Posted on 11/27/2007 7:50:05 AM PST by SubGeniusX
“No, common decency, and probably court rules, say...”
If common decency says that you shouldn’t post it to a place where some truly ghastly images might be found (photos of murdered people, etc.), then perhaps it shouldn’t be legal. I think that’s probably the guy’s point.
In your effort to defend this inexcusable act, you miss the point. He posted it on government servers for all to see, ready to pop-up on the screen of anybody who is definitely not seeking gay porn, including kids. And he did it purely for shock value, not as a legitimate part of the case, showing further willingness to abuse our judicial system.
Judges over and over have threatened Thompson for his various actions, but never actually do it. It's like he knows how far to abuse the system without actually getting thrown in jail. Now it's hopefully going to end for good.
“In your effort to defend this inexcusable act, you miss the point.”
And I think there’s a point you’re not looking at. Why have we legalized something that awful?
“ready to pop-up on the screen of anybody who is definitely not seeking gay porn, including kids.”
Maybe I have the wrong idea about what kind of site this is, but court records contain all kinds of horrible stuff as a matter of routine. This includes both photographs and testimony. I wouldn’t let my kids prowl through a site like that, unless somebody had gone through it and blocked access to gruesome photos and testimony.
“Judges over and over have threatened Thompson for his various actions, but never actually do it.”
Maybe that’s because things aren’t as cut and dried as you’re saying. Maybe there are two or more sides to this.
“It’s like he knows how far to abuse the system without actually getting thrown in jail.”
Some people might call what he’s doing “afflicting the comfortable.”
One could interpret what he did as saying, “Oh, you think sodomite porn is just fine, do you? Nothing wrong with it? Well, then, you won’t mind if we attach a sample so that people can see just what we’re talking about.”
Now, I don’t want kids looking at sodomite porn — frankly, I would favor the death penalty for participating in its manufacture — but with the rate at which boys are abused, don’t think kids don’t know exactly what sodomites do to boys when they get the chance.
What adults do among themselves is quite different from posting it to the judicial records, on government servers.
Maybe I have the wrong idea about what kind of site this is, but court records contain all kinds of horrible stuff as a matter of routine.
In this case, you'd be surfing for ethics complaints. Specifically, one by an attorney who was attacked by Thompson (an ethical no-no). This attorney runs a gay web site that has advertisers with such images, and Thompson uploaded those images to the court's docket system without any real need to do so in relation to the case (the court called the images "irrelevant to his arguments").
Now I could understand if this were an obscenity trial. It would be entered with permission, and probably had those portions sealed.
Maybe that’s because things aren’t as cut and dried as you’re saying. Maybe there are two or more sides to this.
There are: pretty much the entire legal system and its code of ethics, against one unethical attorney. I've read a lot of transcripts, judges just tend to have a lot of patience, probably because lack of patience lends itself well to appeals.
One could interpret what he did as saying, “Oh, you think sodomite porn is just fine, do you? Nothing wrong with it? Well, then, you won’t mind if we attach a sample so that people can see just what we’re talking about.”
These weren't obscenity cases. He's pushing his personal crusade in cases that don't really involve obscenity. It is an abuse of the judicial system to game it to push your personal agenda.
Just read his actual filings. He actually petitioned to have the Florida Bar declared unconstitutional because of the disciplinary proceedings against him for his unethical actions. He's even abusive towards the judges whenever things don't go his way, and loves to waste court time asking for baseless recusals to stay an inevitable ruling against him.
His filings don't sound like those of an attorney, but usually like they came from a lay nutjob trying to weasel his way out of responsibility for his actions, including trying to put in personal jabs that he thinks are funny. He also blunders all over the place as if he were a regular pro se litigant, forgetting fees, signatures, proper service, etc., and making petitions that are clearly not applicable (like asking for a writ of mandamus when the current legal process hasn't even played out yet). And he'll do it over and over and over in one case.
If anyone doesn't deserve to be an attorney, it's Jack Thompson.
