 16 years old? Goodness, I do, as long ago ago as that was. And even now, as a human, although I certainly don't encourage such fantasies, they do happen occasionally.

Lingering over them and obsessing over them and acting on them, now _that_ would be a problem. But the occasional thought of "oh, dear god, my daughter has, ummmm, blossomed, hasn't she?" That's part of life.

Re:Fair Use?

[Khashishi]

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?

[steelfood]

Someone who would do something like that has probably suffered a life of abuse them selves

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. You have to wonder if some people weren't just born that way.

Re:Fair Use?

[quetzalblue]

> Consider the case of Tiger Woods for a current example:

Yeah, I heard about that. Funny how it became common gossip you cant tune out.

> Humor is a way of dealing with the awful.

No, in this case it's not. Unless Tiger is somekinda enshrined Ghandi prominently displayed on the mantel, it's not awfull, it's just everyday lilfe with no really big deal to it.. Tiger was caught doing something that a significant percentage of the adult population does. (both sexes btw). And since I have as much in common with Tiger as the golf ball and Cadillac you mentioned above, I dont care enough to even smirk. In this case the "humour" is to lower it's victim to our every day level.

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 expression you're lookinng for is laughing at someone elses' expense.

Oh well, so much for the adulation: he's only human.

BTW, the original comment about his two daughters is ironic which makes it apropos. (Yeah, I smirked at that one though ;-))

Re:Fair Use?

[SpeZek]

Does that change what I said? Did I even make that claim?
What exactly was the point of your post?

Re:Fair Use?

[Khashishi]

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 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/nyregion/28slave.html
No, it has nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with sex. And children.

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

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:Fair Use?

[10Ghz]

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.

Re:Fair Use?

[quickOnTheUptake]

I think at this point we are talking past each other:
My

a parent to be aware of his children's attractiveness and sexual development

is your

the occasional thought of "oh, dear god, my daughter has, ummmm, blossomed, hasn't she?"

And my

fantasize about them

is your

Lingering over them and obsessing over them

Re:Fair Use?

[some_guy_88]

You can't fix everyone.

Yes but perhaps it's not the person who is broken but society. We are the product of our environment. Perhaps he can't be "fixed" but I think in this case, prevention is far better than cure. By prevention I mean, preventing him from doing it in the first place.

What drove him to be that way? We live in a highly competitive, capitalistic environment that pushes very selfish "if you want something, take it" sort of attitudes. I think society has failed this man. We collectively have failed this man. Now we can pretend we are none to blame and lock him up in jail for his whole life. We can try to forget about it by conveniently putting him to death so he's out of our consciousness. OR we can take a look at the world we live in and try to make it a better place.

*sigh*, who am i kidding..

Re:Fair Use?

[CountBrass]

That's nonsense.

There are four purposes to the state taking the law into it's own hands: retribution, punishment, reformation and deterrence.

Retribution is important for many, not all certainly, victims so that they can at least feel "justice has been done" and that what happened to them has been recognised as not being acceptable.

Re:Fair Use?

[mjwx]

and on it goes. Humour is a way of dealing with the awful.

There's a bit of a difference between a father sexually abusing his underage (or even overage) daughters and a sports star being attacked by his wife when he was caught cheating. There's a certain amount of schadenfreude involved in the latter where as the former should always be considered abhorrent. I'm not one of the "think of the children" crowd but in this case children actually were abused and pretty badly (fun fact: most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a parent or close friend, I.E. someone the child trusts). Humour is not always appropriate for awful events, try telling a joke about September 11 and see how long you last here.

That being said, so far 11 of Tigers girlfriends have come forth, where are the other 7.

Re:Fair Use?

[tarp]

You need your head examined. There is nothing wrong with a 15 year old woman being with a 27 year old man. That has been happening since the dawn of mankind. My mother in fact was 15 when she got married, to a much older man. The world is != U.S.A.

Many other cultures do not have the ridiculous practice of treating people past puberty as children that the U.S. seems to have.

Re:Fair Use?

[tarp]

I would disagree with your view that Klaudt is a rapist. While he did insert his fingers into their vaginas, I disagree with the characterization of this as rape.

Re:Fair Use?

[tarp]

Mr. Anonymous Coward, have you ever been involved in a court proceeding or even had any run-ins with the criminal justice system before? No? That's what I thought. Court affidavits can and DO get perjured, as a matter of course. Why would it necessarily be any more reliable than a Wikipedia post?

Re:Fair Use?

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations....
          Always good to provide citations to back up one's statements. Sad that this one seems to undercut your point of view:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sexuality.htm

regards
dave mundt

Re:Fair Use?

[Anarchduke]

I noticed that he was on the Appropriations committee. I wonder ... naaa .... its too easy

Re:Fair Use?

[CRCulver]

Humour is not always appropriate for awful events, try telling a joke about September 11 and see how long you last here.

When The Onion returned about three weeks after the attacks, their first issue was dedicated entirely to September 11. Sometimes humour helps one to deal with events of such a complex and painful nature.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anarchduke]

exquisite gifts? Are they somehow related to the subject of the article?

I never knew that etradingitems.com dealt in child pornography! I am shocked and appalled.

Re:Fair Use?

[Rubinstien]

Kind of an old meme. "Methinks he doth protest too much" (usual misquote). http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks

Re:Fair Use?

[L4t3r4lu5]

44 years puts him at 95 on release. If he makes it that far... I get the impression that anyone who has heard of him will be inclined to make his stay less than enjoyable.

Death would get the guy out of the way for cheaper, but I disagree with it on principle. It's a difficult situation.

Re:Fair Use?

[L4t3r4lu5]

And some just need separating from the vulnerable. Permanently.

Re:Fair Use?

[L4t3r4lu5]

The guy is 51. This is a life sentence.

Re:Fair Use?

[NeutronCowboy]

Source? Because my anecdotal evidence agrees with me. And my friends in the psychology/psychotherapy area unfortunately have even more depressing opinions on this matter.

Sexual abuse fucks you up for life. I wish I had a counter example, but I don't.

Re:Fair Use?

[Tim C]

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.

People (male or female) are not supposed to look at children of either sex as sexual objects, whether they're under their care or not.

The fact that they're under the person's care makes the crime even more reprehensible due to the betrayal of trust, but it doesn't make it okay for (say) a 35 year-old to sleep with a 15 year-old just because there's no pre-existing relationship between the two.

Re:Fair Use?

[u38cg]

Fucking your foster-daughters because they trust you and don't know any better doesn't seem particularly excuseable to me. Most murder has some sort of mitigating circumstances attached: rape has precisely none. As for your assertions on trauma, I'm curious to know how many rape victims you are sufficiently familiar with to make that judgement? It certainly seems to me to be a bit of a leap to suggest that the most traumatic thing about being raped is the "societal stigma" (whatever that means). Lastly, can I point out that if you repeatedly murdered people over a number of years, you wouldn't be getting a typical 15-year murder sentence either.

Re:Fair Use?

[Antique Geekmeister]

This is reasonable. My concern was your statement that "men are not supposed to look". It's a common enough belief, but it doesn't seem practical or effective.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Fair Use?

[MadUndergrad]

There is no way a 13-year-old is psychologically equipped to consent to sex with a much older person, especially one who has so much power over them to start with, and especially when drugged. There is no defending his actions. Saying "meh, that was the times" is ridiculous. Everyone else who did similar things then is just as guilty as Polanski and should have been prosecuted.

Re:Fair Use?

[Gulthek]

You guys, that was an awesomely polite back and forth.

Re:Fair Use?

[kthejoker]

Many states used to make rape a capital offense (Virginia and Louisiana, for example), Louisiana had it on the books as late as 2008 but the Supreme Court overturned it as cruel and unusual.

You are, of course, limiting yourself to the United States, since among the many capital offenses in the world are drug trafficking (Singapore), espionage (Algeria), witchcraft (Central African Republic), sodomy (Mauritania), kidnapping (Uganda), embezzlement and fraud (China), prostitution (North Korea), attempted murder of police (Russia), ... and, yes, rape (Egypt, Guyana, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Thailand, China, Kuwait, and so on).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Re:Fair Use?

[kalirion]

So would you suggest people do the merciful thing and "put rape victims out of their misery"?

In any case, there are different levels of rape. While what this guy did was far, far worse than the "statuatory rape" of a 19 year old having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, it wasn't nearly as bad (or traumatizing I bet) as your usual violent rape.

Re:Fair Use?

[kthejoker]

Consented and enjoyed the act? What fucking planet are you living on? He drugged her and she told him no, but was unable to stop him.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Jesus, way to lie to make yourself feel better about sick acts done by adult men on 13 year old girls.

Re:Fair Use?

[kalirion]

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

You're correct. Let's punish all infractions of the law with death by torture. Presto, crime rate drops.

Re:Fair Use?

[Thuktun]

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.

Murder is generally considered to be deliberate and premeditated, which by nature generally excludes self-defense.

