Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Man To Delete Revenge Blog
nonprofiteer writes "A Minnesota man violated a restraining order obtained by his ex-girlfriend by blogging about her mental health and sexual issues, and sending links to posts on the blog to her family, friends, and co-workers. The judge then extended the restraining order by 50 years, ordered the guy never to write about his ex on the Internet and ordered him to delete the blog he created. Even though there was no evidence that what he had written was false, the judge said the ex-girlfriend's 'right to be free from harassment' outweighed the guy's 'right to free speech.' 'I believe it's rare, if not unprecedented, for a court to order an entire blog deleted,' says technology law professor Eric Goldman."
no he is not a health organization.
He violated a restraining order. The first amendment issue isn't novel just because he happens to be talking about her on a computer.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
He was sending links to the blog to her family and friends... do you really think ignoring it until it stopped was really the best solution?
Only if he's a medical professional. HIPAA does not apply to the general public, only medical service providers.
I'm really torn on this one... On the one hand, yeah, free speech. On the other hand... that borders on stalking, and possibly endangering her. On the other other hand, do we really need yet more government intervention to enforce niceness? Where do you draw the line at "you can be THIS much of a jerk, but any more and the law steps in"?
Lived here all my life. There's no point in trying to warn anyone that a specific Minnesotan woman is crazy. Welcome to the norm for all Minnesotan women. ;)
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
wants to set a precedent in case someone wants to blog about his sexual issues in the future. But seriously if someone has a restraining order on you and you umm be the asshole people will think your the asshole whatever the case may be.
So, telling other people the truth about someone is harassment? Obviously, sheep deserve to be killed; they speak up and make noise when they sense a wolve in the flock! If someone treats you bad, it is harassment to warn others of that persons behavior. Right? I THINK that is what the judge was saying... Who needs free speech anyway.
Usually that line is drawn at whatever the criteria are for getting a restraining order. What those are varies by jurisdiction, I bet.
I'll get him to relay messages to me and I'll post them anonymously to a blog. They judge is going to have to order him to not speak to anyone about his ex to shut it down. Let's see how well that goes over with the ACLU.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Where do you draw the line at "you can be THIS much of a jerk, but any more and the law steps in"?
If you were to measure the damage in dollar amounts, you can take someone to court for very small amounts, less than $100.
In my book, he crossed the line with his demonstrated intent to hurt her. He isn't trying to protect the general public by sharing this knowledge, and he isn't even trying to entertain people. His pure goal is to hurt her however he can (ironically he might have a sub-goal of getting her back). I see no problem if we as a society protect people like that with restraining orders and such.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
prohibiting criticisms political, of corporate rule, regulations and the rule of law in general. Dare not speak out against the beast lest you be placed in the dungeon or worse. Where there was once freedom of speech in a country that literally invited everyone in the world to come and live, work, raise a family, now there is only a remnant few who can even remember those days. It is reminiscent of the budweiser commercial of Frankie and Louie. "Enjoy it why you can, Hotshot, your days are numbered.." "Quiet, they'll hear you." "Oh Yeah? I did the tongue thing. This could have been huge. This was [America].."
BadAnalogyGuy posting as AC?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There are some major assholes out there... and it would be great if they couldn't talk. But this is total bullshit. You should be able to rant and rave about your ex-wife/girlfriend on the internet or where-ever else you want. Her family could easily have blocked his emails. They didn't have to visit the site. They could have even complained to his ISP and the ISP could have terminated his account... something I've actually seen happen (I've worked for many ISPs over the years)
The government baring you from mentioning a person for 50 years? That's just a tad too distopian for my tastes... even if the guy deserved it.
Well, there's a tort here of willfully causing emotional distress, which could be litigated, and a jury would be within its legitimate power to order a remedy to the harm he's causing. Ordinarily that would mean taking his money and giving it to the plaintiff. As for forcing him to STFU, I'd be a lot more comfortable with a jury in a civil action deciding that than a judge or any other government official.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Unpopular, despicable and even odious speech is protected constitutionally and this fellow is entitled to write whatever he cares to and publish it in whatever manner he sees fit, be it internet blog, book or clay tablets.
Now where the Judge -does- has specific powers to help this woman out is in limiting this fellows -contact actions- that are specifically targeted at this woman and her friends, family and co-workers. He does not publish the blog -at- anyone. He publishes it for everyone. Emails, notes and letters sent to specific individuals is not publishing, it is direct communication which he can be ordered to cease without violating his fundamental constitutional right to free speech.
.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I'm really torn on this one... On the one hand... On the other hand... On the other other hand...
How many hands do you have?
Probably because someone establishing a blog for the sole purposes of harassing someone they are already under a restraining order not to harrss, and then setting up sock-puppet accounts on social networking sites to relay the harassing blog posts to the family and friends of the victim isn't the kind of violation of a restraining order that has come up all that much in the past.
(Then again, I could swear I've seen several news stories over the year on Slashdot of cases when harassing or threatening webages were ordered to be taken down by courts -- perhaps not in cases involving a pre-existing restraining order -- so the only thing here that would seem to be potentially unprecedented is that the webpage used for harassment happened to be a blog rather than some other style of page, or perhaps the particular context of the harassment which resulted in the order. This would seem to be lowering the bar on "unprecedented" quite a bit.)
I'll get him to relay messages to me and I'll post them anonymously to a blog.
A word of advice:
Don't step into someone else's shit until you know how deep it is.
Conspiracy to violate a court order is not going to end well for you or for some nutcase revenge blogger ---- and maybe a stalker ---- who now has a new target in his sights.
Well I wonder how graphic the stuff he wrote actually was. I mean that would determine if the judge is being far to swift with the judgement.
/ragefist type of way want to exact sweet revenge and drink his tears...
However, just to throw down some perspective, this girl probably has some other boy friend/husband(eventually I'm sure) now. We can piss and moan about this guy and his freedom to speech blah blah but I'm all for the old days when someone talks bad about your girl/wife... We'll I'm sure there are many people here who would in a
--
It's late and I have finals please don't hold me responsible for any rants
What he should have done was turn it into a religious issue.
Let's say I stand outside a gay person's house (could be any minority group, gay is an example) with a sign that says I hate them and I'm going to burn them. I'd be arrested for threatening that person.
Now if I stand outside that same person's house with a sign that says God hates them and God will burn them in Hell, that's perfectly fine for some reason.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
they should let him hassle her so the other "ladies" can see it and learn how to pick better men. it would be for the greater good.
"oh I just love bad boys." "wait, he's also bad to ME?! like, I am like so totally shocked!"
You could always just play guessing games about his intentions and tell everyone that people have the right to not be offended. That method seems to be quite popular.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You have to question whether the intent was necessarily just to hurt her though. It could have also been, from his perspective, a way to defend himself from what he saw as slander from her. Clearly the judge didn't think so, but judges aren't infallible.
The ultimate problem with restraining orders is that they're not some sort of magical force field. Often in order to get a restraining order, one party has to claim to be afraid of physical harm from the other. The thing is, someone truly dangerous isn't going to be stopped for a second by a restraining order. They may, however, help keep marginal situations from escalating by keeping people apart. Simply preventing people's feelings from being hurt is another matter, however. Harassment is one thing, but where does normal relationship bitterness end and harassment begin? It seems like the ex-boyfriend in this case went a little too far, but it seems like the judge went a lot too far.
And to add my own personal experience with restraining orders; once, years and years back, I went with my then girlfriend while she was babysitting a friend's children. It turned out that her friend and her husband were having relationship difficulty and she had a restraining order against him forbidding him from being within some particular distance of her. So, naturally, her big plans for the evening were to go to where she knew he would be and force him to leave and then follow him around the whole night. And that really does seem to be how restraining orders are usually used: just one more weapon in the troubled relationship arsenal. The people getting the restraining orders are quite often aggressors rather than victims, or at least are aggressors as well as victims.
that's all I have to say.
I'll grant that it may be an unprecedented move to delete the entire blog. However, it appears that the ONLY use for it was to get revenge on his ex.
If it contained a reasonable number of posts unrelated to his ex, the judge may have simply ordered that the violating posts be deleted.
But since all of the posts were violations, it seems reasonable for him to delete the entire thing.
You have to question whether the intent was necessarily just to hurt her though. It could have also been, from his perspective, a way to defend himself from what he saw as slander from her.
Figuring out intent may be the #1 difficulty with our legal system today. A lot of laws rely on intent as a distinguishing factor in how serious a crime is (it's the difference between first degree murder and man-slaughter). The difficulty is, of course, that it's impossible to do accurately.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Some poster called me a crazy conservative, foxnews lovin, right wing republican. I have a right to be free from harassment so that's grounds for deletion. Expect to hear from my lawyers soon Slashdot. Have a nice day.
So, naturally, her big plans for the evening were to go to where she knew he would be and force him to leave and then follow him around the whole night.
What a great friend. :/
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's not how our legal system works, though. With limited exceptions*, juries are the finders of fact and judges are the finders of law. In this case, the question of whether the man committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional harm is a question of fact and thus would go to the jury. If they said yes, then the remedy for the damage caused be the tort is a question of law and thus is a matter for the judge. (In this case, the remedy is enjoining him to delete the blog and to refrain from further writing about the particular topics relating to his ex.) It is entirely appropriate, in our court system, for the judge to make such orders.
Personally, I have no problem with this order. A ruling by a court is a very, very different thing than an act of an executive or legislative body. Rulings by courts of original jurisdiction generally have little precedential power (i.e. they don't bind other courts; one ruling does not stare decisis make) and they are much easier to fight and undo than a statute or executive order. Also, it is entirely consistent with centuries-old doctrines regarding harassment and innumerable previous rulings which have not destroyed free speech. Adding "...on the Internet" does not make it a new and troubling concept.
* Trivia: Wisconsin's constitution makes juries the finders of fact and law in libel cases.
He's obviously a Motie!
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
"the judge said the ex-girlfriend's 'right to be free from harassment' outweighed the guy's 'right to free speech.' "
I would agree that this is true, but only to the extent that the speech is actually part of a harassing communication, such as being sent to the girl's friends or family.
If, however, he is simply speaking about his own experiences on his own website, and does not bother the girl's friends or family with invitations to read it, then I can see absolutely no compelling reason why he should be denied the right to express his opinions on whomever he desires to talk about.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
http://helpherandchild.blogspot.com/ seems to be the blog in question. doesnt seem archive.org has it.
Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./
Pay very close attention to where the judge told HIM to delete the blog, not the blog to delete his content. Those are two very different things.