No, the guy really is a nutcase. He is NOT the kind of person you want on your side. He’s drawing away most of the attention to legitimate grievances by rude, obscene, obnoxious and harrassing blathering. People don’t see the legitimate “crusade”, they see an unhinged loon. He’s so bad that the state bar association is doing something they rarely do, and with great hesitation: consider disbarrment, in essence taking away his livelihood.
He COULD be a great force in the cause, if only he wouldn’t be such a truly & literally insufferable JERK about it.
You might want to seriously reconsider what you’re defending here.
While there might be a valid point buried in there somewhere, this is not the way to make it. Violating (or advocating it) common decency in one area to make a tenuously-related point in another smacks of gross immorrality, if not sociapathy.
“Violating (or advocating it) common decency in one area to make a tenuously-related point in another smacks of gross immorrality, if not sociapathy.”
In an earlier note, I said that I couldn’t approve of what he did because you can’t use evil means even to accomplish a good end.
I’m just going to shut up now, at least until I get more information. Right now, I don’t know if his detractors are right or not.
“What adults do among themselves is quite different from posting it to the judicial records, on government servers.”
I’m not at all sure that principle holds in all cases.
If it’s something uyou don’t want posted, maybe people shouldn’t be doing it.
LOL!
If he wants to pursue such a case, then he should file it and submit such relevant evidence as the judge allows.
But no, he abused the court system instead. And he deserves to pay as much as a gay porn spammer sending such images to my kids' email accounts with the title "Snoopy's new adventure."
You may have noticed that I have no tolerance for abuse of our court system. It is already overburdened to the point that justice is hard to get. Other citizens seeking justice do not need the likes of Thompson wasting the court's time. And once you're in a court proceeding, proper decorum and following the rules is necessary to get impartial justice. Thompson shows no regard for either, and that has probably hurt even his chances.
BTW, you appear to think that this has something to do with Thompson’s message. It may appear so if you’re new to the Thompson saga, especially if you listen to the paranoid ravings of Thompson.
But take the case of Strickland v. Sony in Alabama. Thompson appeared before the court along with other attorneys to prosecute a wrongful death suit in relation to a video game. Thompson’s antics got pretty bad (he described himself as belligerent), and he realized he was going to get kicked off so he filed to be voluntarily removed from the case. But no, his actions were so bad that the judge refused his request and instead kicked him off the case involuntarily and rescinded his temporary license to practice law in Alabama. The other sane attorneys then continued the case.
“Mr. Thompson felt compelled to smear opposing counsel, other attorneys with no involvement in this case and individuals, ... Mr. Thompson’s conduct towards opposing counsel has demonstrated a repeated inability to conduct himself with the required professional courtesy and civility.”
Thompson tried to compare himself to the character in My Cousin Vinny, but being an attorney for three decades, he doesn’t have that excuse.
Thompson’s paranoia has him thinking the sanctions against him are because of the message, but you have a chance to realize the truth: it’s about his antics. And those antics hurt the legitimacy of any cause he may have.
“Our proscription is protecting the rights of the potential victim.”
Our proscription on murder comes directly from the Ten Commandments. It is a moral tenet.
There is no law except that which “legislates morality.”
“I am of the belief that you have to show concrete, specific harm to to at least one individual before you can make any act illegal among adults.”
The key words there being “concrete” and “specific.” That could give a person a lot of wriggle room. For instance, I would assert that concrete, specific harm is done to everyone connected with the production of sodomite porn, but I’m sure many would disagree.
“The state has many legitimate functions, and they are defined in the federal and state constitutions. Anything else is a power grab, an intrusion on the rights of the people.”
Again, arguing about where the line is to be drawn.
“But if you want to go down the road of regulating morals”
Lenin was absolutely right. If you control the educational system, you can do anything.
That’s not a road to go down or not go down. That is the whole purpose of law. All law consists exclusively of regulating morals. Always has, always will.
This “regulating morals” mantra is a deceptive strategy for moving *sexual* morality from inside to outside of the sphere of things to be regulated, and nothing more dignified than that.
“remember that it cuts both ways. With Hillary in power and the Democrats running Congress, their definition of what is moral will reign, and they will be able to enforce it due to the precedent set by people like you.”
People like Hillary don’t need any excuse. No precedent can either enable or deter them.
