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?
Usually that line is drawn at whatever the criteria are for getting a restraining order. What those are varies by jurisdiction, I bet.
dont worry so much.. if a woman ever does this you can be sure her free speech will be protected. that's all that matters..
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."
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.
Sexuality is a touchy (and usually extremely private) subject and not one most people are comfortable talking about. Regardless of whether the man is publishing truths or not shouldn't matter, the woman has a right to her privacy and if the male in question wants to be so immature in the way he deals with his emotions then he deserves whatever reasonable punishment that gets thrown his way.
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.
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 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.
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."
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/
http://helpherandchild.blogspot.com/ seems to be the blog in question. doesnt seem archive.org has it.
Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./
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?
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
He lost his rights after due process. Much like you'll lose your right to travel if you use it almost exclusively to walk up to an ex and hit her. If you use your right to speech to endlessly harass someone, you'll be banned from harassing them, when you continue to do so after the first restraining order, it'll only get worse for you.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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).
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
That is a NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE case to build and successfully present. Sure, it sounds reasonable and logical and that tactic often applies and works against male parents. But to get a judge to rule against a mother is ... I want to use the word asymptote here when it comes to expressing how probable that is you know? It's 3am here though and the brain wants sleep.
In my life experience, I got the kids but only through fortunate circumstances and even then the judge was reluctant and I was denied child support! (not that it mattered financially, but it certainly sent a message morally and practically)
I dig the idealism but there isn't often "justice" in family justice. Men are second-class-citizens when it comes to family law.
And those existing harassment laws are exactly what this article is about.
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.
The guy signed an six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.”
I would say blogging personal information, publicizing it and directly contacting family friends and co-workers are acts intended to adversely affect Johnson's privacy. As punishment he is now being given a stronger/longer HRO. He lost his right to free speech when he signed the HRO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!