And that really does seem to be how restraining orders are usually used: just one more weapon in the troubled relationship arsenal.
Exactly! Don't want your husband around the child you both had? All you have to do is convince a judge to give you a restraining order. Pretend to be horribly in fear of your life regardless of what the man did or did not do. Restraining orders are used all the time as a tool to win. Grind your X into nothing. I've seen it done all the time.
I personally think he should be allowed to say whatever he wants online. However he crossed the line when he contacted her family or anyone she knows. What's next? How much more control can we give someone over other people?
why should we forbid the tat and not the tit?
It has to stop somewhere.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think the judge was out of line.
I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.
Honestly, these recent court cases involving things like speech have been disturbing. Courts have been setting some very bad precedent in recent years, and I think we'd better watch our asses. I mean things like on the one hand, curtailing the speech of this blogger (although I think we can agree that harassing speech can be curtailed, his whole blog did not need to be shut down). And on the other hand, saying that corporations are "people" and can spend whatever campaign money they want, as a matter of free "speech".
Does anyone besides me see a pattern here?
I think the judge was out of line.
I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.
I see your point, but I liken this to starting your own newspaper for the sole purpose of telling the world how much of a psychotic bitch your ex was, and then trying to sell your paper to her friends, family and business colleagues.
He is doing the rest of the Minnesota Male population a favour if he speaks the truth though :P
The real issue here is not how many hands he has, but that he's not geeky enough to use the right idiom.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You have to question whether the intent was necessarily just to hurt her though. It could have also been, from his perspective, a way to defend himself from what he saw as slander from her. Clearly the judge didn't think so, but judges aren't infallible.
If you really think that's in question, you should read the article more carefully. This guy didn't just create this blog, he then went on to: "Under pseudonyms, Arlotta then promoted the blog to Johnson's family, friends, contacts and employer as well as some unaffiliated parties, like the local media." It's rather abundantly clear he created the blog simply as a means to harass her. It was simply there so he had something to pseudonymously point friends/family/employers/coworkers/etc. to so he could humiliate and embarrass her. The fact he was doing this with pseudonyms is the real nail in the coffin, he obviously knew he'd get in serious trouble quickly if his used his real name to do so. He was quite willfully violating the restraining order against him. Frankly he sounds really, really obsessed, and potentially dangerous.
If the father would be able to build a convincing case she abused her restraining order, it would be retracted and she'd be declared unfit to be a parent. Way to go mom...
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
It's just a coincidence that "somewhere" always seems to be when the poor, delicate female flower has gotten to do her damage.
When I look at the laws I am familiar with, which explicitly do not rely on intent, it seems to me that the problem you raise with using intent is the lesser of two evils. The two laws being: copyright infringement (you can pay less damages for "innocent infringement", but lack of intent is not a possible defense --- problematic in my eyes because only the rightsholder can know what licenses he has actually granted, nor, in many cases, is it even possible to identify the rightsholder), and possession of child pornography (which is really scary because (1) practically any digital file can indiscernibly contain child pornography which is concealed using steganography, (2) the definition of what is child pornography varies between various jurisdictions (so something perfectly legal in one country might suddenly get you arrested in another), (3) in many jurisdictions there is no clear criterion which defines what is child pornography, because some materials (usually textual in nature) may or may not be, ironically depending upon how the court rules about the intent of the creator and whether the material has artistic value or not, and (4) society is so polarized with respect to this issue that even being wrongly accused, no matter how wrongly, will totally turn your life upside-down).
It's just a coincidence that "somewhere" always seems to be when the poor, delicate female flower has gotten to do her damage.
It sucks being a man.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, you may have a point considering that it was called Help Anne Johnson... I agree that in this case, it does seem to be that harassment was his whole point.
But if it were even a slightly more general case, it would have sent up big red flags.
And what about his right to express how upset/angry/disturbed about her he is?
In this respect there is a freedom of speech issue that is also important and can certainly translate into FoS issues for the rest of the nation if this precedent is continued to be set.
"Intent to harm another?" Does it matter if it's the truth? And in his mind, how can you say his intent isn't trying to protect the public? I've had a psycho ex. I pity anyone who has any dealings with her. Granted, I only tell my story verbally, as examples of how this, that or the other could go wrong in life and I don't usually mention her name or anything like that and I don't go out of my way to contact any of her family ... that's just psycho behavior itself. But to restrain someone from telling his story? That's somehow wrong to me.
I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing.
Freedom of Speech is such an important right that limiting it should be extremely rare if ever done. People have the freedom of thought which should always be exercised. And when people are faced with someone else's speech, they need to be able to decide for themselves whether to get behind it or reject it, but not be able to suppress it. That's where things get slippery isn't it?
Misandry is not an acceptable substitute for misogyny.
FC Closer
But then people would have to toughen up and actually investigate things that they hear/read! It's so much easier to ban 'offensive' things under the guise of intent and "harassment," and believe everything that people tell you!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
And those existing harassment laws are exactly what this article is about.
You don't see where "trends" can and are followed in the justice system? One only has to watch the erosion of male rights in family law across all 50 states to see that even though "precedent" is technically not an issue here, there are trends and practices which continue to spread and develop in that area. This is the problem of the difference between theoretical and practical.
The fact is, women get a lot more latitude than men. Women get a lot more forgiveness than men. Women get a lot more consideration than men. Women are innocent until proven otherwise beyond all possible and impossible doubt. Men are guilty... no... just always guilty even with proof to the contrary.
Damn. I wish I said it the way you said it. To me, at least, it is a much more obvious way of expressing what is wrong. The problem, I suppose, is that people REALLY THINK they have a right not to be offended. That's what needs to be changed in our culture.
Unfortunately, one can't control what they're attracted to. If you're attracted to guys who exude that sort of energy, aggression, sex drive, that "knowing what they want and going for it" attitude, etc, you can't just decide to not be attracted to it, any more than a guy who's attracted to women with big breasts can just decide not to be attracted to them.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
of the first amendment: simple clear language. Who's going to remember the legislation written today in a hundred years? The actual words?
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
I don't see the word POLITICAL in this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Perhaps not, but you can stop acting on the impulse.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
"The people getting the restraining orders are quite often aggressors rather than victims, or at least are aggressors as well as victims."
This, this, this.
My wife and I once asked for a restraining order against a man and his son (granted, without difficulty). They were pissed when we did so and immediately claimed some bullshit and filed for their own. When I was notified, as a respondent, I didn't contest their claims thinking that two restraining orders would simply be redundant and serve the same purpose--keeping them the fuck away from us. WRONG.
They asked for different restrictions that were used against me, such as requiring me to stay 5000' from their house, when we had only asked for 500'. The problem here is that we lived in the same neighborhood and my house was within 5000' of theirs. They called the cops on me the moment I came home from work and I had to go to court to contest the order they had.
On top of this, a restraining order is only as good as the resolve of the Judge that signed it. Both of those two men later violated the order we had against them (literally chased my wife and daughters at knife point, only to be held off by a total stranger with a 12-guage. (Thank you, if you're reading this!)), witnessed by over a dozen police officers (fuck you, Alaska State Troopers), admitted their guilt in court to the very same judge that signed the violated order...and walked out of that courtroom before I did, free men.
Needless to say, we left the state and I now own a gun.
The worst aspect of restraining orders I can think of is the false sense of security they provide--no piece of paper will stop a nutcase once they got their panties in a bunch.
(If you did nothing wrong, and someone files for a restraining order against you, ALWAYS contest it. It doesn't cost a penny to do so, but it might cost many if you don't.)
Unfortunately, one can't control what they're attracted to.
I thank my lucky stars every day that there have been no recorded incidents of sheep starting "revenge websites".
Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?
I think it's easier for a guy to say something like that because guys in general are more physical in their attraction than women, more based on looks. I.e., looks being equal, a shy girl in a bar has dramatically better odds of going home with someone than a shy guy in a bar. How a guy acts is hardly the only aspect of how attractive he comes across, but it is a major part of it. Here's an experiment for you: go to a club some time and only give a meek, timid "hey" to whoever you want to pick up, only respond with short, meek statements to what they say, avoiding direct eye contact, etc, and compare your results to going there and being assertive, self confident, and persistent. "Bad Boys" win because bad boys tend to exude behavioral traits that many if not most women are attracted to.
One could say that this distinction -- far from universal, but definitely extant -- is a cultural phenomena. But there's certainly a reasonable genetic argument to be made for it as well, at least historically.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Oh my! That's almost as bad as killing a fly! They might become endangered!
I'll admit, I haven't ready the article carefully or fully, but:
You have to be pretty careful about judging "potential danger", you could easily wind up in a minority report world where someone hasn't done anything wrong, but it's determined that they were getting close, or were getting ready to do something very terrible. The problem, of course, is that they haven't done anything wrong, and as of today, there's no reliable way to tell if they would have.
The problem, of course is that you can't actually be accurate in those predictions. It's a really dangerous catch-22 in prevention vs. persecution.
Did the judge order him to delete all the videos of her he had uploaded on youporn?
Hasn't this judge ever heard of the Streisand Effect? By requiring this guy to delete his blog the judge probably made the woman's problems even worse. When will the legal establishment ever learn?
If he's lying, we have laws that cover that. If he's harassing her, we have laws that cover that. If he's telling it like it is on his blog, we have laws that cover that...in the first amendment of the constitution.
Ooh, finally someone understands me!
If I'm not working (and subsequently have no money), I don't date. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be able to cover expenses such as contraceptives, dates, etc., I am not in a position to raise a family. If you stick your eleventh finger into a woman without being prepared for the possibility of a kid coming out nine months later, I think you're kinda irresponsible.
My friends don't get it. They can't understand how I'm not running around like an idiot going after women. As much as I'd like to date right now, it's just not practical and so I don't. How hard is this to understand?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I'm serious here. I don't think it's the state's business to protect the feelings of people. The state should protect their rights, and there is no such thing as a right to not have your feelings hurt. Just think of how horribly you can fuck someone up, and scar them for life, by telling them that never loved them and that you are disgusted by their various inadequacies. You can do all this for transparently vicious reasons, and doing it might well be deeply immoral, but never in a million years would I want that sort of immorality to be illegal. Can you imagine if we had to police people's feelings? What I'm saying is that in every state that I would ever want to live in, there is such a thing as the right to be a jerk - even a very cruel jerk. Of course the state must guarantee certain rights, like the right to bodily integrity, property, and some extent of protection from harassment and wrongful slander. These, however, leave lots of room for hurt feelings - and that's as it should be.
And yet if he shit-talked an ex in an e-book under a pen name, he'd have no problems. That's pretty much the way around this.