The basic flaw in your argument is this: Morality provides our only bulwark against evil. The response to evil people like the Hildebeeste is to hold fast to morality, not throw away your only weapon in fear that she will take it away from you.
“And he deserves to pay as much as a gay porn spammer sending such images to my kids’ email accounts with the title “Snoopy’s new adventure.”
I would punish the spammer much more harshly. The end of the movie Braveheart comes to mind.
That said, I am new to this issue, and in the face of the arguments arrayed against me, I am going to “go dark” on this issue until I have more information.
I seem to remember murder being punished before the Ten Commandments.
There is no law except that which “legislates morality.”
That which protects the rights of others.
For instance, I would assert that concrete, specific harm is done to everyone connected with the production of sodomite porn, but I’m sure many would disagree.
Such assertion would be wrong. It would be full of opinion influenced by your worldview (and I don't think it's exactly healthy either, but that's just my opinion). It has to be real, provable harm to non-consenting people: you steal something, you kill someone, you dump dioxin in your neighbor's yard.
To allow punishment for a vague concept of harm is to allow anything, depending on who is currently in power. Then individual rights mean nothing as any restriction on them can be justified by a vague harm to everybody.
Again, the problem with wanting to legislate your morality is that you won't always be in power. Then you get to have the "morality" of others forced upon you. Again consider Hillary's version of a moral country. She thinks it's a moral imperative to take all your money and give it to others she panders to (like universal health coverage). I think that's immoral theft and a violation of my rights, but then I won't be in power so my opinion, and my rights, don't matter. Enjoy.
The problem is that once you get back in power you forget that lesson. Instead of being smart and removing the government's power to legislate like this anymore, you just yank the country back in your direction for a decade or so. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Yes, hold fast to your morality. But reject the idea that you can enforce it through law..
Again, arguing about where the line is to be drawn.
The line has been drawn in the respective constitutions.
This “regulating morals” mantra is a deceptive strategy for moving *sexual* morality from inside to outside of the sphere of things to be regulated, and nothing more dignified than that.
That might be a motive for some with respect to that specific issue. But for me it's about absolutely minimal government power and freedom of the people. One price of freedom is that others you disagree with also get freedom. I'm willing to accept that.
“I seem to remember murder being punished before the Ten Commandments.”
That doesn’t show anything. Our proscription on murder comes from the Ten Commandments.
“That which protects the rights of others.”
Protecting the rights of others is a moral tenet, plain and simple.
“Such assertion would be wrong. It would be full of opinion”
An assertion is not wrong because it is full of opinion, so long as the opinion in question is correct. Further, the production of sodomite porn wreaks real, provable harm to non-consenting people.
“To allow punishment for a vague concept of harm”
The fact that you don’t agree with it – and most probably haven’t really given it the study it requires – doesn’t mean it’s vague.
“Again, the problem with wanting to legislate your morality”
Bogus, leftist argument. It’s not “my” morality; it is the morality of Western Civilization for two thousand years. Further, all law is the legislation of morality. There is no law that is not the legislation of morality. The only question is whose precepts will be legislated.
“Then you get to have the “morality” of others forced upon you.”
They’re going to do that anyway, if they get power. Evil always attacks good; that is its nature. You cannot prevent evil from attacking you by refraining from attacking evil. The only peace there is in this world is the interval between the time you kick evil’s butt and the point at which it has recovered sufficiently to attack you again.
“but then I won’t be in power so my opinion, and my rights, don’t matter. Enjoy.”
That’s pretty wimpy. Wouldn’t you be willing to take up arms and throw off tyranny, if that became necessary?
“Instead of being smart and removing the government’s power to legislate like this anymore”
A government that could not legislate morality could not legislate at all. There is no law that is not the expression of a moral precept. Moral precepts are the only reasons to have laws in the first place.
“But reject the idea that you can enforce it through law.”
Nonsense.
“The line has been drawn in the respective constitutions.”
The Founding Fathers would reject – probably with musketry – the notion that the Constitution protects sodomite porn.
“But for me it’s about absolutely minimal government power and freedom of the people.”
Well, here we are, arguing about where the line should be drawn again.