Re:Fair Use?

[Just Some Guy]

We're talking about rape and murder - in most cases, especially this one, these actions are indefensible.

I would actually defend murder over rape. There are a lot of situations where an otherwise decent, law-abiding person could be driven to murder (catching wife with a best friend, attacking the person who hurt a child, etc.). I think anyone could be made to snap violently under exactly the right conditions; a few billion years of evolved defense mechanisms could be hard to overcome. In the words of Chris Rock: I'm not saying I condone it, but I understand.

On the other hand, I can't think of a single reason why someone might be driven to rape. Note that I'm not talking about the drunken groping around with next-day regrets variety, but the clearcut deliberate attack sort. There's just not any kind of valid justification for that act.

Re:Fair Use?

[plague3106]

Their feelings don't enter into it, really. I'm sure you laughed at jokes where the incident was serious for those involved.

Re:Fair Use?

[Onymous Coward]

Muting "some" is probably fine as it's only "some" who are the "more vocal" and who are likely themselves guilty. There are enough normal people to champion reasonable protection of children in non-rabid ways.

And gays don't need "cover".

Otherwise your point is insightful.

Re:Fair Use?

[djdavetrouble]

All of those jokes are hilarious,

and I like your handle, Randy of the Redwoods was my favorite character of Ducks Breath Mystery Theater.

Can we have some more tasteless topical jokes please?

Re:Fair Use?

[Carewolf]

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.

I don't believe that argument makes anysense. It is similar to saying that a spoonfull of icecream is the only way to quench the primal *need* a screaming child has for icecream. I believe the opposite, but giving in all you do is incourage bad behaviour. Tougher crimes will never end and always get tougher and tougher until you learn to control your primal urges to hurt other people.

Re:Fair Use?

[Onymous Coward]

I can appreciate the idea of an "argument from emotional need", but I feel like it could use some detail.

What, for example, differentiates "primal *need*" from "oh man, I *need* another hit"? Surely not every emotion should be acted on?

Also, "[some] folks used to act barbarically" is not a very good argument. Though I can see how it might have some relevance. But hasn't self-control been the hallmark of a better civilization?

You'd be wrong about my not having suffered violation, by the way. And in any case, whether I have has no bearing on the logic of my position. In fact, if such a thing did, I'd say that a person who's been permanently traumatized by violation might be less able to think about the matter clearly.

Re:Fair Use?

[GooberToo]

No one excused him. That was made clear in both posts (mine & gp). That's a pretty crazy comment to start off with. No one and I mean NO ONE thinks what he did is okay. It's not. Period. Hopefully reading that for the third time allows it to sink into your head. As your opening statement is completely false, its pretty safe to bet your entire post is pointless and uninformed.

Most murder has some sort of mitigating circumstances attached: rape has precisely none.

So now you're excusing murderers? Reality check please. Complete and utter bullshit.

I'm curious to know how many rape victims you are sufficiently familiar with to make that judgement?

And how many murder victims are sufficiently familiar to know murder is bad. The subject is well documented. Perhaps you should become "sufficiently familiar" with books, documentaries, and a general education. Dip shit.

It certainly seems to me to be a bit of a leap to suggest that the most traumatic thing about being raped is the "societal stigma" (whatever that means).

Clearly you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Learn to fucking read and comprehend. You're the only one saying that. Idiot. Notice the distinctions I made in my statement. Notice you removed all such distinctions. Idiot. Don't put words in my mouth and then attack me for your own incompetence.

Lastly, can I point out that if you repeatedly murdered people over a number of years, you wouldn't be getting a typical 15-year murder sentence either.

Bu then again, sexual assault isn't murder either. Idiot.

As to my assertion at the top: yep!

Re:Fair Use?

[dave562]

Who are you kidding? Society is made up of individuals. Individuals make choices. "We" didn't fail the guy. We didn't do anything to make him decide that fucking his adopted daughter with a dildo was a cool thing to do. Blaming society is the biggest load of crap. It follows the logic of, "Well, everyone else is doing it..." Every child in America has probably heard, "If everyone else was jumping off of a cliff, would you do it to?"

Whether it comes down to using drugs, engaging in illicit sexual acts, defrauding others, or any number of taboo activities... society has a collective whole has decided to punish people who step out of line. It isn't always fair. Sometimes it casts people further out from the core of productive members of society. It's the chance that people take when they engage in shady behavior. Some people have it in their hearts to forgive. Bless those people for their compassion.

If anything society has triumphed in this situation. We have decided that if a man is going to adopt a child into his home, he can't sexually abuse the child. If he does, he will be punished for it. That is what is happening here.

We live in a society that pushes materialism. Despite that, I find myself drawn to Taoist and Buddhist philosophies that recognize the problems that come from pursuing materialistic "success". In this day and age there is an alternative to just about every view point out there. Just because society encourages one way of being doesn't mean that a person has to drink the Kool-Aid and go along with a dysfunctional program.

Re:Fair Use?

[digitalunity]

Not really. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. This man raped a 17 year old girl. It's not the same at all.

Re:Fair Use?

[digitalunity]

Dummy. I read the article. And the entire 27 page affidavit from his original arrest.

He didn't physically, forcibly rape them like you would imagine from a Law & Order episode. He convinced them to sell their eggs, and through deception and manipulation got them to agree to allow him to "examine" them with fingers and dildos to see if the eggs are healthy.

Yes, he is a manipulative, conniving person. How does that compare to forcibly raping someone? I heard of a case online where a guy raped his 10 year old nephew in the ass over the course of a year and only got 80 months in prison. That's not even 7 years, compared to this guys 44 years.

Why the disparity? Is manipulating a 17 and 19 year old into letting you finger them more, or less worse then taking a 10 year old and raping him forcibly?

I'm not defending either of them or saying what they did was fine. But 44 years? Really, that's fair? I'm not seeing it.

Re:Fair Use?

[SpeZek]

People who were sexually victimized during childhood are at higher risk of arrest for committing crimes as adults, including sex crimes, than are people who did not suffer sexual or physical abuse or neglect during childhood. However, the risk of arrest for childhood sexual abuse victims as adults is no higher than for victims of other types of childhood abuse and neglect.

However
The vast majority of childhood sexual abuse victims are not arrested for sex crimes or any other crimes as adults.

Source

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Re:Fair Use?

[SpeZek]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

How about a real study?

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

...the entire slashdot community would never have a significant other because they would all be pining for Natalie Portman.

Point taken, but the females will have to vote on who our "Natalie Portman" equivilant is.

Re:Fair Use?

[VoiceOfDoom]

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

Um....no. Really no. Much of the damage of rape comes from the sense of violation, of powerlessness, of shame and humiliation that someone has used your body without your permission - in fact in direct opposition to your wishes and you couldn't stop it. There really are very very few experiences in life that compare in terms of horror and emotional destruction.

Rape is an emotionally-charged subject - it's one of the worst experiences anyone can go through at any age.

Re:Fair Use?

[plague3106]

You've done it in other cases though, which you just admitted, so get off your high horse and STFU. Its not up to you to draw the line.

Re:Fair Use?

[plague3106]

Well if my wife, who was molested as well, can do so I don't see any problems. Apparently a lot of people agree with me, given the running joke on Family Guy. BTW, I think your horse (wife) joke was lame, but that's my point. To each his own, its not up to me to decide for you what you should think is funny.

Re:Fair Use?

[alexo]

Feigning change is faster than waiting out a sentence.

Between Kzinti telepaths and the Aurora chair... No way!

Re:Fair Use?

[linzeal]

The man weighs over 400 lbs and is diabetic, 5 years is pry a life sentence.

BTW, not to disparage the famously fat folk on Slashdot but being morbidly obese is a sign of trauma in childhood for those who are not simply genetically disposed to it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Senator himself was abused.

An idea

[enderjsv]

Can I legally change my name to "The".

Re:An idea

[Brian Gordon]

You don't even need to change your name; you just have to maintain that anyone who uses the word The owes you $500,000.

Re:An idea

[langelgjm]

That'll be $1 million, please.

Re:An idea

[Idiomatick]

I copyrighted punctuation to piss of the grammar Nazis. Unfortunately, the value has been dropping ever since the advent of the internet. :(

Re:An idea

[noidentity]

Sir, you would be infringing on the copyright I have on my name: T H E (first, middle, last). If you wish to proceed, I can work out a licensing arrangement.

Re:An idea

[RichardJenkins]

Cool. Can I have the letter 'e'? Just lower case, obviously.

Re:An idea

[HeadSoft]

Can I legally change my name to "The".

Too late, I trademarked the letter "e".

Re:An idea

[antifoidulus]

Mr. Burns would still come out on top though.

Re:An idea

[selven]

Yes, you can try, but I doubt le copyright office would be happy about that.