"Sir, I'm not promoting the book so vigorously in order to harass my ex-girlfriend. I'm promoting my autobiography in order to sell books and, you know, make money off of my hard work."
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
. With limited exceptions*, juries are the finders of fact and judges are the finders of law
That's what the government would like us to believe. The fact though, is that the jury has the power to determine both the facts and the law, and even nullify a law in a case before them, although they may be told otherwise.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals. Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks and is a competitive environment to begin with and that makes it a poor place to look for a potential date although I can see your real problem seems to be the implied "if I don't take what I can get I will get nothing".
Years ago I broke up with a girlfriend after dealing with her constant lies, bad temper and generally manipulative behavior and I had to stop and think about my life since she wasn't the first girl I dated who behaved like that. I realized my problem was standards so since then I have applied a "am I better off with this girl than I am when single" filter to relationships and it makes made me notice a few things: worst case "lonely" is better than "pissed off" and that better girls had a bit of a learning curve but were worth the effort.
The judge is a stupid son of a bitch.
He is not only an idiot, but doesn't understand prior restraint, freedom of speech, and thinks his shit shouldn't stink for 50 years.
E
Is that the new zeroeth amendment? Nice fucking pussy pass from a white-knighting judge.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If you [...] without being prepared for the possibility of a kid coming out nine months later, I think you're kinda irresponsible.
What? The most important decision in the lives of those to whom you owe your most fundamental moral duty?
I really hope that's dry wit. It's not "kinda irresponsible". It's epic irresponsible.
(And for those who would argue the point: epics have been written with that as a fundamental plot element.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The only time a woman isn't going after a fucktard on impulse is when she is doing it a warp speed!
FRA: STFU GTFO
Except the guy has already done something wrong. So he's being punished for violating an order which was pretty clear.
Please go back and re-read, because I said just the opposite. Perhaps *you* only go on looks in bars/clubs, but you'll find that many if not most women do not.
Dating isn't necessarily about "acting on impulses", but there's a vast difference between "not acting on impulses" and "dating only people you don't find attractive instead of people you do".
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Perhaps having a little more respect for women than a place to "stick your eleventh finger" might be a good start for you.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
To put it another way:
Picture you find... oh, let's just say women with a mullet, simply unattractive.
Now imagine someone telling you, "You can only date women with mullets."
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
And to add my own personal experience with restraining orders; once, years and years back, I went with my then girlfriend while she was babysitting a friend's children. It turned out that her friend and her husband were having relationship difficulty and she had a restraining order against him forbidding him from being within some particular distance of her. So, naturally, her big plans for the evening were to go to where she knew he would be and force him to leave and then follow him around the whole night.
Yeah, the way restraining orders on exs are granted and interpreted seems to be absolutely nuts, based more on ludicrous gender roles than on any real danger. I wouldn't be surprised to see violently abusive women getting restraining orders against their exs, stalking and violently attacking them, and then getting them arrested for breaching the restraining order.
Only in the US would there be *any* question whether his creating a blog for the specific purpose of harassing and embarrassing an ex who got a restraining order against him was legal.... Your country has a *really* fucked up idea of what free speech means, and how it integrates into a productive society....
To be blunt: you can say what you want as long as, to the best of your knowledge it's true, and it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, such as the right not to be threatened or harassed. In any other country in the first world, she wouldn't have even needed a restraining order for what he did to have been illegal.
At that point, however, he could still face prosecution for libel if he couldn't prove what he'd said was true.
In most of Europe, removing a blog like this is a no-brainer. Europe is more concerned with freedom of expression and freedom of the press than the US notion of "free speech". For Europeans free speech as a concept is to be able to express one's ideas and thoughts without harrasment or fear of political oppression.
A blog designed to harrass a single person with no political agenda? "Censoring" that is the sane thing to do if you ask me. Society doesn't exist to protect one person's ability to make another one's life miserable.
.: Max Romantschuk
And what about his right to express how upset/angry/disturbed about her he is?
Didn't read the article, did you? After posting said blog, he then went on to create aliases and to use those aliases to anonymously e-mail the woman's employer, her family, and her friends with links to the blog. That goes beyond simply expressing his feelings about the relationship and how it ended, by a very wide margin.
Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals.
Do you have evidence for that, or do you believe it because Aristotle said it a couple of thousand years ago and nobody has dared challenge it?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
But if it were even a slightly more general case, it would have sent up big red flags.
In a slightly more general case, this case probably never would have made it to court... if you keep a blog about your daily life and you make one or two posts about how much you hate X person because of the way they screwed you over, and then go back to posting about the quality of the pizza sauce on your dinner last night, then it's doubtful that you'd then go on to create anonymous e-mail addresses and use those to send links to the blog posts to the woman's employer....
Indeed, even rats have been shown to practice metacognition. Presented with a choice with consequences -- full reward for the right answer, no reward for the wrong answer, and a tiny reward for an "opt-out" choice -- lab rats will choose the right answer when the test is easy, but as it becomes increasingly difficult they begin to hesitate more and more, and eventually start to choose the "opt-out" choice. That is, they know what they do not know and will make choices that are not impulsive, but are well thought out.
The gp could also be referring to delayed gratification, but higher nonhuman animals have also been shown to practice that. For example, if you have chimps in a setup where there's a device that slowly loads up a food dispenser with one desired food item after another, but stops as soon as the chimp takes the food, after prior experience with the test, most chimps will wait until all possible food items have been loaded before taking them. Delayed gratification has also been shown in dolphins and a number of other animals.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
In my opinion, he made his intent pretty clear. His intent was to bully, which most is not allowed in most TOS agreements to begin with. Yes it is speech, but still bullying.
The judge may not have even needed to order it to get the blog taken down.
It more than likely was against the blogger.com/blogspot content policy and could have been taken down (or filtered) by request.
No, I read that. See the stand-alone statement I wrote saying "I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing."
That part was clearly harassment.
It sucks being attracted to insane girls.
Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
There's not a single part of that sentence that's correct.
And my point stands.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
But then dating dirtbags because you can't fight a natural impulse, then complaining when they can't fight their impulse to be dirtbags is a bit rich. That's like someone who self harms suing a razor blade maker for making sharp razors - if you know it's going to hurt you, stay away, and if you can't, don't whine about it to the rest of us.
At this point, he could face prosecution for libel. You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from harrassment. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.
I believe that if the judgement had said that the order was because the blog and the man's actions subsequent to creating it were a clear violation of the spirit of the restraining order and that on the basis of that held the man in contempt of court. Then gave the man the option of serving jail time for contempt of court or delete the blog (with the understanding that if he restored the blog the jail time would ensue) Followed by an order not to promote the blog (or anything like it) to the woman's contacts.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Here in Brazil even comments in blogs could cause an entirely shutdown. Really. If an user make a comment that could offend someone or be a political propaganda in election times, a judge can ask to remove the content and also there's a possibility to shutdown the website. Another example: In 2007 Daniela Cicarelli (former model and actress) was filmed in a soft porn performance in Spain (http://mashable.com/2007/01/09/daniela-cicarelli/), the video was released public in youtube. What happened? A judge ordered to block youtube. The ban was eventually removed, but the modus operandi of our legal system still the same.
There's never been a general rule that all speech should be free. There has always been a rider that says free speech that causes harm to others is not blanket protected (i.e. the typical shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre example). The law has long established precedents on how to handle this within the bounds of the "reasonable man", there is nothing new here and no extension of governmental influence, it's merely that it's being applied to online harrasment.
I think the judge should stop at contacting her "indirectly" which is what he had been doing.
Actually, I think the judge should have held him in contempt of court. I would have even had no problem with the judge ruling that the man should delete the blog on the basis of the fact that he used it in a way that was clearly in violation of the intent of the restraining order by promoting it to the woman's contacts using aliases. Although I think the ideal way to deal with it would have been to give him a short jail sentence for contempt of court with the option to avoid that by deleting the blog (and not reconstructing it later). If he chose to serve the contempt of court sentence, he could keep the blog up, but the judge could have ordered him to never promtoe it using an alias and to never promote it (or anything similar) to any of the woman's contacts.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, juries are do not determine law. What you are getting at is jury nullification, which is the idea that the jury can find that the law should not apply in this case (or perhaps any case, but they don't get to actually determine that relative to other cases).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So you're not a guy? And you didn't say this?
Here's an experiment for you: go to a club some time and only give a meek, timid "hey" to whoever you want to pick up, only respond with short, meek statements to what they say, avoiding direct eye contact, etc, and compare your results to going there and being assertive, self confident, and persistent. "Bad Boys" win because bad boys tend to exude behavioral traits that many if not most women are attracted to.
Of course the macho act is going to go down better in a club, but that's because the type of person that would be a match for a quieter guy like me and probably a lot of other Slashdotters just isn't that into clubbing. I don't mind clubbing if I'm drunk, but in general I'm just not interested in clubbing or even being drunk.
which is totally what she said
On top of this, a restraining order is only as good as the resolve of the Judge that signed it. Both of those two men later violated the order we had against them (literally chased my wife and daughters at knife point, only to be held off by a total stranger with a 12-guage. (Thank you, if you're reading this!)), witnessed by over a dozen police officers (fuck you, Alaska State Troopers), admitted their guilt in court to the very same judge that signed the violated order...and walked out of that courtroom before I did, free men.
Please name names and jurisdiction if possible. If police officers and judges choose not to respond at all to an assault with a deadly weapon (a serious felony in most states), it is definitely in the public interest to know that. I'm not saying you didn't do the right thing by leaving, just that corruption like this ought to be exposed to scrutiny.
I am officially gone from
Women do not deserve to be put on pedestals simply because they're women any more than men deserve to because they're men. They do not deserve any more, or any less protection under the law. I wonder if this would be such a hot button news item if the dispute had occurred between two men who had a falling out over a business dispute?
If I said I was going to kill you for that comment you'd (hopefully) know that I was either joking or just blowing off steam and not serious. If I said the same thing to someone I already acknowledged had mental health issues or who otherwise already had reason to feel threatened by me (as evidenced by a restraining order) that's a whole different story. Generally the law on what constitutes assault takes into account the reaction of the reasonable man, but it also allows for special knowledge that you might have that would skew that reaction. If you know someone is going to react badly to a threat and you make the threat, you can't, in good conscience, rely on the defence that you weren't serious. You knew or ought to have known the reaction you'd get, you can't really complain about the consequences of that.