“One price of freedom is that others you disagree with also get freedom. I’m willing to accept that.”
To a point. As of today, child-molesting is still unacceptable, although the forces of evil are hard at work trying to change that. How much more freedom are you willing to accept?
I’m willing to accept considerably less than tolerates sodomite porn.
The Ten Commandments may have popped up on the way as one of many representations of that prohibition, but it does not begin it.
Protecting the rights of others is a moral tenet, plain and simple.
Protecting the rights of others is a social compact. You protect my rights, I protect yours. It is, in a way, selfish.
An assertion is not wrong because it is full of opinion, so long as the opinion in question is correct.
It may not be wrong in your opinion. "Violent video games hurt us all" -- I want a immediate, obvious, always-occurring cause and effect as an absolute that is enough to override the rights of the individual.
It definitely doesn't work for porn if you look at porn-inundated societies like Japan with low rates of sexual assault. You can't blame that generally on porn no matter how much the radical left-wing lesbian feminists and right-wing Christians want to make it so.
But you don't like porn, so that's okay with you. But then remember that the anti-gunners are using your same logic to ban guns and stop people from speaking out against abortion. I prefer the ability to enforce such logic not exist at all.
The fact that you don’t agree with it – and most probably haven’t really given it the study it requires – doesn’t mean it’s vague.
If you can show me how a porn magazine walked up to someone and shot him or took his money, or was forced into his hands, I'm all ears.
It’s not “my” morality; it is the morality of Western Civilization for two thousand years.
That solid, unchanging morality. Why don't we bring back slavery? Or were you wrong before? Maybe you're wrong now. So you're going to violate the freedoms of others on the hope that you're perception of morality is right this time.
They’re going to do that anyway, if they get power.
Thus my point. If the position does not contain that power, then they cannot enforce their views.
Wouldn’t you be willing to take up arms and throw off tyranny, if that became necessary?
Been there, done that, you're welcome. Although not in this country.
A government that could not legislate morality could not legislate at all. There is no law that is not the expression of a moral precept.
You see everything through a filter of morality. There is also the social compact that has helped societies get along long before Christianity was invented. If you want to call it morals, fine. It's just another word for it.
As of today, child-molesting is still unacceptable,
Child molesting directly injures another. It is not in the same category as consensual crime.
I’m willing to accept considerably less than tolerates sodomite porn.
If you're willing to limit their freedoms, then you are willing to have your own freedoms limited by them. I'm not.
“The Ten Commandments may have popped up on the way as one of many representations of that prohibition, but it does not begin it.”
Irrelevant. The same God that gave us the Ten Commandments began it.
“Protecting the rights of others is a social compact.”
The original distinction without a difference. By the way, utilitarianism doesn’t work.
“I want a immediate, obvious, always-occurring cause and effect as an absolute that is enough to override the rights of the individual.”
That’s ridiculous. By that standard, injecting yourself with the AIDS virus is not harmful, since there can be a ten-year incubation period. Not immediate at all. “Obvious” is equally inappropriate, as a subtle effect can kill you as surely as an obvious one. And requiring that it be “always-occurring” is as silly as the others. Not everyone who is exposed to Ebola gets it, and not everyone who gets it dies. Why, as much as four percent of a population might survive. Guess we can’t call Ebola harmful, eh?
“It definitely doesn’t work for porn if you look at porn-inundated societies like Japan with low rates of sexual assault.”
Bud, I lived in Japan for over 20 years, and anybody who tells you they have low rates of sexual assault is either an idiot or a liar. The Japanese habitually try to make themselves look better by hiding their dirty linen.
“You can’t blame that generally on porn no matter how much the radical left-wing lesbian feminists and right-wing Christians want to make it so.”
Porn does cause an increase in criminal sexual activity. That’s just plain obvious. However, that wasn’t the harm I was speaking of.
“But then remember that the anti-gunners are using your same logic to ban guns and stop people from speaking out against abortion.”