Re:An idea

[earlymon]

I copyrighted punctuation to piss of the grammar Nazis. Unfortunately, the value has been dropping ever since the advent of the internet. :(

If you weren't perfectly aware of it - I happen to hold the software patent whereby you can post comments on the internet using the word "of" in place of "off" and still get mod points for being funny.

Generously, I'm willing to negotiate a settlement.

Re:An idea

[sleeping143]

I'd rather have the letter 'i'.

Re:An idea

[MadnessASAP]

W3ll I have the copyright to quotation marks asshol3. That'll b3 $100,000.

Re:An idea

[radiosac]

Euler already has that one

Re:An idea

[MillionthMonkey]

I am going to copyright my name right now, file a patent for "Method to acquire money by suing people for using one's own name", and sue this guy in Texas Eastern District Court.

Re:An idea

[Idiomatick]

I'll kindly point out all the punctuation you just used and be willing to call it even.

Re:An idea

[earlymon]

If someone has intellectual property rights on irony, one of us in trouble!

Re:You said 'it'

[rockNme2349]

I wanted to post it 10 times in a row, but slashdot has a filter on too much repetition... who knew?

Lawyer in a Can

[b4upoo]

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: Lawyer in a Can

[enderjsv]

The south? I kid. I kid.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[Idiomatick]

He's a super fat white religious republican from South Dakota. The only thing that could make this more stereotypical is if he were a minister.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[d34dluk3]

It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.

Or special things to put in the special places of people who rape their daughters?

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[selven]

Look, everyone knows that bishops move diagonally.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[psithurism]

Where did this poor fool get his law training?

Probably from his peers while he was in the house of representatives.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[Sanat]

He was a rancher but his sheep all died... now I am beginning to understand...

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[fuzza]

It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.

That would be the Special Hell. Along with people who talk in the theatre. :)

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[DiEx-15]

I say feed him to 4Chan... Plenty of laughs will be had (to him) till he gets sent to a nice warm place!

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[Nidi62]

Except in the South it's not rape, it's consensual. Of course, that's mainly only true in certain places, such as Appalachia. Sometimes I get kinda worried when I go up there visiting my family.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[kauttapiste]

In Europe, Belgium! I kid, I kid, Austria actually.

Sex offender shuffle

[ickleberry]

Do they have sex offender shuffles in South Dakota? I'd like to see him in version 2.0

Only 500k?

[e2d2]

Why not a Bajillion? It's just as likely.

Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of Ted Alvin Klaudt before, but it sounds like Ted Alvin Klaudt is a grade A jerk. Who does Ted Alvin Klaudt think Ted Alvin Klaudt is to try to claim copyright on Ted Alvin Klaudt's name? I can't wait to see Ted Alvin Klaudt get slapped down for trying to copyright Ted Alvin Klaudt. ...Ted Alvin Klaudt.

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[RancidPickle]

Did someone clone wacko lawyer Jack Thompson? It makes me nervous to have a politician with two of the three chipmunks in his name. Maybe he'll owe the trademark owner of Alvin and the Chipmunks 2/3rds of the proceeds.

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[RancidPickle]

By the by, if we can't refer to Ted Alvin Klaudt's name, perhaps the legal system can assist by changing his name to "The State Lawmaker Currently Referred To As 'The Receiver' By His Cellmates"

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[getmerexkramer]

Now that you mention it, how come we never see Jack Thompson and Ted Alvin Klaudt in the same place at the same time? Does that seem suspicious to anyone else?

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[QRDeNameland]

"Receiver" might be tough to copyright. He might need something more original, like "Cocksocket" or "Bubbacepticle".

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[mooingyak]

By the time I got to the end of that, all I could think was "Denny Crane".

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[Anarchduke]

Perhaps something that precisely identifies his particular brand style? Marketing in these situations is important.

I'm leaning towards Republibitch or Mr. Sexual Congress.

What a silly dollar amount...

[nweaver]

You really should sue for $47 Bazillion dollars...
It has a much better ring to it than $500K.

Re:You said 'it'

[thetoadwarrior]

One more time and he would have appeared in your room.

Four Factors

[langelgjm]

Well, he might have a defense given three of the four factors:

Was the nature of the use commercial, or for non-profit, educational use?

Did he use the entire work, or just portions of it? (I'm guessing just portions.)

Did his use of the work affect its marketability?

Wow. Even I found that tasteless.

Re:Four Factors

[HarrySquatter]

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.

Re:Four Factors

[Beardo the Bearded]

Wow. Even I found that tasteless.

Yeah, even for the Internet, that was bad.

Re:Four Factors

[lattyware]

Indeed. Next we'll be seeing pornography on it! Can you imagine?

Re:Four Factors

[Kjella]

Indeed. Next we'll be seeing pornography on it! Can you imagine?

If it's related to this case I'd rather not.

Re:Four Factors

[Blue Stone]

So what you're saying, if I'm reading you right, is that if someone else went around raping their own foster children, but calling themselves "Ted Alvin Klaudt", he would have a case for dilution of his brand and market confusion?

I bet he feels like a right chump for not registering his brand identity before now.

Re:Four Factors

[vegiVamp]

Sorry dude, it's a clear case of rule 34. Dura lex, sed lex and all that.

Re:Four Factors

[The Wild Norseman]

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.

For a good time, call The Wild Norseman®.

Sweet. Now I'm covered.

Re:Four Factors

[baegucb]

I noticed that too. I guess that means he's offering his daughters. I wonder if anyone has told them, and the legality is dodgy.

Re:Four Factors

[shankarunni]

Well, he might have a defense given three of the four factors:

Wrong. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html:

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?

Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

Re:Four Factors

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Four Factors

[Anonymous Coward]

Rulebook:

Rule one: there are no rules.

Rule two: if someone makes a rule, break it immediately, and get at least ten other people to break it as well.

Rule three: see rule one.

Re:Four Factors

[ImOnlySleeping]

ISO documented process of "Ted Alvin Klaudting"

Re:Four Factors

[PopeRatzo]

went around raping their own foster children

Which party was this guy from again?

I keep forgetting, and the summary, as well as the biggest cable news network, doesn't seem to mention it.

Re:Four Factors

[Dr. Hellno]

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!

Re:Four Factors

[Dr. Hellno]

I prefer this formulation:
Rule one: there is only one rule and this is it.

Re:Four Factors

[robot256]

What he meant was, he'd rather not be prosecuted for downloading child pornography, since that is what "related to this case" would imply. I heartily agree that it probably exists, after all why go through the trouble of raping your own children if you can't make a few bucks off it?

Re:Four Factors

[StuartHankins]

UGH.

Re:Four Factors

[Firehed]

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:Four Factors

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Yeah, even for the Internet, that was bad.

How delightfully naive.

Re:Four Factors

[supernova_hq]

I'm guessing his primary motivation was not money...

Re:Four Factors

[vegiVamp]

I suspect I'm not the first to do so, but let me nevertheless congratulate you on a very well-chosen username.

Re:Four Factors

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it made it to the front page of Slashdot, it's safe to assume he's a Republican.

Re:Four Factors

[robot256]

Congratulations, you are the first to do so.

That doesn't have some sort of sarcastic relation to the content of my post does it?

Re:Four Factors

[skeeto]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's the ultra-conservative ones, that would make adultery illegal if they could, who are the ones caught cheating on their wives. The whole Mark Foley incident. The fervently anti-gay pastors that get caught cheating on their wives with other men. How do their minds work that inconsistency out?

Volokh's Reasons Why Not

[porges]

According to Eugene Volokh at his well-known (conservative) legal blog:

That’s legally wrong on so many levels: Short words and phrases can’t be protected by federal copyright law; common law copyright has been almost entirely preempted by federal copyright law, and in any event was applicable only to unpublished works; copyright of any sort would only apply to your own creative work, and Ted Klaudt’s name wasn’t created by him (unless it’s an assumed name); fair use would in any event allow people to use the name to refer to him, if there was a copyright claim to begin with, which there isn’t; and trademark law doesn’t preclude uses of a trademark in an article to refer to the trademarked item.

Ted Alvin Klaudt

[uvajed_ekil]

Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt
No, you can not have $3 million, Ted Alvin Klaudt! Idiot.

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt

[Archangel Michael]

Hey, I have a derivative work.

Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist,

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt

[antifoidulus]

Just don't say that into a mirror.....

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt

[Arthur Grumbine]

... but I, as Ted Alvin Klaudt, feel otherwise...

My. God. He's not only one of us - but he has a 4-digit UID!
This gives a whole new meaning to this earlier comment of yours, Mr. "Lopez":

"Think of the children" belongs in the past. We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds.

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt

[mooingyak]

That's what happens when Ted Alvin Klaudt discovers the 7 1/2 floor.

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt

[Flagran]

Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich?

Son of Sam

[Wireless Joe]

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.

From TF New York Times A:

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Re:From TF New York Times A:

[langelgjm]

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.

Re:From TF New York Times A:

[MightyMartian]

So if he trademarked his name and another molesting raping pedophilic pile of dog excrement came along and tried to use his name, he could sue.