I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to", ridiculing women who end up getting treated like that is not productive, and that a better avenue of your efforts would be toward eliminating cultural acceptance of stalker-ish behavior from guys. And if you don't think we live in a culture that glorifies guys doing stalker-ish behavior, let me ask you something: how many times have to seen this plot in TV or the movies?
* Girl leaves guy (or never goes out with guy in the first place)
* Guy can't get over girl
* Guy does something like punch the girl's new fling, stand outside her window blaring love songs, kisses her when she's not expecting it, or something of that nature.
* Girl decides, "wow, this guy really loves me" and starts dating him.
In the movies, we call that "a love story". In real life, we call it "stalking". And the ending is not romance, but a restraining order.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
I don't know about your state but in NY orders of protection bind both parties.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
This is just bunch of bull and you know it. Are tabloids trying to protect general public when they write all kinds of lies and worse about stars in order to sell paper. They turn a profit no this. They also have larger customer base than this guy.
Free speech is free speech... and it is not free speech when someone can arbitrarily say - no you are not allowed to voice your opinions. Thus also my support of Wikileaks... content matters not... we don't get to decide what is free speach and what is not...If we do, then it's not free speech to begin with.
You know, it is possible to date a girl without having sex with her. Trust me, I do it all the time.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
You're right that interpreting law should be easy, but it's not. If it was, we wouldn't need to spend several years in law school just to learn the very tip of the iceberg. There are thousands upon thousands of laws on the books, new laws overrule old laws without the old laws specifically being removed, sometimes two laws might appear to be in conflict, precedent comes down from other courts, judges have to often do their best to interpret how a vague law covers a specific situation, or how a law created in past years applies where new technology is involved. Generally criminal law is more black and white, but there are numerous shades of grey in every other area. No, I think the jury of your peers deciding your guilt and the trained experts deciding how that means the law applies to you given your specific set of circumstances is really the only workable solution (other than throwing out 99% of the laws on the books and mandatory law classes during school and refresher courses for the rest of your adult life).
For me, it's more that I'm not interested in the kind of girl that likes to go clubbing.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Right, just like death threats over traditional mail. Nobody is forced to even open the envelope, let alone read the letter, so why bother? Makes sense!
1) I thought it obvious. 2) Did you miss the word "experiment"? I described an experiment on human attraction. How you saw that as advocacy that clubs are an ideal way to meet people is beyond me.
Attraction doesn't change based on whether you're in a club or not. The same things that attract you to someone in a club attract you outside the club and vice versa.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?
It is mine. Either that of "shut up and take the abuse". But "caveat emptor" sounds less assy. What you're saying is women like jerks and therefore should be able to date jerks without them being such jerks. See the problem with that statement? They also should be able to eat heaps of chocolate without getting fat and to buy tons of fashionable accessories without spending all their money. That's great and I myself often wish I didn't have to choose between what I like and what is not stupid to do, but life doesn't spoil us like that, so you have to wise up at some point and listen to the Rolling Stones instead of your fickle urges.
You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from harrassment. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.
Presumably you'd have no problem with me plastering your local neighbourhood with posters informing everybody that you're a paedophile?
Nope, it's not obvious. I always thought of your name as a geeky Evangelion reference for some reason.
Well, in a club you're not going to be able to have much of a conversation, which is why I don't think it compares much to meeting someone in a place that you can actually hear each other without shouting. Physical attraction and "chemistry" is important, but after the last several girls I've met who at first seemed interesting and attractive but turned out to be quite shallow and brainless under the surface, I'm really wary of letting myself be anything more than just friends with people I've only just met. I think that had the side effect of a couple of girls I could have dated assumed I wasn't interested, but I'm happier with that right now than having another relationship that I'll regret getting into.
which is totally what she said
If you're going to call others idiots, you might want to make sure you have your facts straight: News of the World was closed down by their parent company; they were not forced to close by any government.
So, as I asked above, what would your recourse be if I decided it would be a fun idea to cover your local neighbourhood with posters accusing you of raping small children?
Sure there is. Talk to them. Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship. Pay attention to the kind of people that they're hanging out with too.
Or, just skip the bar scene and start doing activities that women also like to do. That doesn't mean doing effeminate activities, but it does mean, generally, getting off of the computer. In my case I met my wife when I learned to dance. BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too. I mean, you get to put your hands all over a woman for three and a half minutes and she thanks you for it when you're done. It can often lead to more intimate contact.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Feel free. Of course, I will sue you for libel.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's kind of what I said. I find the idea of it kind of attractive because often the geeky girls I'm attracted to are so quiet and reserved and scared to do anything fun. But in reality a lot of the girls out clubbing I just wouldn't find interesting to hold a conversation with. It's difficult to find someone in between. Possibly because I don't play MMOs.
which is totally what she said
"Needless to say, we left the state and I now own a gun."
BOTH of you should be trained to use it in armed combat. Find a pro to do that, ask the local cops (good way to make friends with any who instruct on the side).
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?
Why not? That is what I had to do. I'm attracted to long tall blonds with huge racks and tight asses. But alas, I had to man up and realize that it was never going to work. There were just to much distance between us. That, and she kept calling the police when she would catch me looking in her window at night.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Restraining orders don't work on wackos, they are for documenting them.
Armed self-defense is the ONLY way to STOP an assault and death is the only cure for mental illness.
Be armed, trained, and PRACTICE.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You know when I look at the Constitution, I don't find in there any place where it mentions a right to be free from libel. I do, however, find a right to freedom of speech. I have trouble seeing how an enumerated right is trumped by an interpreted right.
"Unfortunately, one can't control what they're attracted to."
Yes you can, It's called cultivating a better taste, or a reality check. People who claim they can not are too lazy to make any changes in their life.
My daughter always had a thing for the pot-head goth losers. That changed when she hit college to men that are not "complete idiots" by her own terms. When a person grows up and realizes that they need changes in their life and puts an effort into those changes, You change your "tastes".
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In some places a restraining order can force the abuser to give up their firearms.
If you can do that without raising 2nd amendment issues, I think it's safe to say there's no 1st amendment issue either.
You can't do that without 2nd amendment issues. You can only do that if you ignore the obvious 2nd amendment issues. The fact that they refuse to adhere to one amendment isn't a green light for them to ignore another amendment. It's just proof that this government is illegitimate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's only 'stalkerish' if you don't like him/her an want the attention.
To clarify - it's not the ACT, but the (completly arbritrary) interpretation by the other person.
Since we seem to live in a zero tolerance society it's lose-lose and all the "great catches" wonder why on one approaches them.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
...ask /b/ to back it up first. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I have no issues making eye contact and being bold and assertive in a bar. I can even talk in detail about the implementation of a hyper-drive and shield modulation and yet I have never been able to take a woman home! Obviously you are wrong.
If there is no God then free will is an illusion.
The winner is the first one to file.
Also note: when you start into the legal system the only people who win are the lawyers. The American legal system is a dark and evil place that everyone should use everything in their power to avoid at all costs. Selling your soul to Satan is far far less evil than dealing with the United states legal system.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Sure there is. Talk to them. Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship. Pay attention to the kind of people that they're hanging out with too.
Or, just skip the bar scene and start doing activities that women also like to do. That doesn't mean doing effeminate activities, but it does mean, generally, getting off of the computer. In my case I met my wife when I learned to dance. BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too. I mean, you get to put your hands all over a woman for three and a half minutes and she thanks you for it when you're done. It can often lead to more intimate contact.
^^^ This. For years I got caught up in the "bar/club scene as the only dating ground on the planet", with predictable results. When I started socializing with women on different contexts (school, working out, and eventually dancing, as in trained dancing in a dancing school as opposed to humping with 50 cent in the background), it was a complete different thing, like night and day. I also met my wife in a dance school. A bar/club is good to play the game and have fun fling style... but to date or looking for a girlfriend there, big mistake, big mistake.
We do have a lot more latitude on what's considered free speech. If it's true, then you can say it with no consequences - normally. Imagine if this wasn't an ex but a politician. Our legal system is set up around the right to blast them into the ground, publishing whatever we can dig up on them if it's true. Unfortunately that digging up of dirt sometimes becomes the basis for an opposing political campaign, but still a fair trade-off to have a certain level of freedom.
That doesn't mean [...], but it does mean, generally, getting off of the computer.
You must be new here...
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
lol, golf clap. well done. My mod points would have been yours...
Hahaha a joke about women and star trek in the same sentence! Why do we have such trouble getting laid with gold like this around?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
It isn't. Suing you for libel does not infringe on your freedom of speech. It just requires you to pay if you say something libelous. Libel laws do not prevent you from "speaking", they just punish you if what you "say" is untrue and derogatory. That is why I told you to feel free to put up those libelous posters. It is your Constitutional right to do so. Just understand that defaming my character is an actionable behavior that I will take action in court to prevent. Of course, if you prefer, we could go back to the remedy that the Framers preferred and have a duel.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There is a difference in that and you voicing your opinion. If you want to say something to an extent - I think this person rapes small children, I have no proof, but I still think he does... that is fine... it is free speech and that is your opinion. But if you label me as raping small children, I think there is a term for that called libel. Courts can handle cases like that... it is generally used where you'd have to prove that either I am raping kids, and you are correct.... or you are incorrect and you will end up paying a large fine and issuing public apology.
This guy was voicing his opinion from his experience, and he probably has reasonable amount of experience with this person to be a good judge of what she is and is not. So unless they had a trial for libel, and unless he was found to be wrong in his description of her, and if he presented that information as facts on his blog and not just his opinion, then yes... he is guilty of libel.... but extreme measure would have been to get him to issue apology, take down just one article in his Blog, and pay a fine for damages done.
This argument that you use is same argument everyone will use to limit free speech because it frightens people what free speech can accomplish.
You can use a gun to defend yourself and other people, or you can use it to commit crimes. It does not mean that gun is the problem, it is person using it. Free speech is a weapon in much the same way. With great power comes great responsibility....
If you insist that women can only fuck aggressive guys, and suggest that aggressive behavior be eliminated, the conclusion is that there is no fucking.
New plot:
* Guy likes girl
* Guy watches softcore porn
* Girl gets a cat
The constitution applies to conduct by the government. Common law applies to actions between individuals. Common law has a long, well-established tradition of recognizing that there's a line between "things that are false" (slander/libel) and "things that might be factually true, but are none of your business or anybody else's". In a case like this, intent matters. She might not be able to sue him for slander or libel, but harassment is a definite possibility.
The justification for ordering specific performance (removal of the blog, refraining from future public comment about the woman over the internet) is based upon another well-established legal principle: Equity. Equity is an extraordinary relief granted by courts in situations where monetary judgments are not sufficient to make the injured party whole.