That is so contrary to reality that one is at a loss for an appropriate response. It is as though you just claimed that the ocean was made of raspberry jell-o. The arguments the anti-gun nuts and baby-killers use are so radically different from the arguments against porn – and specifically sodomite porn – that one wonders how you could possibly have gotten so confused in the space of one human lifetime. It seems like it should take longer than a few decades to become that misguided about anything.
“I prefer the ability to enforce such logic not exist at all.”
From the things you’re saying, I’m beginning to doubt that you are in touch with logic at all.
“If you can show me how a porn magazine walked up to someone and shot him or took his money, or was forced into his hands, I’m all ears.”
If I can show you, you’re all ears. Ah, so that’s how you get that confused: looking with your ears, and listening with your eyes. Confining the possible harm from the production of porn to those nonsensical propositions is irrational.
“That solid, unchanging morality. Why don’t we bring back slavery?”
Bogus, leftist argument. The fact that something has improved across 20 centuries does not constitute an argument that it is now deficient, or ever was.
“Or were you wrong before? Maybe you’re wrong now.”
Is there any piece of puerile sophistry that you haven’t fallen for?
“So you’re going to violate the freedoms of others”
Nonsense. There is no legitimate freedom to produce sodomite porn.
“on the hope that you’re perception of morality is right this time.”
There is no “this time.” The morality was right in the year 1, and it’s still right now. There have been improvements, as our understanding has grown deeper, but those have strengthened the fabric, not torn it. Every improvement has added to and has been congruent with what existed before.
“Thus my point. If the position does not contain that power, then they cannot enforce their views.”
You cannot stop them from taking that power by refusing it yourself.
“You see everything through a filter of morality. There is also the social compact that has helped societies get along long before Christianity was invented.”
Morality existed long before Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. It was written on the heart of man by the finger of God. The phrase “social compact” is just weaseling by people who are locked in adolescent rebellion against God, and it is a fairly recent invention at that.
“Child molesting directly injures another. It is not in the same category as consensual crime.”
Bogus, leftist argument. Sodomy directly injures all involved, as does prostitution.
“If you’re willing to limit their freedoms, then you are willing to have your own freedoms limited by them.”
Road apples. Prohibiting evil in no way empowers evil to prohibit good.
According to one of thousands of religions. Thus, irrelevant.
That’s ridiculous. By that standard, injecting yourself with the AIDS virus is not harmful, since there can be a ten-year incubation period.
Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. How about some examples. I don't want my guns taken away because some people do bad things with guns (no act taken that specifically caused harm). I don't want to be forced to wear a seatbelt* because someone found that not wearing one increases the costs for all of us (vague victim). I don't want to pay billions to third-world countries because Kyoto says our CO2 emissions hurt everybody (unproven harm).
And if I don't want to suffer those injustices that others think are moral, I must allow others to do things that I don't think are moral. That's freedom.
* I always wear a seatbelt, but it's the principle that counts -- I shouldn't be forced to do so.
Bud, I lived in Japan for over 20 years, and anybody who tells you they have low rates of sexual assault is either an idiot or a liar. The Japanese habitually try to make themselves look better by hiding their dirty linen.
Interesting. How do they fake such low rates?
Porn does cause an increase in criminal sexual activity.
I've never seen proof. I've seen a lot of studies from people against porn saying it does, but nothing even remotely convincing. It's as tenuous of the "gateway drug" theory. People have an a priori conclusion of a negative outcome because they want to ban what they're researching.
Confining the possible harm from the production of porn to those nonsensical propositions is irrational.
To get rational we have to go on some vague "it harms society" journey of tortured logic. Not that I actually think it's good for society, but that's just my personal opinion.
The fact that something has improved across 20 centuries does not constitute an argument that it is now deficient, or ever was.
So slavery wasn't deficient. Okay.
You cannot stop them from taking that power by refusing it yourself.
No, you establish that no one can take such power, period. Our Constitution is full of such limitations, although successive people with a lust to control the population have eroded the the effectiveness of them over the last two centuries. On a constitutional basis, the most I can concede is that the states may have the power to restrict such things under the 10th Amendment if their constitutions don't forbid the taking of such power. But since the Constitution is almost all about limiting government power, I believe the 10th wanted most of that power to go to the people.