Re:From TF New York Times A:

[interval1066]

The guy wouldn't have a leg to stand on...

He may not have an ass to poop out of either now that he will need to come to grips with the Streisand effect while watching the evening news with some of his more notoriously less-than-kind-to-child-rapists yet stronger-than-apes cell mates.

Re:From TF New York Times A:

[IP_Troll]

There is no such thing as common law copyright.

For copyright to exist there needs to be a statute defining what is protected. The first copyright statutes granted printing monopolies to aristocratic friends of English monarchs, giving the aristocrat the right to own and use a printing press. There has never been a common law copyright.

In the present day United States the federal government has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over copyrighted works that are defined in 17 U.S.C. 301. 301 covers everything that can be copyrighted in the United States. Copyright cases brought in state court for such works can be dismissed by the state court judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant doesn't even need to raise the issue, the state court judge can just say "can't hear it" and dismiss.

If the state has a statute, on the books, that provides copyright protect to something that 301 doesn't provide protection for then that would allow the state court to hear the case. EXCEPT 301 covers everything which can be copyrighted in the United States, the state copyright statute will be invalidated for some reason, so it is a circular argument.

Also, this is just a nastygram (R), not an actual lawsuit. His name was already used in print, the alleged infringement already happened, IF he did have a cause of action he would filed a suit. The fact he just sent out a notice not to do it again "or else" makes me believe he doesn't even buy his own BS.

Re:From TF New York Times A:

[langelgjm]

You're right, the language "common law copyright" is improper and confusing - all I meant to refer to was state copyright law.

If the state has a statute, on the books, that provides copyright protect to something that 301 doesn't provide protection for then that would allow the state court to hear the case. EXCEPT 301 covers everything which can be copyrighted in the United States, the state copyright statute will be invalidated for some reason, so it is a circular argument.

I understand that federal copyright law preempts state copyright law when the work is valid subject matter under federal law, but if the work is valid under a state statute and NOT valid under federal law, why couldn't someone just assert their claim under state law? They wouldn't be claiming a copyright under federal law, just the rights associated with their state's law.

In this case the guy's name is obviously not valid subject matter under 102. But, arguendo, if it were valid under his state's statutes, why would that be preempted?

That's a whole lotta love

[Just Some Guy]

Holy crap. I didn't realize that the Streisand Effect was where you suffocate your bed partner. Props to the Rapid City Journal for using "Rapist" as the first word in the headline of their story about his copyright claims. Since he is a convicted rapist, it's a matter of public record and totally OK say that Ted Klaudt is a rapist, right?

Re:That's a whole lotta love

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yes, if Ted Klaudt was convicted in a court of law, then ipso facto he is a rapist. You aren't stating anything libelous or slanderous, as it is a simple repetition of facts.

MLPWDW
(My Law Prof was Dick Wolf)

Re:That's a whole lotta love

[cthulu_mt]

Not to nit pick, but the first word should have been "Child" the second word should have been rapist.

The last sentence should be "A copy of this edition is being provided, free, to every inmate at his place of incarceration."

Re:That's a whole lotta love

[Caraig]

MLPWDW
(My Law Prof was Dick Wolf)

I don't care if his name was 'Dick.' That has got to be one of the coolest names in American history. It deserves to make weak men tremble and strong women curse when he announces who he is.

Alvin Klaudt! What now?

[MrCrassic]

And now for something completely different, "I'll take the rapists for $1200, Trebek."

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[postbigbang]

None at all.

The man is obviously a twit.

May justice be served.

IANAL, but...

[ghostis]

I thought names and phrases were the purview of trademark law and not covered by copyright law?

Re:You said 'it'

[Pieroxy]

who knew?

All of us that already tried to do something that stupid.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[EndlessNameless]

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.

Of course...

[Jkasd]

According to the Wikipedia article, he cosponsored several anti sex offender bills.

Re:Of course...

[tomhudson]

According to the Wikipedia article, he cosponsored several anti sex offender bills.

Didn't want the competition?

Seriously, this is no different from all the other "family values" crowd. Preach against something in public, and do exactly the same thing in private.

Title wrong

[Wyatt Earp]

He isn't a "Congressman". He is a former member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which would make him a former state legislator.

Re:Title wrong

[edsousa]

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

Re:Title wrong

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Ever get the feeling that the asshats trying to pass this type of legislation do all sorts of crazy shit, can't restrain themselves, and subconsciously want to protect us from them? Like this guy? I never trust a politician who wants to pass new laws to "protect" me from anything. Murder is illegal. Rape is illegal. Prosecute accordingly; do we really need more laws to clarify what's already illegal? We already HAVE laws against almost everything we should, I wish they'd stop grandstanding and just enforce them already. At least this guys is getting what he deserves, and will be getting it for 44 more years...

Re:Title wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

His title is "rapist".

Re:Title wrong

[PhxBlue]

He isn't a "Congressman". He is a former member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which would make him a former state legislator.

You're new here, aren't ... looks at the UID nevermind.

Re:Title wrong

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You're right, I looked it up, I'm surprised at this. I didn't know that being a member of a state's congress doesn't qualify being called a Congressman, only being a member of the US House of Representatives. Seems like a silly stipulation, though English is a language of silly stipulations. Even sillier that a UK sponsored dictionary says this (OED).

Re:Title wrong

[heson]

Please, his current and forever future title is "Rapist".

More Info

[DeadPixels]

The New York Times has a little bit more info on the story. Apparently he sent this notice from prison, where he's serving a 54-year sentence (44 for rape, 10 for witness tampering).

Re:More Info

[cowboy76Spain]

Surely he is afraid that if the news appear on internet he'll have a hard day finding a job when he gets out.
Looks like this guy has lost contact with the real world long time ago.

Re:More Info

[stumblingblock]

actually 4 consecutive 44 years terms,i believe

Re:More Info

[bug_hunter]

I'm pretty sure even with an early parole this news story will be long forgotten by the time he gets out (though his criminal record wont be).

Re:More Info

[auLucifer]

54 year sentence by the GP, the dude was born in 58 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Klaudt), I don't like his chances in surviving prison let alone getting a job once his out.

Re:More Info

[dissy]

Surely he is afraid that if the news appear on internet he'll have a hard day finding a job when he gets out.

That's assuming he does get out.

Of course it heavily depends on the prison he is in, but even among prisoners molesting children does not go over well at all.
A rapist is not the best thing to be when locked in a cell with people that would willingly (and most likely would) beat him to death where the officers will do less than nothing to help (Typically when they hear screaming, they purposely delay in intervening.)

Re:More Info

[Dirtside]

Apparently he sent this notice from prison, where he's serving a 54-year sentence (44 for rape, 10 for witness tampering).

Right, so what he should really be worried about is his reputation.

Re:More Info

[Caraig]

(Typically when they hear screaming, they purposely delay in intervening.)

A part of that is self-preservation. When the screaming starts, someone is being sent to the great beyond in a slow and violent fashion, and even one or two prison guards are not getting paid enough to wade into that Hell-on-Earth to try and stop it. The guards call for backup, usually in riot gear.

Of course, a part of it might sometimes be the guards thinking, 'Bastard had it coming,' and letting the inmates vent a little pent-up frustration.

Mind you, it'd be best if the second one wasn't entirely true, but... there you go.

Re:More Info

[istartedi]

So some guy rotting in prison pulled some legal shenanagans (a popular passtime in there, based on several other stories I've seen) and it managed to reach all the way into my living room, via Slashdot. Sheesh! Prisoners file bogus legal claims all the time. You'd think that journalists would recognize the pattern by now, and just stop reporting on it.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[Yvan256]

So what you're saying is that he belongs on Twitter instead of Facebook?

What a tard

[thetoadwarrior]

I doubt it's legal to say the news can't report on something because its name is trademarked. That would allow for major abuse by companies wanting to silence the meda.

Secondly, I did a search on his name and he's not in the US copyright database. He needs to prove he owns the copyright and lastly, does he not mean trademark? I'm not sure about the US but I would guess a name or title can't be copyrighted but registered as a trademark and he's not in TESS either.

I suggest the convicted rapist blow out his ass.

Re:What a tard

[jarden_from_cerberus]

I suggest the convicted rapist blow out his ass.

Well, he is in prison. I'm sure someone will take care of that for him.

Re:You said 'it'

[Beardo the Bearded]

Sorry, that's my fault. I pointed out that the lameness filter (all caps, code, etc) could be bypassed by ending the comment with "...and because /. thinks this comment is obscene, I've copied the word "fuck" 100 times: fuck fuck... etc."

Been tried before

[MickyTheIdiot]

This particular scam has been tried before, 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.

So the witness tampering didn't work out so well..