If the woman became a public figure, the man might have had an affirmative defense. However, by all appearances, she wasn't.
I'm just not sure I understand the fundamental difference between "you're not allowed to do this, and if you do it you'll get punished" and "you're allowed to do this, but if you do it you'll get punished"
Forever a Friend Zone.
The difference is between "You're not allowed to do this and if you try the government will use force to stop you," and "You're allowed to do this, but if it is defamatory and untrue, you will be punished."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
> Free speech must be absolute or else it is worth nothing.
Er, I suppose you're unaware of something called "Common Law", which is every bit as established and valid in the US as Constitutional Law. If you're writing/speaking about a political cause or politician, you have a very strong (in fact, a nearly-absolute) affirmative defense. If you're writing/speaking about a celebrity or corporation, you have a slightly weaker affirmative defense that's still pretty strong. If you're writing/speaking about a private citizen who's done nothing to merit public scrutiny, you're going to get your ass sued... and sued into oblivion if what you wrote/said is demonstrably slanderous/libelous on top of constituting harassment.
A 50 year restraining order under such circumstances is either cruel and unusual punishment for criminal activity (i.e. violating a restraining order) or, absent a reason to believe that posting such then-historical information 10 or 20 years from now would be harmful, an illegal infringement on free speech.
Any federal judge would limit the initial order to a few years but allow renewals for material that would be reasonably considered harassing at the time of their posting. As time goes on less and less material dating from 2010 or earlier would be eligible for protection.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...for a court to order deletion of a blog. I've been at the receiving end of takedowns, and I know several other people who have had the same treatment, when I posted evidence of systemic corruption and child abuse on my blog - the judge asked whether I would be prepared to voluntarily take down the blog, to which I replied no, then he ordered it taken down and the US-based host complied like a lapdog.
The blogs that I've seen taken down contain live evidence of systemic child abuse, forced adoption, trafficking in children between the UK and the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, Somalia, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland - all having been passed through the "child protection" process in the UK. One very recent example concerns a family of six children, all born to married parents one of whom is an ordained church minister, who were taken for adoption - the youngest of which the parents have never had sole care of yet they're both in jail without trial in Pentonville and Holloway for apparently poisoning the little girl. Incidentally, that little girl was taken soon after birth by a gang of police officers and social workers from a London hospital and has not been seen in over a year. You won't see this information in mainstream press because it is all done in *secret*.
I say for the record now that I will continue to post evidence of corruption and systemic child abuse wherever I can to make the public aware that unitary authorities in the UK are nothing more than a bunch of child traffickers and the largest, most secretive pedophile ring this world has ever seen.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Even the fine summary says that there is no evidence of falsification.. and if its true, then a libel case would be dismissed, no?
Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals.
Bull. If that were true, you could not train dogs to do things like not eat a snack placed on their nose until signaled, or not defecate in the house.
And on the other side, there are an overwhelming number of people who seem to be unable to curb their impulses, based on very simple observation of those around you.
Since you just tore the last one down, do you need me to build you a new straw man, or can you do it yourself?
Apparently, without the "guy stalks girl, therefore causing her to fall in love with him" plot, all movies and TV shows must become boring -- is that your argument? I had no clue there were so few possible plots out there.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Because all aggressive guys are jerks, there are no otherwise decent ones, and no jerks masquerading as agressive but decent to confuse the decent ones with. Nope.
In real life sometimes that ends in a restraining order, and sometimes it ends in a relationship. The culture you're decrying exists outside of the movies as well - that you see it in movies just illustrates how illogical and arbitrary people (both men and women) are. I mean, for one, I never see any men intentionally going to a movie that involves romance whatsoever, so it must be women creating this culture. Doesn't the description you give describe the plot of Twilight? I ridicule everyone for their poor choices, it's the only way they'll learn.
Right, because it's totally the woman's fault and not the abuser. And while we're at it, it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.
Let's be explicit: Just because a woman may be attracted to a "bad boy" doesn't give him the right to abuse her or make it her fault that she is abused. Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Lol, you are too rare ;)
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Great idea! And while we''re at it, let's have gays and lesbians cultivate a taste for the opposite sex. The debate is over!
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
This is why they have expert witnesses - ballistics and other forensics, psychologists, etc., to present the evidence in a properly processed manner and to help the jury understand what's being discussed.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
If there's no evidence that it's false, then yes, a libel case would be dismissed.
But the summary could be misleading... "no evidence that what he said was false" could actually mean that there's no evidence, but it could also mean that no evidence was presented, largely because the truth of his claims has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's harassing her. What was in question wasn't the claims he was actually made, it was how he was using those claims to cause harm to her. For her own privacy, I'd be surprised if the courts even considered the truth in his claims.
BTW, I find it awfully amusing to hear a bunch of guys who've never been attracted to a guy in their life talk about the manner in which women should be attracted to guys.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Jesus! In my state, when you file for divorce, it is required that both parties submit a statement of expenses, income, and net worth. Child support is calculated objectively based upon that. There is even a state minimum mandate.
When I filed on my ex (who ran off and left me with the kids) I negotiated down to the state minimum in exchange for keeping her hooks out of my retirement savings. She admitted to me when she got the numbers from the court that she would never pay a penny if I pressed the issue. For me it was a win, because I knew she would have disappeared afterwards. With the state minimum, she pays $50 per month per kid and she keeps her state nursing license and stays employed. The real benefit will come in a few years when I can start collecting my pension and I won't have to divide it with her. I will be young enough to move on to another job and I should be financially secure for the rest of my life.
heh... first I''ve seen someone post the actual text on this thread...
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
"Our ability to not act on our impulses is what separates the human race from the animals"
And... no. Humans are animals.
That was the dumbest statement I've heard all day.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Hear hear! I'd just add that I think a lot of the "bad boy" females are into the drama and WANT there to be lots of bullshit going on. For an example I was helping a friend work on a car when he sliced his hand wide open, we're talking damned near to the bone. meanwhile his GF has been harping all God damned day and comes out to start again. He says "I'm gonna go around the corner, I'm gonna smoke a little of this joint while Kev tries to tie off this hand enough that I won't bleed all over his truck when he takes me to the hospital, because I am gonna need probably 20 stitches or more. Now if you do not leave me alone I'm am gonna knock you on your ass, so just quit now" and as he walked around the corner sure enough there she went! I grabbed her and said "Dawn that is a fucking stupid idea! Leave his ass alone already for the love of God! Can't you see his hand? I can see tendons and bone showing!" Did she listen? nope and when he hit her for the first time in my life I was like "Well stupid bitch got what she deserved'. Next day i go over to help finish on the car and she is just blabbing away all about "what he did" on her cell, and I swear she was practically bouncy because she had new drama!
I too learned that its better to care about the personality than the specific looks you find attractive. Normally i like VERY pale women, Irish redheads being my favorite, yet the woman i'm with now is more than half Creek Indian and dark enough that she is often looked on as a Mexican, so why am I with her? Because she is kind, intelligent, sweet,fun, dropped everything and used up all her vacation time when she found out my sister was about to pass so the boys would have another shoulder to cry on, just a truly great gal. Plus you have to love any woman that when people try to speak Spanish at her goes "Me no Mexican, me Indian, me kind scalp your ass!".
As for TFA, maybe its just me, but as someone who was practically raised by a grandfather that helped to liberate one of the camps in Poland i take free speech VERY seriously and don't think a judge should have a right to put a muzzle on this guy. We already have laws on the books for stalking, harassment, and libel, so it isn't like there aren't legal remedies if what the guy is saying isn't true. And if it IS true? Well maybe she shouldn't be doing things and blabbing about them to BFs if she doesn't want them to be public.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The US Constitution is based on the British Constitution which predates it by 91 years. In turn this is predated by Magna Carta (1215) and the Code of Alfred (870), all of which guarantee inalienable rights including the right to address grievances without fear of reprisal.
Unfortunately, civil courts operate on what is called commercial code. This is exactly as it sounds: two sides of an argument scrap it out in polite company of a third, uninvolved and uninterested party: a commercial tribunal. The protocols surrounding said tribunals all revolve around contract law, rather than common or constitutional law. It boils down to agreement of terms of a contract, and if there is a deadlock, the tribunal usually sides with the party with the most money (such is the nature of these tribunals, the little guy always loses). There is no finding of law in these tribunals, merely the interpretation of statutory instruments to suit the circumstances. Criminal code is where you'll find juries who are tasked with the finding of fact, and in the cases involving damages, the award and amount of damages. Guideline penalties are codified in statutory instruments, which the judge may or may not capitalise on to maximise the effect.
Family proceedings are not courts. They are administrative tribunals - basically meetings presided over by a judge or magistrate to give the colour of law, wherein unitary authorities (in public law) or the complainant (in private law) bash out their case and it is on the respondent to prove his/her (mosttimes his) innocence.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Hahahaha. You say that as if telling the truth makes it all right. There was a gay kid who was outed by his roommate, who tape recorded his sexual congress with another man. The gay kid jumped off a bridge. You have a right to privacy, especially to the facts that are true. If you out the gay kid trying to cause him mental anguish, then you should be punished because there was no value to your actions.
Pretend that there's an abortion doctor. You hate abortions. You start posting the doctor's personal information. You post the time she drops her kid off at school. You post pictures of her house, her car, and her family. You post the kind of security system that she has. You post that she wears a bulletproof vest so you should aim for the head.
Legal?
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.
If said girl likes to date known abusers/rapists and if the collateral damage victim likes to go jogging through warzones, then your analogy makes sense. I was talkiing about the abuse inflicted by being a jerk, not raping or killing. I thought that much was obvious. And I still do.
Just to clarify, your point was women like jerks because they are jerks, but they should stop being jerks when convenient. And that we shouldn't advise those women to modify their behaviour because it's arguably somewhat instictive. Well, so is rape, if you want to play disproportinate analogies. My point is that crap comes your way when you act hedonistically on impulses doesn't go away with excuses like "well, it was somewhat instinctive", so if you want to avoid X, you simply don't chase after nor select X when offered. Saying "well, but I want X" will immediatelly prompt "then shut up about it and take the consequences". Remember: crazy is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Explain where in the constitution freedom of speech is limited. I'm not sure how libel and slander laws are even defensible under the US Constitution. Not that I disagree with them, I'd be happy to see a reasonable amendment to the constitution that disallowed slander & libel.
I am NOT happy with how so many people (including entire government institutions) treat the constitution as meaningless.
Err...isn't that pretty much ANY environment you are in (which should potentially be anywhere you are on the planet) when looking for a mate?