Morality existed long before Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
True, it developed because that's what primitive tribes found made for an orderly society. I can show you a bunch of religions that claim equal footing to your own on the origination of morality. You believe for yourself, and I can respect that. But that doesn't mean it's true for all in an absolute sense.
Bogus, leftist argument. Sodomy directly injures all involved, as does prostitution.
You have to ask those specific people involved whether they think their rights were violated. If not, you have no claim, you are inventing injury in order to further your restriction of the rights of others, just like the leftists do.
Road apples. Prohibiting evil in no way empowers evil to prohibit good.
The government is the power. When you, in desiring to do good, empower the government to direct the minutiae of peoples' consensual relations, you leave the door open should evil come to power to direct your relations. This reminds me somewhat of A Man for All Seasons:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!When it comes to government power, you need to stand on principles of limited government even when it hurts to do so. This isn't very comforting, but the alternative is worse.More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
“According to one of thousands of religions. Thus, irrelevant.”
Bogus argument. I doubt that it would do any good to delve into the matter, but that statement is so bad, it’s not even wrong.
“Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough.”
I don’t think you understand it well enough.
“How about some examples.”
Those are not examples of anything that has the least bearing on this discussion.
“And if I don’t want to suffer those injustices that others think are moral, I must allow others to do things that I don’t think are moral. That’s freedom.”
Ummm…no, that’s the left’s notion of freedom. Rational people understand that the government, as the embodiment of the will of the people, can appropriately proscribe such immoral behaviors as murder, rape, and the production of sodomite pornography.
“Interesting. How do they fake such low rates?”
The same way Dan Rather faked his entire career – they lie. Oh, well, to be fair, crimes are grossly under-reported, but they simply do not compile and release accurate statistics.
“I’ve never seen proof.”
Sure you have.
“People have an a priori conclusion of a negative outcome because they want to ban what they’re researching.”
No, you have an a priori conclusion of a neutral outcome because you want to keep porn legal.
“To get rational we have to go on some vague “it harms society” journey of tortured logic.”
There’s no tortured logic to it. It is a clear chain of causality for anyone who cares to look. It destroys the participants, and it corrupts the consumers.
“So slavery wasn’t deficient. Okay.”
The fact that some people failed to understand that slavery was wrong is not an indictment of the morals of Western Civilization, as much as the left would like it to be. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
The Church worked since its earliest days to improve the lot of slaves, and Christianity was the driving force behind its abolition in the Western World.
“No, you establish that no one can take such power, period.”
Can’t be done, as your next sentence demonstrates: “Our Constitution is full of such limitations, although successive people with a lust to control the population have eroded the the effectiveness of them over the last two centuries.”
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, not, “whatever, man.”
“True, it developed because that’s what primitive tribes found made for an orderly society.”
That’s quite a sweeping proclamation. Of course, you have no more proof of that than of the proposition that the lavender peanut butter fairy delivered morality to ancient societies.
“But that doesn’t mean it’s true for all in an absolute sense.”
It doesn’t matter what means this or that. The fact is that it is true for all in an absolute sense. That’s just the way it is.
“You have to ask those specific people involved whether they think their rights were violated.”
That’s absolutely the last thing a rational person would do if he wished to arrive at the truth of the matter.
“If not, you have no claim, you are inventing injury in order to further your restriction of the rights of others, just like the leftists do.”
Utter buncombe. It is ludicrous to imagine that asking the evil if they are distressed by their evil acts would yield useful information.
“When you, in desiring to do good, empower the government to direct the minutiae of peoples’ consensual relations, you leave the door open should evil come to power to direct your relations.”
Evil will open that door anyway, and the surest way to ensure it happens is to fail to suppress it in the name of some misguided notion of fairness.
“This reminds me somewhat of A Man for All Seasons”
It shouldn’t. That passage is not apropos. You don’t want to give the Devil benefit of law. You wish to give him free rein with no law to hinder him.
“When it comes to government power, you need to stand on principles of limited government even when it hurts to do so. This isn’t very comforting, but the alternative is worse.”
No matter how dedicated one may be to limited government, there is neither justification nor need for any legitimization of sexual immorality. That’s just one of those things that government should be doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.