[macraig]

... and now he's resorting to media tampering. That's a pretty natural progression, I guess....

convicted

[nurb432]

Sorry dude, you deserve every ounce of grief you get. ( and more )

Not in Jail long enough

[icebike]

Look, he hasn't been in jail long enough to take the whole Jail-house Lawyer course yet. Its just a first-year noob mistake.

Give him a few years of study in the prison library, and he won't be making these fresh-meat mistakes. I'm sure he will have a lot more experience "behind" him in a couple years.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[Culture20]

I'm sure he will have a lot more experience "behind" him in a couple years.

He's a child rapist. He's not going to be prison-raped, he's going to be killed.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[icebike]

Urban Legend.

For the most part, it just does not happen.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[Falconhell]

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:Not in Jail long enough

[Penguinisto]

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.

To be fair, the word "schadenfreude" wasn't invented in the US, nor was it conjured up to describe any uniquely American activity...

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[DoninIN]

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:Not in Jail long enough

[rahvin112]

There is no such thing as rehabilitation. People only change when they themselves want to change. Most American's enjoy the Idea of Prison being a violent dangerous place in the hope that it will convince criminals that they don't want to commit crimes again and end up there again. Even if deterrence is as big of a myth as rehabilitation it at least has some backing in reality.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[gujo-odori]

I think it works something like this:

Many Americans - including myself - believe that crimes such as his warrant capital punishment, and not capital punishment after 10 - 20 years of bogus appeals, but take-him-out-back-of-the-courthouse-and-shoot-him type capital punishment. Thus, when he is sentenced to 4 consecutive 11-year terms in prison, people are left with the feeling that justice has not been served. Granted, at his age and physical condition, 44 years may well constitute a life sentence, but he has the at least theoretical possibility of being paroled, especially since (as far as I can determine) the sentence was not "without possibility of parole." Thus, he could well get out of prison.

If people believe a sentence is inadequate, don't be surprised if they react with something approaching glee at the possibility that a perp might be killed in prison.

In practical terms, he probably won't be. Known child molesters are typically segregated from the rest of the prisoners for their own protection, because if it becomes known that they are molesters, they're in for a rough time. Since he's fairly well known, especially in South Dakota, I rather expect they'll be keeping him away from the general population.

Pity. Jail should be unpleasant and even brutal. Provides added incentive to stay out of it, you see.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[tool462]

In the US, imprisonment is not about rehabilitation or punishment. It's about revenge.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[ffflala]

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

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[selven]

It's all about your view on punishment. If you think prisons are there to hold prisoners until they are no longer dangerous and potentially help them rehabilitate (like I do), it's horrifying. If you see prisons as a madhouse where you throw people down the chute and forget about them, however, prison rape is just part of the environment. It's not a good viewpoint, but it's one that many people unfortunately have.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Not in Jail long enough

[Genda]

That's absolutely correct... a rather large gentleman named Tyrone will be staunchly "behind" him, and there will be nothing "fresh-meat" about him or his mistakes. That, and he'll have a completely new and vital perspective on the whole rape topic.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[L4t3r4lu5]

To make people want to rehabilitate requires them being shown that life is better once they choose rehabilitation.

US prison system teaches them to shank their cell mate before they turn them into a rag doll. I can't for the life of me figure out why they'd come out worse.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[gujo-odori]

Humane jails?

Hmm. In jail today, you get cable TV. Playboy, and I would suppose, other skin mags of your choice. Better medical care than many people who aren't in jail get. The contraband of your choice - including even cell phones - isn't that hard to get. Despite all this soft "humaneness," recidivism is as high as ever. Maybe worse.

That has to change. You want humane jails? Let's start with my definition of how a humane jail works, then:

1) It's a lot like military boot camp. What you do, when you do it, how you do it, and how much of it you do, is determined by your drill instructor. He or she cannot make you do it, but can make you wish you had.

1A) Military-style haircut. And your prison uniform shall be kept neat and clean. You will be issued a uniform that fits and you will wear it as instructed. If you don't want to wear it as instructed, see that part in item 1 about your DI making you wish you had.

2) You'll read what you're allowed to read. You'll watch on TV what you're allowed to watch. This will primarily be educational texts. Spiritual texts will be allowed for those who want them. TV will be education channels such as National Geographic or The History Channel, plus news channels. Want to watch a movie? Earn movie credits through achievement.

3) Education in prison shall be compulsory. Those not having a high school diploma or GED will go into a GED program. Those who do will go into a college program aimed at getting them a 2 or 4 year degree. Or, alternatively, a vocational training program. Completion of the program could, and in most cases should, be made part of the sentence. Allowances should be made for demonstrated learning disabilities.

-Or-

If you don't want to do that stuff, you can get your ass out on the chain gang every day and forget about parole or time off for good behavior. You'll serve every day of your sentence at hard labor.

WRT potential for mistakes in the take-em-out-and-shoot-em, I do support having a higher standard of evidence in capital cases. Specifically, the current standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not enough. Something along the lines of "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is more appropriate. Concrete examples include DNA evidence - which has been used to exonerate a number of incarcerated individuals - or being apprehended at the scene of the crime.

Set up that framework, then push capital punishment down the offense stack. Way down the offense stack. Three strikes and you're out = a life sentence? No. Three strikes = the gallows. Rape, with DNA evidence, = the gallows. I think we could add a few crimes to that list, such as the ones that got this thread started.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[Falconhell]

The state should never kill. It counters any moral authority they may have.

Why the fascination with revenge?

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[DoninIN]

But again, other civilized nations have shorter sentences, nicer prisons, and less crime. So it doesn't seem to follow much at all. Now maybe they have less crime because they have just a different society somehow. But Canada is an awfully lot like the USA and they have less crime, shorter sentences and nicer prisons. (They have racial diversity, they have guns, they watch our TV, play our video games, it's like an alternate reality version of the USA)

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[alexo]

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.

Doesn't seem to be working too well.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[ffflala]

While I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't done much to change the situation, I see nothing in that huffpo article describing the efficacy or lack thereof of the PREA.

This one seems to describe some progress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/60000-inmates-sexually-ab_n_219385.html

Not a "Congressman"

[MushMouth]

In the United States a Congressman is specifically a member of either the US Senate or US House of Representatives. This guy was a member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which makes him a State Legislator or State Representative, but not a "Congressman".

Re:Not a "Congressman"

[johnwroach]

According to AP style and general usage, "Congressman" refers only to U.S. Representatives.

Yes, it is stupid.

Re:Not a "Congressman"

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Haven't you noticed? Slashdot titles are now written by DrudgeReport.

They don't use the facts.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[tinkerghost]

He actually doesn't have standing to copyright his name. He didn't engage in the creative act - his parents did. By filing the paperwork saying he did, he's committed an act of fraud. Outside of that, he's not the first criminal to pull this stunt. It's going nowhere and any attempt to enforce it will be laughed out of court - probably with sanctions for any lawyer who actually brings it.

here it goes...not to troll but to prove a point..

[Mr.Fork]

Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt. That should be good for a $12.5 million lawsuit. BTW - I'm in Canada, and lawsuit trolls are treated, well, fairly for the defendant - usually I'm entitled for damages - sometimes equal to what people are sued for. And frivolous copyright lawsuits are well, treated with as much respect by the justice system as they would treat a rapist... wait a minute...

But...

[The MAZZTer]

copyrights are owned by the people who come up with the idea, right? So wouldn't his parents own the copyright? Maybe they should sue him.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[Razalhague]

Besides, wouldn't the copyright holders to your name be your parents? (provided you haven't changed your name, of course)

Ok, here we go!

[Weaselmancer]

Ted Alvin Klaudt! Ted Alvin Klaudt!

Hm. So that's what it feels like to spend a million dollars.

Less satisfying than I had imagined.

Re:Ok, here we go!

[TubeSteak]

Ted Alvin Klaudt! Ted Alvin Klaudt!

Hm. So that's what it feels like to spend a million dollars.

Less satisfying than I had imagined.

For that kinda money you could've done two chicks at the same time.
And it would've been very satisfying.

Re:Ok, here we go!

[selven]

Go 200 kilometers per hour on a residential street- $1000 in 20 minutes
Download a song - $80000 in 3 minutes
Say Ted Alvin Klaudt's name - $500000 in 2 seconds
Insert catchy punchline here - Priceless.

Re:Ok, here we go!

[db32]

There are much cheaper and effective ways to piss off a Republican and it isn't exactly difficult to convince a Republican that your money should be their money. (Ok, to be fair, that last part applies to all politicians, but Republicans are the only ones eager to explain to you that isn't what they stand for while they take the money...not unlike this very case...funny that...)

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[Fieryphoenix]

Even Disney cannot copyright "Disney". What they have is a trademark.