I mean, unless you are depending on meeting only through friends...well, the big world out there is a competitive environment, and if you are looking to not be single, you are always on the look...and pretty much anywhere the first and only thing you have to go on...is looks.
I don't care where I am..I've never had the opportunity to look across a room/store/pool/etc...spy a girl and think to myself, "God I gotta go over there and meet that girl, she has the BEST personality I've ever seen!!"
I dunno...where do you look for potential dates? I pretty much look for them 24/7...anytime I am outside of my house. Sure, bars are one venue, and not often the best (I have a bit of trouble hearing with all the ambient noise...but having booze there does make things easier, "conversation lubrication" so to speak)....but everywhere you go there are potential dates.
Hell, I play a game with myself...every day, no matter where I am, I have to go approach and speak to the most beautiful woman I see that day.
If later in the day, I see one even more beautiful than her, I have to approach her...etc.
It is a competition...much like everything else in life...you have to be aggressive it you want to get what you want.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Direct analogy.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
I think you found your answer right in your statement.
1.You're going good on the eye contact, and assertive part.
2. Do not start talking to her about "hyper-drive and shield modulation".....
#2 is where you're losing it. You want to get her talking about HER...and you toss in some witty remarks, short stories...talk about things that make her think good thoughts...find out what she likes, pick up on those verbal cues, and use those to keep the conversation going...etc.
I've heard it said before...there has NEVER in the history of mankinds, been a woman who got home from a date or just met a guy, and complained that she got to talk too much about herself.
Seriously...step one is to learn that...women love to talk...use that to your advantage.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's reasonable, concurs with observation, and has yet to be disproven. Although I'd say it's one of the things that separate us from the other species (humor being another), not the "only" thing.
Free Martian Whores!
No. It's that it's frequent for women to be attracted to certain characteristics, such as self-confidence, aggression, energy, sex drive, a "knowing what he wants and not afraid to get it" attitude, etc, which also tends to be correlated with, but does not inherently impply, someone causing abuse or other problems. Comparing that to a woman being raped because she's dating a *known* rapist isn't an accurate analogy at all.
Let's go with that. You yourself call that an analogy; thus, in your mind, trying to change a behavior that puts a woman in a dangerous situation is morally equivalent to trying to change a behavior that *harms* a woman. Or am I reading you wrong? If not, that's just absurd. You correct criminals, not victims.
You think any instinctive activity that has a correlation with risk shouldn't be done? Well, good luck banning sex itself, because that's a prime example.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Wow...you actually tell them your real name!?!?!
Man..that is my definition of commitment!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And hey, while we're at it, lets ban gay men from dating the same sex to reduce the risk of aids... right?
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Not only that, but where in the Constitution is power granted to the government to take away this asshole's free speech, the same Constitution which enumerates his right to speak and grants power to the governments?
I think if this goes to appeal it'll be tossed. I can't imagine how that judge could rule like that.
Free Martian Whores!
Ok, I'll grant you it is possible.
The larger question is WHY?
Why on earth would you 'date' a woman if not for sex....if you're not nailing her, you are merely a friend. That is not dating.
Hey, nothing wrong with having some chicks as friends...they are often quite useful to find women to DATE (ie: more than friends, which is sexual).
But, there is no reason for dating if no sex. I don't think the 3rd date rule is written in stone, but shortly after that, if I'm not going be be nailing her, I'm moving on to the next one that will.
And its a big world, there is ALWAYS a 'next' one.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I can only guess that you haven't read or seen Twilight. It actually doesn't fall into this pattern. Edward has early 20th century romantic sensibilities (courting, etc), and quite the opposite of the trope, tries to discourage her from having interest in him (due to the danger to her). Jacob does come into significant conflict with Edward, but not in a "stalking Bella" sort of manner, and the hostility isn't something that attracts Bella (rather, the two of them fight for her by more by trying to arrange the situation to manipulate her emotions).
And the fact that you think stalking ends in a relationship in the real world... sigh.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
No...not just for bars.
And she's not talking some kind of freakish "macho" act.
But you DO need to exude confidence....in yourself, in your life. That is one of the #1 things women respond to. It isn't being a jerk, necessarily, although it often goes with someone that is a jerk.
Approach, approach, approach....yes, it is true, that often the BEST looking women..are alone because too many guys are scared to approach her. Approaching cold...show's confidence in yourself...
Honestly, I wish I'd known a lot of this stuff earlier in life....it actually should be taught to guys as young teens, like a health class. It sure would save a lot of anguish..and make things easier during those difficult teen years.
Meeting, dating and bedding women is NOT a black art.....it isn't that hard, just takes confidence in yourself and yes...a little practice being able to appears sociable and carry on a conversation.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's reasonable
On what grounds?
concurs with observation
What observations?
and has yet to be disproven.
What would disprove it?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I whole heartedly agree.
They're not listening....things you are saying are what they NEED to listen to. They are not women...they don't think like women, and most women...will NOT tell you this stuff.
I learned...and learned to listen to other men, that have figured out what you're talking about.
Women like a guy to be assertive. Not necessarily a jerk. Although a jerk often has these traits too, a man doesn't necessarily have to be a jerk to also exude confidence...and be assertive.
Our society more and more...is raising our men to avoid or not show these traits. I've heard the term "pussification"...and while it sounds a bit derogatory, in many instances, if you think about it...it is a bit true.
The ideal man for most women..is not a guy with female characteristics....shy, demur....that is not in general what a woman looks for in a man.
I've found that approaching women as much as possible...builds my confidence. I no have no fear of being 'shot down'..dunno why I ever did in the past.
I approach women as often as I can...sometimes just as a casual comment passing in the grocery store, or walking across a room to a group of girls to ask the time, and start from there chatting with them...if I'm after one in particular, I work it to where I can grab her hand/arm...and pull her from the group so we can have more time alone, etc. I find the I approach, it seems to show confidence in myself right away...and women respond more and more to it.
I think I'm in the ballpark of what you've been posting on this thread....and guys aren't wanting to listen to what you say..and are reading the wrong things into what you're saying.
Listening...you gotta do that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I've heard a sense of humour is also good.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Absolutely!! Being fun to be with...is a good thing.
Again..let her talk, and throwing in a witty remark having to do with what she's saying..goes a LONG way.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
trained dancing in a dancing school as opposed to humping with 50 cent in the background
I go to dance classes that _teach_ humping with music somewhat better than 50 cent in the background - try blues dancing to Popa Chubby's "Sweat" or swing dancing to Touch and Go's "Tango in Harlem".
Lots of scope to wriggle, play and (if she wants to) grind.
Are tabloids trying to protect general public when they write all kinds of lies and worse about stars in order to sell paper. They turn a profit no this. They also have larger customer base than this guy.
And they have to be careful, because they can be and often are sued for things they say. Notice a lot of the lies they tell are about celebrities who are so publicity hungry, they don't care, as long as they are in the news.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I had no clue there were so few possible plots out there.
Neither does the entertainment industry execs in America.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Attraction changes based on the type of person you are. Different types of people congregate in clubs as opposed to other areas. The rest of the argument is left as an exercise for the reader.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Sorry, I don't buy the arguement that the judge is overstepping his bounds on this issue. Or that this is a Free Speech issue. Arlotta (the man) seems to have targetted Johnson (the woman, his ex) with a revenge smear compaign. Pretty much harassment by any definition.
(Disclaimer: I am about to make a couple of paragraphs of assumptions based on some previous work experience in the office of a California defense attorney. *Pay attention to these*. I am not looking for a flamewar just providing food for thought.)
I feel some sympathy for Arlotta. Being the subject of a restaining order probably had significant impact on his life and he felt his reputation damaged. I have seen many job applications and California gun permits ask "Have you ever been or are you currently the subject of a restaining order?". *Presumably*, this original restraining order was from a domestic violence incident between the two. *Perhaps* he was arrested and did some jail time. That could have led to him losing his job and having to borrow money for bail, legal fees, or basic living expenses. All of these legal problems and their root cause (the domestic violence arrest/restraining order) would have been exposed to his family, his employer and potential employers. In *most* cases it takes two to tango and he may have felt unjustly burdended with the consequences of BOTH of their actions.
Arlotta gets through the court system with, at the very least, a restaining order. This guys is clever, but not that smart. He figures out how to get revenge or "satisfy his moral outrage", but fails to assertain that judges CAN and should be able to place specific requirements into protective/restaining orders. *Most* restraining/protective orders are written with two main components. "Do not come within XXX yards of person, person's residence, person's business." and "DO not make contact with person in any way including written, oral, electronically, or through a 3rd party."
Arlotta sets up a blog with *his side* of the story bringing up all the negative parts of Johnson's past and personality that *he feels* was responsible for the domestic violence and break-up, etc. Then proceeds to directly target co-workers and family of Johnson to *help ann johnson". What a !great guy. Wanting to help her so much that he figured out how to do so while not *technically* violating the restraining/protective order.
The judge/court gets another request from Johnson to order Arlotta to cease and desist. The judge (a woman) is not in awe of Johnson's clever tiptoeing on the letter of the restraining/protective order. TFA states “The record amply demonstrates that Arlotta’s repeated electronic messages and promotion of his blog were not ‘merely attempt [s] to publish his thoughts and ideas to an audience,’ . The record would include all previous court/arrest records pertaining to the case of Johnson and Arlotta. So, the judge takes away the tools that Arlotta was using to directly target Johnson for *help* she (Johnson) doesn't want.
The judge simply countered Arlotta's cleverness with a precise removal of his method of targetted harrasment/*revenge*/*satisfaction of moral outrage*.
In the end, I am very happy that we are watching these judges and courts closely and keeping them from blanket removals of our personal freedoms in the interest of public good or whatever.
If you made it to the end of this rant. Thank You for your time.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
The man posted true accounts. He was then accused of doing so for "revenge", which is intent to do UNLAWFUL harm. It is unlawful in the fact he engaged in unsolicited communications, with the intent to intimidate, and thereby cause commercial damage without provocation or solicitation of his communication.
We've been following a case just like this in Texas, which removes children systematically from their parents, and attacks their mental health and right to contact with their children to steal a portion of $500,000,000 USD annually from Federal Programs under fraud (18 USC 1001) and threat (18 USC 242, 872) in violation of a number of Federal laws (15 USC 1673, 28 USC 1738A) and in context in the specific case to commercial securities sabotage and commercial competition (racketeering, 18 USC 1951) using a child kidnapping and fraud to execute this abuse (18 USC 1201, 1202) in context to registration of the victim's name from 2002-2004 by the abductors to damage or destroy the victim and his client (Nortel Networks, NT - recently bankrupt) and for benefit of another major firm (competitor of Nortel Networks, a foreign corporate entity). This case included armed assault at gunpoint, vehicular sabotage, murder of former police informants, and denial of all due process on similar grounds of "silence the defense and defame them for publication in self defense of violence".