Ted Alvin Klaudt

[Adrian Lopez]

Sorry Slashdot, but I agree completely with Ted Alvin Klaudt. If I were Ted Alvin Klaudt and had been convicted, as Ted Alvin Klaudt was, of raping my foster daughters, I too would have scrambled for ways to prevent the media from commenting on my transgressions, just like Ted Alvin Klaudt is doing. Some may say employing copyright law in the manner of Ted Alvin Klaudt constitutes blatant abuse of the legal system, but I, as Ted Alvin Klaudt, feel otherwise. Ted Alvin Klaudt hasn't done anything wrong (with respect to the copyright thing, not the rape thing), and I wish him (Ted Alvin Klaudt) the best of luck.

Godspeed, Ted Alvin Klaudt. Godspeed.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[mea37]

A few things.

1) The domain name disputes are over trademark, not copyright. The rules for trademark are completely different from the rules for copyright.

2) The domain name disputes are not a direct result of any IP law - not even trademark, and certainly not copyright. They are essentially a result of regulatory policies specifically surrounding domain name management. Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).

3) In any event, even if the esteemed congressman had asserted trademark over his name, that would not forbid its use by news outlets. Trademark protection is not nearly that broad.

The copyright assertion is not only stupid, it is in direct contradiction to the law.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[WCguru42]

Tell that to the people that get told they cant have a domain name that says 'Disney', even if their name IS Disney.. Its not always cut and dry like one would expect.

Could that be that the domain name Disney is already spoken for. Just because your name is Steve doesn't mean you get to have the website www.steve.com. Now, what wouldn't be fair would be if Disney could sue you for being named Disney.

Its no big deal

[bussdriver]

Just imagine how much damage he played a part in when he was in office. That will be doing harm longer than the lives of the girls and impacting many more people.

How about we put all politicians in jail? If they want to serve the greater good, they must forfeit their freedom - instead of just saying the people come first make them prove it.

How about we ban men from political office for a few hundred years? just to make up for lost time.

Link to his sex offender page

[h4rr4r]

http://sor.sd.gov/results.asp?nav=7

You have to do a search for him after agreeing to some terms.

I wonder if he plans to sue the state over this?

Re:Link to his sex offender page

[amicusNYCL]

I don't know what you see, but when I try to use that site in Opera, Firefox, or IE it just alternates between the search form and the disclaimer. Agree to the disclaimer and I get the search form, submit a search request and I see the disclaimer.

Re:Link to his sex offender page

[netsharc]

Geezus Freaking H. Christ... What 565 lbs. looks like.

Re:Link to his sex offender page

[DeAgua]

Looks like the South Dakota Sex Offender Registry is going to get hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit. Clearly, they're using his name without permission.

Re:Link to his sex offender page

[Abstrackt]

Dude is 5'10" and weighs 565 pounds??????

Guess they needed the wide angle lens for his mugshot...

Re:Link to his sex offender page

[Myopic]

Strange. He didn't look like I thought he would.

Re:here it goes...not to troll but to prove a poin

[Dunbal]

Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt.

      There, I'm in for another $12.5 million from quoting you. This is fun! Perhaps Ted. A Klaudt (oops, 13 million) thinks that lawsuits are like making the government print more money. However I'm sure that Ted. A Klaudt (oh dear) prefers to be called Ted. A Klaudt (14?) and not Ted. A. KLUTZ (that one's a parody, and covered by fair use).

      Anyway, enjoy.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[psithurism]

Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.

Actually, it was the accumulation of millions of standard grade stupidity that accumulated in an election, as it does every year, that caused the critical mass that made him a law maker.

What we need is tighter control over total stupidity in the general populace, not how much is possed by any one person, because as Ted Alvin Klaudt will kindly demonstrate for you, it's rather ineffectual when wielded by one person.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Advanced English, for professionals, or for folks that think they are:

A "twit" is someone who does silly stuff, but is mostly harmless.

A "twat" is someone who does silly stuff, but gets on your nerves.

Abusing two foster daughters? The proper English term for him would be "a right cunt."

Finally, reading Viz for the past twenty years has paid dividends.

I do not

[geekoid]

believe the accusation that Ted Alvin Klaudt raped and..wait whats that? He did?

never mind. Your your deity of choice not have mercy upon your alleged soul.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[jonbryce]

And you can write about Walt Disney or the Disney Corporation without the need for any sort of licence. What you can do is use the name to sell animated cartoons and related products.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[interkin3tic]

Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.

I'd tell you the name of the guy who decided he should be a lawmaker, but then I would owe him several million dollars, and I can't give money to terrorists.

Here's a hint: his name rhymes with Blaudt, he copyrighted his own name first, and you owe him money now.

Very nice example of Streisand Effect

[shutdown -p now]

A google search for "Ted Alvin Klaudt" 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:Very nice example of Streisand Effect

[omglolbah]

I'm sure more is yet to come.

I find the choice of words amusing. That is all :-p

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[Deadstick]

You don't set precedents by filing lawsuits. You set precedents by winning them.

rj

Re:1 year, with an important requirement

[NeutronCowboy]

Unfortunately, if he lives through it, he'll just go right back to raping girls. Sadly, that happens too often.

He wasn't a comgressman,

[CoverStory]

he was a member of South Dakota House of Representatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Klaudt

Re:He wasn't a comgressman,

[Mike Rice]

Which is the Congress of South Dakota.

While I do not believe that Ted Klaudt raped and murdered two goats in 1997, it is rather disturbing that Ted Klaudt has so far refused to deny that Ted Klaudt raped and murdered two goats in 1997 ( one named Ted, the other named Klaudt).

If Ted Klaudt is not guilty of all these rapes (and murders), why would he not publicly deny it?
It's not like he has any association with Glenn Beck, who has refused to deny the rape and murder of two young girls in 1990.

But with these new unfounded accusations it is more important than ever that Ted Klaudt and Glenn Beck distance themselves from each other to avoid guilt by association.

Ted Klaudt and Glenn Beck should simply cooperate with the courts, police, FBI and CIA with total access to Ted Klaudt and Glenn Becks correspondence, social calendars, financial statements, bank accounts, email, web history & etc, to put this issue to rest for once and all.

After all, if Ted Klaudt and Glenn Beck have nothing to hide then why shouldn't Ted Klaudt and Glenn Beck show the proof that they are not rapist/murders?

I just don't get it.

New meme

[Stavr0]

Did Ted Klaudt rape two girls in 1997?

WOW

[greatgreygreengreasy]

Is his listed weight correct? 565 pounds?!!! How could he force the girls to even FIND his penis, let alone use it against them???

Re:WOW

[MichaelSmith]

According to the article that part of his anatomy was not involved in the rape.

Jail all politicians

[conureman]

44 years sounds good... wait, did this guy serve more than one term?

nt

[shentino]

Facts cannot be copyrighted.

Re:Weighty question

[conureman]

I saw a picture, that may be correct.

anyone wanna buy ....

[Gone84]

tedalvinklaudt.com ???

Re:anyone wanna buy ....

[selven]

The internet is too fast for you

Re:anyone wanna buy ....

[Gone84]

Nope It's mine. Set it up for charity after the advice of someone else who hit it a bit too late :)

Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the act?

[boombaard]

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"?

Let me rephrase that for you

[A nonymous Coward]

I wonder how many times Ted Alvin Klaudt used Ted Alvin Klaudt's foster girls without Ted Alvin Klaudt's foster girls' permission.

common sense proposal

[geegel]

I hereby propose that all slashdotters ignore the Streisand effect on the grounds of sheer stupidity

Re:common sense proposal

[Arthur Grumbine]

Jesus, Ted! How many /. accounts do you have!

Re:common sense proposal

[selven]

www.slashdot.org/~tedalvinklaudt

The user you requested does not exist, no matter how much you wish this might be the case.

Re:You said 'it'

[steelfood]

Only if you're a teenage girl.

Ted Alvin Klaudt is a moron

[kimvette]

Ted Alvin Klaudt cannot copyright a title.Ted Alvin Klaudt cannot copyright a name. Ted Alvin Klaudt is mistaken on this matter and Ted Alvin Klaudt is not only proving himself (Ted Alvin Klaudt) to be a pedophile douchebag but a moron as well. If Ted Alvin Klaudt had half a clue Ted Alvin Klaudt would trademark his name. However, as Ted Alvin Klaudt would quickly discover, the trademark 'Ted Alvin Klaudt' would be indefensible in the manner which Ted Alvin Klaudt desires. Even when a phrase is trademarked anyone and everyone would have the legal right to use the name (Ted Alvin Klaudt) to refer to that douchebag sex offender.

In summary: Ted Alvin Klaudt is a retard in addition to a douchebag, and Ted Alvin Klaudt has no legal basis for his moronic claim.

When doves cry...

[TiggertheMad]

Perhaps we should start referring to this guy as the asshole formerly named 'Ted Alvin Klaudt'?

Re:When doves cry...

[wooferhound]

Oh , are we talking about Ted Alvin Klaudt? Cause if it's not Ted Alvin Klaudt I would hate to say something bad. But if it is Ted Alvin Klaudt then more people should know about Ted Alvin Klaudt. I'm assuming it is Ted Alvin Klaudt that we are talking about. Doesn't Ted Alvin Klaudt charge people 500 grand for using the Ted Alvin Klaudt name? then I guess I'll have to stop using Ted Alvin Klaudt's name or he might try to collect from me . . .

Re:When doves cry...

[FatdogHaiku]

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:When doves cry...

[FatdogHaiku]

Doesn't Ted Alvin Klaudt charge people 500 grand for using the Ted Alvin Klaudt name? then I guess I'll have to stop using Ted Alvin Klaudt's name or he might try to collect from me . . .

Tell him you're a kid, I hear they get a special deal!
Seriously, the dude is over 550 pounds...
http://freakbits.com/media/Ted-Alvin-Klaudt.jpg
if he comes to collect, wait until he is right up to you and then walk away at a brisk pace.

Rape is bad, yes, but as bad as we make it out?

[Labcoat Samurai]

I wonder about this sometimes. We, as a society, seem to think rape is as grave a crime as one can commit. A person who is raped is scarred for life, and only the most serious of punishments is appropriate. But I know that if I were given the choice of 44 years in prison or being raped multiple times, it would require me no time at all to pick the multiple rapes. It would suck, but I'd get over it in a hell of a lot less than 44 years. Is there anyone here who would pick the prison time?

Now murder, I can see. Naturally, I'd rather spend 44 years in prison than be murdered, but we have this idea that rape is somehow as grave a crime as murder. If a woman is murdered, we think that's bad. But if a woman is raped, we are appalled. Yet I suspect most women would rather be raped than murdered. It has never exactly made sense to me.

Re:Rape is bad, yes, but as bad as we make it out?

[Simonetta]

Rape is considered so terrible because it is often done specifically to impregnate the woman and to make her 'unfit for marriage' in traditional cultures where this is of primary importance. In that light, no one gives a fuck when a man gets raped (excuse the pun).

Re:Rape is bad, yes, but as bad as we make it out?

[Labcoat Samurai]

Interesting, so you would suggest, as I mentioned in a separate post, it comes back to maidenhood. But that's not really what I'm getting at. I mean, while I do have curiosity as to the sociocultural background that led us to thinking rape is so bad, I'm more interested in questioning the modern justification for that thinking. Rape rarely results in pregnancy today, and even if it did, it would not make the woman unfit for marriage. For that matter, by the reasoning you give, no one should give a fuck when a woman on birth control is raped.

Re:Rape is bad, yes, but as bad as we make it out?

[electrons_are_brave]

Are you sure that "we as a socitey seem to think that rape is as grave a crime as one can commit"?

Here in Australia, the average sentence for rape is 5 years and for murder 19 years. Which I think reflects well how Australians regard the relative seriousness of the two crimes. I've never really heard any female say they'd rather be murdered than raped.

But what's the point of a debate about which is worse? I'd rather someone painted graffiti on my fence than rob me, I rather be robbed than beaten, I'd rather be beaten than raped, raped than murdered, murdered fast than tortured and murdered and so on.

It's not a victim competition. So what?

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[Arthur Grumbine]

Tell that to the people that get told they cant have a domain name that says 'Disney', even if their name IS Disney...

Unless you're willing to fight tooth-and-nail like this brave soul.

Re:Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the ac

[Tubal-Cain]

(as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative ----s that call themselves Christian).

Fixed that for you.

Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[Valdrax]

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

[maxume]

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:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[maxume]

Oooops. That last paragraph should read "So I see some value in not lumping hypocrites in with rapists just because the rapists happen to be hypocrites."

And it would probably read better as "So I see some value in not lumping mere hypocrites in with rapists just because the rapists happen to be hypocrites too."

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[drsmithy]

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:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[tftp]

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.

That would be about 50 degrees F, assuming a common kitchen fridge.

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[Valdrax]

And it would probably read better as "So I see some value in not lumping mere hypocrites in with rapists just because the rapists happen to be hypocrites too."

Meh. My point from the other post still stands. We're not equating the two. We're just not locked onto rape as the only thing worth being angry about here.

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[maxume]

Sure, there is lots to be angry about, but there really isn't any need to bring the other names into it just to make the point about the hypocrisy (Or perhaps better, mentioning their names in the same sentence as this guy doesn't do anything to make the point any stronger).

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[Valdrax]

Sure, there is lots to be angry about, but there really isn't any need to bring the other names into it just to make the point about the hypocrisy (Or perhaps better, mentioning their names in the same sentence as this guy doesn't do anything to make the point any stronger).

Sure there is a need if you're talking about a pattern for a political party that portrays itself as a champion of moral values and yet has far more sex scandals than the opposition. Its this pattern that particularly draws my ire. "Moral values issues" are one of the Republican Party's wedge issues that draw moderate voters to them, and the drive to impeach Bill Clinton rested on (seemingly faux) outrage over his sexual infidelities.

If a Democrat steps out of line sexually, it's the end of his career unless he's in a very safe seat. May as well resign ASAP because the hounds will be baying for blood until he does. If a Republican does the same, all it takes is some boo-hooing and promises to seek God's forgiveness, and it's dealt with. Done; nothing left but a little fuming on the other side of the isle. (But forget any Christian forgiveness for a Democrat who asks the same!)

It just galls me. It also kind of horrifies/amuses me how frequently in the wake of child predatory scandals that you'll find out that the politician in question has his arms elbow deep into legislation to toughen laws against sexual predators! It's like they're out to look as tough as possible to deflect suspicion from themselves. In the end, all they do is weave the rope for their own noose.

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[maxume]

So which of the Republicans being discussed didn't leave office in disgrace? Hell, Foley's scandal had repercussions for the people around him.

Note that I tend to lean Democratic, and that this is all within the context of my 'impassioned' defense of Larry Craig above (the one where I call him a jerk).

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[Myopic]

The hypocricy bothers me, but even worse is that the sexual moralizing, the demonizing of permissive sexual culture, is bad for humanity.

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[Valdrax]

Well, Foley and Klaudt had little choice because their actions are criminal, but Craig surely hasn't. Vitter hasn't. Ensign hasn't. Sanford hasn't. Etc., etc.

Well, maybe not as "etc., etc." as I thought. Reading back through a few scandals I remembered to provide support for my statement, I see that a some people HAVE resigned. Mike Duvall, Richard Curtis, etc.

Note that I tend to lean Democratic, and that this is all within the context of my 'impassioned' defense of Larry Craig above (the one where I call him a jerk).

Yeah, I'm not accusing you of being a rabid Craig fan or anything. I'm just saying that it's not unmerited to bring up other examples of something you want to complain about if you see it as a pattern, and you need to establish the argument.

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[hey!]

I only take issue with the implicit assumption that it's *remarkable* that a peculiarly aggressive champion of public prudery has a few skeletons in his closet. If you don't practice virtue yourself it's easy to urge it on others, but I also think it's overcompensation. It it's really important to prove you're not gay, then the easiest way to do that is to persecute gays. If you want to hide your infidelity, make a big noise condemning the sexual behavior of others.

I suppose it's a chicken-or-the-egg question. In places where there is a lot of social disorder, people look for the government to impose personal virtue. Just as the best job for a bank robber is running the bank, the best job for a pervert in a culture of government imposed virtue is in public office. The kind of harsh, hypocritical intrusion of the government into private life they advocate only produces more disorder in people's lives.

Re:here it goes...not to troll but to prove a poin

[Arthur Grumbine]

Perhaps Ted. A Klaudt (oops, 13 million) ... However I'm sure that Ted. A Klaudt (oh dear) prefers to be called Ted. A Klaudt (14?) and not Ted. A. KLUTZ.

It seems as though, like many women, your best efforts at humor have fallen tragically short due to the sooner-than-expected appearance of a period.

Hey "Ted Alvin Klaudt"

[flyneye]

Yeah buddy I'm usin your child molestin'"Ted Alvin Klaudt ex S.D. legislative clown" name on a public forum and calling attention to your crime the world will never forget now that it's archived for all the world to see.
If you think you're gonna get a dime from me you better pucker up and suck a t**d outa my a*****e so we can film it and sell it cause thats the only way a carnival sideshow attraction like you is gonna make a dime from now on short eyes.
                You don't make the rules no more do ya brownie hound? Ordinary incest wasn't good enough for ya, you had to engage in foster incest. You are a scumbag to scumbags.

oops...

[Low Ranked Craig]

http://tedalvinklaudt.com/

It never fails.

[mweather]

Why is it I can always guess the political party whenever a politician gets caught doing something sexually depraved?

Re:It never fails.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it I can always guess the political party whenever a politician gets caught doing something sexually depraved?

Hate to say ... but there's depravity on both sides of the isle.

Barack Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings promoted a conference in 2000 ... teaching 14-year-olds Fisting.

Re:It never fails.

[mweather]

Jennings wasn't even present. A volunteer in his organisation was there, but that's about as close a connection as there is. If that's the best you can come up with, I rest my case.

trademark?