Ultimately the State plead Sovereign Immunity to avoid class action, and by doing so invoked "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1988, US Treaty)" Article II b and e, and Article III and IV. This case is just another example of the policies of the United States in suppression of legal speech to conceal criminal activity and collapse of the U.S. Justice System and education system.
The violation - if any - was to transmit the abusive material to the subject's employer AFTER a CEASE AND DESIST by that (3rd) party.
Banning the party from the Internet publication for 50 years, in a specific subject, irrespective of the actual CRIMINAL ACT, is a violation of the due process required to deprive them of a civil right broadly. I cannot disagree with the power to do so, having seen similar malicious and criminal abuse in other cases, citing recent 75 year bans for simple "movie piracy" in Oklahoma, but must cite 76 O.S. and 43A O.S. civil rights and criminal protections of defamation that (per USC Article IV) apply to all U.S. Citizens as defined and fundamental rights on the books since 1901 and effective today.
To say a person should suffer "corruption of blood" (loss of custody, contact, or protection in visitation - known also as Genocide per Article II e CPPCG) which is reserved only for the war crime "treason" in our Constitution, is itself the war crime "Genocide". That we can all attest to it that our family court system would apply the test and punishment to that degree, an indictment of the failure and collapse of the United States of America and its open embrace of war crimes to defend the integrity of the court and court officers even in the express (prior stated) case of report of a TRUE AND LAWFUL FACT or bona fide testimony.
Both of which are protected legal RIGHTS of all U.S. Citizens per USC Article IV, and enumerated under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma Article II Section II-3 and similar right to be acquitted upon judgement of a jury that the claims therein are true, regardless of any negative impact or consequence in report.
The man should sue for $1 million USD in civil rights damages (1st Amendment) per year of this order (50 years) against the county that passed the order. He should do it now. And we should support him. He can face charges for menacing if they want to apply those, but on the civil grounds of communicating his complaint, his legal right to do so to others is very likely NOT COVERED under the language of the original restraining order. And the judge is just angry and clearly not very competent, suggesting he should be remov
I hang out places that provide the ability to talk to women in a non expectant environment like volunteering somewhere or a meeting based on a hobby. Heck those slashmeets that slashdot had about a decade ago were good for that. The other way, from experience, introduces me to girls I find myself wishing would just shut up after I spend any amount of time at all talking to them.
This statement:
I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to"
Contradicts this one:
a better avenue of your efforts would be toward eliminating cultural acceptance of stalker-ish behavior from guys
Dating IS social acceptance. Women date assholes because they like them, which is the definition of social acceptance. If you can't change what people are attracted to you can't change what is socially acceptable. Men get sexual favors for acting like jerks, that's a more powerful incentive than anything sort of cultural stigma you might like to impose.
Besides, your strategy has unintended negative consequences. If you were actually able to reduce the number of assholes in the world, that would just increase demand for the remaining assholes. That gives those assholes an even greater advantage over the women they date and abuse.
Really, the key is to teach your kids impulse control. Just because you like something doesn't mean it's good for you. It's entirely appropriate to ridicule someone who can't learn this lesson.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.
The fact that women reward these "wrong actions" with sex implies that they're not actually that wrong at all. Men are just doing what they need to to have the best chance at passing on their genes. If you're going to excuse the behavior of women because it's evolutionarily successful you also have to excuse the behavior of men that is evolutionarily successful.
Until women stop voluntarily having more sex with jerks than they do with nice people, we're going to have more jerks than nice people. The supply of jerks, like everything else, is demand driven.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yep I'm pretty sure it would be easy to meet and "bed" plenty of women if I did the socialising thing, but I'm getting way too selective. Every time I've ended a relationship I added another thing to the list of things I did or didn't want in a girlfriend, and it's really hard to find someone that fits those criteria. I'm past dating for the sake of dating, I am happy to be single now, and if I happen to meet someone great, that's good. If not, I'm not that fussed. I used to feel really bad for my one single aunt, but now I'm wondering if she has the right idea.
which is totally what she said
Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship.
A bar is the LAST place to go to look for a long-term relationship. It can happen, but it's unlikely you'll find one there.
BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too.
The bar is the place to look for a non-long term relationship, unless you don't want to do any more than dance.
Church is the last place to look for any kind of relationship, but again, it happens -- my grandmother met her 2nd husband in church (Grandpa died ten years earlier).
I've found that the best way to find women is to stop looking for them. It's weird how shit just seems to happen sometimes.
Free Martian Whores!
If I'm not working (and subsequently have no money), I don't date. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be able to cover expenses such as contraceptives, dates, etc., I am not in a position to raise a family.
Let her pay, you chauvinist. Women have jobs these days. I've picked up the tab for a lot of unemployed women, why can't an employed one pick up the tab for you? Or don't any women ask you out?
Free Martian Whores!
Her friends and family are on the HRO? I thought it was just her.
What the judge SHOULD have done was expand the HRO to apply to all of her family and friends.
If he wants to blog some stupid shit that's not false, I believe he should be allowed. The problem is him forwarding this blog to other people as a form of harassment.
:(){
Pretend that there's an abortion doctor. You hate abortions. You start posting the doctor's personal information. You post the time she drops her kid off at school. You post pictures of her house, her car, and her family. You post the kind of security system that she has.
Creepy. Potentially deserving a restraining order of some sort. But on its face this is not necessarily illegal, especially if the information is all public or can be obtained publicly.
You post that she wears a bulletproof vest so you should aim for the head.
I believe this is illegal. Now you are suggesting specific violent acts against a specific person.
:(){
A motie? Get a grip!
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Just because a woman may be attracted to a "bad boy" doesn't give him the right to abuse her or make it her fault that she is abused.
She doesn't deserve to be abused. TRUE.
He has no right to abuse people. TRUE.
She contributes to the situation she finds herself in. TRUE.
Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.
Ah, the "it's in my genetics" argument. Okay. It's in men's genetics to be aggressive dickwads. That justifies the behavior. Right?
When a person grows up and realizes that they need changes in their life and puts an effort into those changes, You change your "tastes".
And it's not just growing up, you'll find your tastes changing as you age. Changes in music, women, everything. In my case, my musical preferances have expanded to the point that I like just about anything but opera and hip-hop. With women, when I was young I was after the skinny ones, these days the skinny ones turn me right off. I used to be partial to larger breasts, but women my age with large breasts tend to have them hanging to their knees.
Free Martian Whores!
Maybe it has to do with jurisdiction, but in Ilinois if you have an order of protection against someone, you are under the same constraints as they are. If you take out an order of protection against me, then show up at a bar I'm in, I can have you jailed.
Free Martian Whores!
Imagine you're only attracted to children and someone tells you "you can't ever date children". I don't see a problem with that restriction. Society functions on the basis of people dealing with the fact they they can never have some of the things that they want.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.
Maybe not, but women have it GREAT. For example, they have a plethora of birth control choices, men have three: abstinence, condoms, and permanent surgery. Men have to reproductive rights whatever. If she gets pregnant and wants an abortion, she gets the abortion even if he wants the child. If he doesn't want the child and she does, she has the kid and he pays for it.
Why should the onus of child support fall on the man, who has no reproductive rights whatever, and not on the women, who is in a position to control her reproduction?
If you're looking for a job, and the other, equally qualified candidate is a woman, guess who gets the job?
Free Martian Whores!
Men never do seem to learn that when women seem to be asking for advice, they never really are, do we? Hint to men: women don't ask men for advice, only for confirmation. You must spend hours pretending to listen to her jabber on, but don't dare suggest she's said something wrong, or you're in for it, just keep the occasional "yes, dear" flowing and you'll do well.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You can train them to behave when you're around. When you aren't around, dogs will eat whatever they find. It isn't necessarily not being around people in general, if you (the trainer) are not around, dogs don't behave like you think they do.
Nor do I pretend to play one on TV.
I don't know what you have to do in most states to get a restraining order. I can site two cases involving friends
in my state.
1. Lunatic ex-girlfriend is calling the police reporting that my friend is repeatedly breaking into her house, stealing things, etc.
They broke up over ten years ago. She never provides any evidence, can't say what was stolen and is incoherent in her dealings with the police. Police
recommend he get a restraining order against her. He has to present the dozens of police incident reports to a judge showing
a repeated pattern of her behavior including threats she made against hem. He gets the order.
2. Ex-boyfriend files for a restraining order requiring another friend of mine to stay a minimum of 100 yards away. This would require
her to quit her job because they both work at the same location. They both appeared before a judge. He presents nothing to show
that she is a threat. No history of violence, No erratic behavior. No threats. Judge tells him to grow up.
more cowbell
Bzzzt. Wrong.
Believe it or not, there exists a level of intimacy between "friends" and "sexual partners." And believe it or not, a lot of people enjoy this level of emotional and physical intimacy. Girls, especially, of course, but many guys as well. Dating is the process of developing these emotional connections, and isn't just a way of getting a girl in bed.
I feel sorry for the girls you "date."
Our Constitution (US) is set up around the right to say what you like and the GOVERNMENT can not limit it, with a few exceptions. (Shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc) Our legal system is set up so that you can say whatever you like, but you are responsible for what you say. Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences.
The whole argument here about free speech does not even apply to this case. This is about contempt of court. Note that the summary starts off with "violated a restraining order". The court told him to "leave this woman alone." He thought he found a way to harass her that wasn't specifically spelled out in the order of protection. The judge told him he was wrong. If he wants to argue with that, he's free to appeal. But refusing to follow the instructions of the court is contempt, and there are penalties for that. You could stand in court and state your intention to read the Constitution, and when the judge says shut up and sit down, he's not infringing on your right to free speech.
Another day, another update to a Google android app.
Exactly. No matter what examples you come up with, I support absolute freedom of speech.
And although the situation is similar, this was far from a death threat. At most, it would be speech that offended them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Well, yours was the dumbest I've heard all day. It's precisely true: our ability to think and decide and resist natural urges is one of the things which makes us human--as opposed to animals.
You can define "animal" however you want--I do not include human beings in the definition. Life on earth fits into about 4 basic categories: plants, animals, single-celled organisms, and humans, aka people.
If you're one of those who thinks that animals are as important and valuable as people (or more so), then we probably don't have much common ground.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"our ability to think and decide and resist natural urges is one of the things which makes us human--as opposed to animals."