[glebovitz]

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:Wait, slow this train down

[mooingyak]

Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).

When a trademark is well known enough (and I think Disney counts), that protection extends even into markets where they don't compete. I'd expect someone who opens a 'Disney Wine and Liquors' or 'Disney Adult Video' to lose a trademark suit.

Yeah right...

[Hurricane78]

And I want a pony too!

Remeber guys: Someone stating something does not make it true. Unless his sense of reality is stronger than yours, and you cave in.

The sad thing is......

[Ogre332]

I knew he was a Republican before I even clicked the link. ;-)

You're forgetting the historical function...

[jeko]

...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:Wait, slow this train down

[SanguineV]

You cannot copyright a legal name. I.e., if a word or phrase is your official identifier it cannot be copyrighted.

So if I legally change my name to the encoding of $latest_film in $some_format then that version of the film/format cannot be copyrighted and can be distributed freely?

Ted Alvin...Klaut?

[xymog]

Who are we talking about -- the Ted Alvin Klaut accused of rape, or the Ted Alvin Klaut who is a dickhead?

Re:You said 'it'

[Artifakt]

Which, you have to admit, is most of us. I know I've bumped the filters a few times. And to be a grammer nazi, shouldn't that be "All of us who already tried..."?

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[schon]

So if I legally change my name to the encoding of $latest_film in $some_format then that version of the film/format cannot be copyrighted and can be distributed freely?

Try it and see. You'd be surprised how many obstacles an idiot trying to prove a pedantic point would encounter.

Re:Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the ac

[twostix]

"as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human"

As opposed to forward thinking "empathetic" progressives such a yourself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg

Or followers of Islam: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/2008111201216476354.html

Then again I've never seen one of "those" "self-righteous conservative christians" make any claim that you suggest regarding rape except to be horrified by it, and to be compassionate to the victims. And given that I attended church for the first 20 years of my life and was surrounded by quite a few "self-righteous conservative christians" who oddly enough were about one quarter as self righteous as most of the "metro cool" group who have an irrational bone to pick with them I can bet 100 to 1 that my eduacted opinion of them is about 100% more accurate then your wishful thinking and tribalism.

I'm afraid your mind is lost in a maze of hatred.

And no I'm not a Christian.

(Here comes a mod down, never violate the sanctity of the two minutes of hate against evil white christians on the Internet by the oh-so rebellious middle class white set).

Re:Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the ac

[Dalambertian]

... 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).

Out of left field much? WTF does this have to do with Christianity?

How much is this worth?

[ArcherB]

Ted Alvin Klaudt
Ted Alvin Klaudt
Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt

Sue me, you piece of shit!

What are you babbling about?

[Valdrax]

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.

What are you babbling about?
(1) No one has suggested legal punishment for hypocrisy.
(2) No one is equating rape to hypocrisy.

Our point is merely that we are strongly disastified with politicians who pretend to be champions of moral values while hiding huge skeletons in their closet. I'm not saying that the only difference between rape and hypocrisy is matter of degrees. I'm saying that the difference between hypocrisy over homosexuality (a sexual act Americans are split over, with most accepting) and hypocrisy over pedophilia (a sexual act Americans are united against) is one of degrees. Both champion straight, consensual, monogamous, married relationships in accordance with the scripture. Both failed to practice what they preached.

[Three paragraph rant on how this galls me in relation to partisan politics and wedge issues snipped for going too far off-topic.]

Re:Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the ac

[Attila Dimedici]

I am unaware of any Christian who suggests that rape victims wanted it. There may be some who suggest that some women dress/behave as if they want to be raped, but that is a different argument than saying that a rape victim wanted to be raped.

Public Domain

[Efialtis]

Once he goes to court and his name is entered into the Public Record, it becomes Public Domain (like it wasn't already??? he was a senator...) then it can be used without his consent...

You insensitive clod!

[PPH]

My name is Ted!!!

Its OK

[PPH]

He doesn't go by Ted Alvin Klaudt anymore. In prison, he's known as "Sweet Cheeks".

roughly fair or better

[Onymous Coward]

... of course some explanation is needed. I guess I was ignoring a niggling expectation of that.

The base yearning for retribution is understandable. It's natural. There's no wrong in feeling it. (There's never wrong in feeling any emotion. Emotions are inherently valid. It's the choices inspired by emotions that can be right or wrong.) I believe it is essentially feelings that are the source of all that is valuable, so feelings need to be honored and supported as much as possible.

But we all know it's dangerous to act on every feeling.

We should minimize the chance of more harm, not slake the emotional need to inflict suffering.

Revenge is a kind of malice. And it is malice in the first place that causes harm and spurs vengeance.

Our perceptions, our knowledge, our beliefs, our deductions, and our actions are never perfect. Can you know perfectly what retribution is just? Can those who suffer your wrath know perfectly that your retribution is just and will they call it even? Or is it more likely that hate blooms at least a little every time it's fed?

Do those who hate themselves and fear others act less selfishly when you stoke their hate and their fear with your attacks?

How many conflicts in the world might have started with misunderstandings yet have grown into irreconcilable antagonism? Start with "oops" and get wedged into a state of endlessly pushing for bloody agony?

Devaluation of others, the core of malice, spirals out of control.

Stop the harm. Take away the power of the malicious to cause harm. And refrain yourself from intending harm.

(There's yet more reason to care for everyone, but this argument is sufficient.)

I might have said rehabilitate, too. That's a good idea.

Ted Alvin Klaudt? Ted Alvin Klaudt...

[piotru]

Ted Alvin Klaudt must be the Ted Alvin Klaudt, the lawmaker Ted Alvin Klaudt accused of raping Ted Alvin Klaudt's two foster daughters. Is there any Ted Alvin Klaudt to accuse Ted Alvin Klaudt for raising copytight claims on Ted Alvin Klaudt's name?

What's the guy's name, again?

[SpaghettiPattern]

What's the guy's name, again?
Ted Alvin Klaudt
What?
Ted Alvin Klaudt
Again please?
Ted Alvin Klaudt

Next one, please write a hymn inspired by Ted Alvin Klaudt and Monty Pytthon's SPAM sketch.

Why not name him...

[Sam Lowry]

...former RAPIST congressman...

Big Difference

[maroberts]

By the time I got to the end of that, all I could think was "Denny Crane".

Denny Crane wins all cases he takes on.... (allegedly)

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

[bwcbwc]

Ted: You forgot to obtain the transfer of copyright from your parents. Or did you spring demonically from the muck of the Swamp of Doom? I mean, if you were born like most people, your parents are the ones who created and titled this work, so they own the copyright by default, not you. And of course if they named you after an ancester, there is no copyright, since you're a derivative work.

Hey, don't worry, I can go either way on this one.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[mea37]

Maybe. So what? I neither know, care, nor said anything about whether you could operate a business named Disney in the wine and liquor market.

As long as we're introducing irrelevant points, "disney adult video" would be in a market Disney occupies, even though the movies they produce don't happen to be adult videos. I can't say off the top of my head whether they have an entry in the food market, but I bet they do. I think you'll have to try a bit harder to think of a legally distinct market where Disney itself doesn't compete.

Even if that weren't the case, it may not matter, because using a child-oriented company's mark on adult products would likely be seen as harming the trademark holder's reputation trhough use of the mark, which itself can be actionable.

But back to the point: Simply registering disney.com is not an action regulated by trademark law.

Bite Me, Ted Alvin Klaudt,

[Toad-san]

You got that, jerk? Bite me, Ted Alvin Klaudt, you criminal bastige. There, that's a nice round million. Come and get it, jerk.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[mooingyak]

Simply registering disney.com is not an action regulated by trademark law.

No, but the point I was going for was more that just about any commercial use of disney.com would likely be seen as trademark infringement.

Re:here it goes...not to troll but to prove a poin

[heson]

I suggest a million dollar hit single.

If thats not catchy enough I suggest limerick. I'll give the beginning, some one more talented please complete it.

A rapist named Ted A. Klaudt

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[EndlessNameless]

This is where reason steps back into your world. A judge can deny a change of name for "frivolous" or "immoral" reasons.

I'm fairly certain that changing your name to a GB-long binary string in order to circumvent copyright restrictions qualifies as immoral. In the absence of a reason to change your name to a GB-long binary string, such a request is patently frivolous.

Along those lines, I'm sure that a change of name to circumvent trademark use restrictions would also fall under the immorality criterion. There are practicing lawyers you can pay to get an absolutely firm answer to your question... if you're being anything more than an obnoxious tool by asking it.

Re:Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the ac

[Calithulu]

Not really, in either case it is still blaming the victim and is unacceptable and repugnant.

Re:Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the ac

[Attila Dimedici]

Saying that if you dress/behave in a particular manner others will think of you in a particular way is not the same as saying that it is your fault if they act on that impression.

Ted Alvin Klaudt

[qzulla]

Where do I send the check?

qz