No, moron. Go look at other animals, oh such as the Bonobos Monkey.
Many animals have demonstrated decision-making processes, like ravens, crows, dolphins.
Rats are shown to help other rats stuck in traps, bringing them food.
Your unwillingness to place humans alongside animals is evidence of a weak education.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Call me when dogs train themselves to not do those things.
These people you speak of choose to not exercise self-control. They are able.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"If you're one of those who thinks that animals are as important and valuable as people (or more so), then we probably don't have much common ground."
Food? Source of clothing? Source of chemicals for humans? Medical testing to make sure things are safe for humans?
Without those animals, your ass might not be here today.
Wow, the ignorance must make you a very happy person.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
That's not the same as humans' ability to think and create. It's memory. If their impulse is hunger, it's not impulse control to use memory to get more food to fulfill the hunger--it's satisfying the impulse.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"Please name names and jurisdiction if possible."
As much as I feel comfortable doing so.
The judge in the case is now dead. I believe he died of natural causes (old age). That being said, I don't think there is much point in revealing his name, but I can say this--He was a Judge in Superior Court in Fairbanks, AK, and was replaced by, oddly enough, my old attorney, the very same one that represented me during all of these restraining orders.
The officers? Doesn't matter--as far as I am concerned the entire Alaska State Troopers office is corrupt. Even their receptionist stonewalled me when I tried to get a copy of the police reports--my attorney had to get them. As soon as they realized that they fucked up huge (by not taking the violators of the restraining orders into custody, and by not even charging them), they immediately set about trying to make ME look like I was at fault. The State Troopers helped those two men ask for, and receive, additional help from the Alaska Office of Victims Rights, who were then used against us as well. The Office of Victims Rights actually violated their own bylaws by representing someone with a criminal record (both of these men had been on probation within three years of asking for representation--an automatic denial of representation, according to their bylaws, yet they still represented them). Interestingly, the Alaska Office of Victims Rights bylaws include a clause that prevent anyone from holding them accountable for ANYTHING they do, even blatant violations of state laws.
Names and Jurisdiction? Alaska...that pretty much covers it. Nice place to visit, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the people that live there are fucking nuts, and those that aren't probably cannot afford the plane ticket to get the hell out. Alaska was the worst decision I ever made. The corruption is widespread, and in every sector of life.
I'd love for some asshole in the Alaska State Troopers to try and sue me for these statements--I've saved every single scrap of paperwork and evidence for such a day--and this time, since I no longer live there, they'd be doing so in a court not under their influence. I'd also do my best to get the media involved, with the sole purpose of dragging as many skeletons out of the closet as possible.
Also, I didn't "just leave". Those two assholes actually tried to convince the state to prevent me from leaving, and the Office of Victims rights HELPED them with this. This was the moment I realized the true depth of corruption in Alaska. In court, I asked them how me STAYING in Alaska alleviated the threat they claimed I represented to them--they had no reasonable answer and it became obvious to the Judge (a different one then the one that signed the restraining orders) that they were just trying to harass us. He "let" us go simply because there was no wriggling around what I did my best to make obvious--I was being harassed by not only these two men, but the State as well. I think the Judge realized he would become part and parcel to the harassment if he did anything otherwise, just as I had hoped.
(To be honest, I don't want to publicly release actual names because those names could be used to cross-reference this Slashdot account/Nickname with my real name. I've been victimized by people in the past and do not wish to make it easier for someone to do so in the future, especially those asshole Troopers in Alaska. As is, they could easily use their police powers to figure out who I am, but then they would be abusing those powers and I would most certainly bring that up in court. In short, at this time, anything they did to me would be an abuse of power and they know damn well I'd use that against them--I've learned how to play their game and they know it.)
I've come to the conclusion that the only value a restraining order has is that of convincing a jury that you did everything in your power to prevent further harassment, and that you were well within your rights to blow the fuckers head off.
You don't get it.
If a woman chooses to pursue a relationship with someone who is abusive or demonstrates abusive tendencies, and is later abused by him, he is guilty of abuse--but she made a poor decision. If she hadn't gotten involved with the guy, would he have randomly chosen her out of the phonebook to go to her house and beat her?
If someone goes out on the ocean in a rubber raft when a storm is on the horizon, would you say they did nothing unwise? They could see it coming--they didn't use good judgment. If someone gives all their money to a con man who says he's got a great investment, but doesn't have any proof or credentials, would you say they did nothing unwise? They made a dumb decision.
"These women" who continue to date abusive men need to use their capacity for thinking and exercising judgment to avoid such people. Maybe they do FEEL attracted to them--so what? They should THINK that they're a bad choice and stay away from them. They should CHOOSE to date someone more stable and self-controlled, and then if they invest in a relationship with such a man, they will DEVELOP FEELINGS for him.
People are not animals. Anyone who says people can't or shouldn't resist their urges and impulses and feelings of attraction degrades the human race. We have brains--use them!
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
No, you missed my point. I'm talking about people who think it's more important to be nice to the poor, innocent animals than to take care of people.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Call me when an animal can make a moral decision.
Your unwillingness to recognize that people are more valuable than animals is dehumanizing. Human life is not equal to animal life.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Free speech must be absolute or else it is worth nothing.
Shout "FIRE" on a crowded movie hall and prove your point. ;-)
You "CAN" say anything about anything. But this will not make you unaccountable for the consequences of your sayings.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly prohibits first degree murder.
People have been driven to suicide by blog posts.
The Constitution explicitly protects freedom of speech and the press.
Therefor nobody should be prohibited from using a blog to drive someone to suicide.
For those too thick to understand it, I consider the above hideous, evil, and wrong.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A difference is when legal action can be applied to the violator.
In the absence of freedom of the press, if the government discovers that something it opposes is about to be published, it can prevent the publishing, destroy existing copies, and destroy the machinery of the press in extreme cases. With freedom of the press, the violator can be punished for the damage he does, but he cannot be prevented from publishing. Freedom of the press is a great tool against tyranny, because once the news gets out it's too late to stop it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It may constitute a threat, which would fall under "conspiracy to commit kidnapping/rape/murder/...".
However, "in general", this is perfectly allowed, and protected speech. I seem to recall an article about a bridge being demolished, where a paper did just that, stating that without the bridge, the kids' route would need to get 25 miles longer. This is perfectly acceptable, even without agreement from the kid (/his parents).
I'm sorry that I've offended your tender sensibilities. I have provided an edited reply, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
If one were to engage in copulation by way of the vaginal canal, one must be aware of the possibility that insemination may occur and cause a resultant pregnancy. It would be ungentlemanly (to say the least, good sir!) to advance upon a lady if you cannot provide for her and your offspring.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
The judge has jurisdiction on the whole Internet? IANAL, but can he really stop this guy posting on a blog hosted in a different country?
"Call me when an animal can make a moral decision."
Keko the Gorilla, for one of many that I could bring off the top of my head.
Oh, did we suddenly forget about Jane Goodall's work?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"In a slightly more general case, this case probably never would have made it to court"
I am not so sure I agree. The government has already tried to have blogs taken down for bogus reasons, in ways that infringe speech. It *has* been happening. Whether those cases will stand up when they make it to court remains to be seen.
To each their own. I once chatted with a guy for about an hour about our differing world conquest plots ;)
Careful you don't end up in the "too shy and quiet" zone, though. FYI, we play that exact same game, the whole encouraging-them-to-talk-about-themselves thing.
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
Thank you -- exactly. :)
And while there is no single thing that all men or all women are attracted to, being attracted to men who are assertive is extremely common. There are plenty of girls who like guys to be shy and demure to be sure. I'll mention, however, the only ones of my friends who are attracted to guys like that are also bisexual. Anecdote? Sure. But I'd wager on 2 to 1 odds that if you meet a girl who likes her guys to be shy and demure, she'd also like to do things like braid his hair, paint his nails, or put barrettes in his hair. The latter of which one of my bi housemates has already done with her new shy and demure boyfriend. ;)
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
+1
If you can't connect the dots at this point, it's because the dots are too f***ing close together.
As much as I would have liked to hurt her for the pain she caused me and our children, it was not the smart thing to do. I am much better off financially with the path I chose. When you do an objective cost analysis, I came out way ahead. I am also not spending more money on lawyers trying to get the dissolution amended when she refused to pay support. Besides, she is the mother of my kids and they have been through enough. I would rather them not hate their dad for grinding her into the ground even though I would have liked to.
As for failure to pay, I was on the grand jury a couple years ago and we regularly heard cases for it. It only takes six months of no attempt to pay. They were serious about enforcement. We saw no women indicted, but situations like mine are pretty rare.
I assume you meant Koko. And you'll have to explain what moral decision of Koko's you're referring to.
I don't think Goodall's that good of a reference for you. Here's a quick example:
But perhaps more startling, and disturbing, was the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop in order to maintain their dominance, sometimes going as far as cannibalism.
Yeah, great moral decisions by those chimps. Do you really want to claim that you're only as good as an animal?
Since you still don't seem to get it, I'll put it yet another way: Call me when an animal can make a moral decision based on moral principles rather than what's in front of its face, e.g. one of those chimps restraining its murderous instincts because it's wrong to kill. Animals do not reason. Some do exhibit primitive emotions--that's not the same thing.
But, hey, if you say that you are no better than a chimp or a gorilla, who am I to argue with you? Speak for yourself, though.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
I think you're the only one who got the joke. I've never even tried to pick up a girl in a bar. When I go to a bar I am only concerned that the bar has a good selection of micro-breweries
If there is no God then free will is an illusion.
>No, juries are do not determine law.
Excerpts from a couple of state constitutions:
Indiana: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts."
Maryland: "In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.
Oregon: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If there's a chance I'm going to get sent up the river for something I didn't do, I would prefer requiring that a dozen strangers be so thoroughly convinced that it's a unanimous decision; rather than one Judge that "understands" it all by virtue of having taken a Forensics for Dummies correspondence course.
You using chimps as an example when I used a totally different primate species rather invalidates your argument.
Chimpanzees aren't as intelligent as gorillas.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What did you mean when you said, "Oh, did we suddenly forget about Jane Goodall's work?" I'm no expert on her or Koko, but as far as I can tell from a quick googling, she did not work with Koko. So when I pointed that out about chimps, I was pointing out that your mentioning Goodall's work doesn't seem to help your argument, because it seems that she's famous for working with chimps, which, as you said, aren't so smart.
I also asked for clarification about Koko, but you haven't provided any.
I'm still waiting for you to flesh out your argument. I think I invalidated yours, not mine.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."