It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apple Sued for Allowing Tenn. Man to View Porn

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


Aren't they though? I can just see him attacking his Weetabix with his big chopper!




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
USA, the land of idiots.

reading the first line is too hard for them already, so why bother.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
So....

I could sue microsoft for not blocking all porn on tranny tuesdays?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
That's like suing Mcdonalds because you are obese.

"I demand that Mcdonalds narrows its doors to stop me getting in"

What a tool



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


those cereal killers are the worse!


Milk or yogurt??
I use both...But i dont abuse my computer

Think it would hurt to much....On me i mean....

Sometimes this site make me sick....From luaghing to much....



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
If that is the case, I think I have a pretty good lawsuit against Apple, Microsoft, Google etc. for allowing my computer to access porn... now I have carpal tunnel and tennis elbow... both arms...

edit on 16-7-2013 by madmac5150 because: Chemtrail induced cranial dry heave



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
You guys ever think that maybe these aren't real people, but people being paid to go through with some wild claim that will if results as they wanted will strip another portion of our Constitutional rights away.

What if this is all a ploy to declare more restrictions upon our rights in the name of productive and positive correctness.

Gotta ask yourself, why?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
In the UK they are introducing a law that will mean all pornographic sites will only be available on an opt in basis. So you will have to phone your ISP and ask them to let you look at naughty things.

Creates a bit of a problem for those of us who live at home in our parents house. I'm not looking forward to the conversation about how we must keep access to porn open.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
People get crazy over things like this. If he doesnt want to look at porn, dont use the internet...

Or maybe a little bit of self restraint?

Its just as bad as suing a fast food place because you burnt your tongue on the coffee!!!! Maybe on your planet coffee is served cold, but here on Earth we like it HOT.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I wish people would stop bringing up the case of the woman and the McDonald's coffee as a prime example of ridiculous lawsuits. The woman suffered burns that were so severe it required skin grafting and two years of medical treatment. As a company, serving a beverage that hot is negligent, especially if you remember how easy it was for the lids to come off etc. on those old Mcdo coffee cups.

With that being said this case will more than likely be tossed and the only reason this guy is doing this is probably to prove to his wife that he was innocent in the porn viewing. I can't imagine what type of couple would have this type of relationship but I guess they exist out there.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trueman
I don't believe it's about moral, religion or similar. It's just about money. Here in USA people sue for any stupid reason if that will represent a profit. Pay attention, they always sue big companies, in this case Apple.


I disagree with this. One of my clients is like the man mentioned in the story. He blames his computer, the internet, and other software for not keeping him away from porn online. He's a hardcore christian, and blames the computer for his need to look at pornography.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The PC Mag article states that "the 50-page filing is rambling, grammatically incorrect, and generally unhinged."


That complaint, meanwhile, manages to mention 9/11, coc aine, the virtues of life in the 1950s, Abu Ghraib, and what he feels are the detrimental effects of allowing gays to serve in the military.


None of these things should have been in the complaint as they are unrelated to the claim yet there they were. Sounds like the guy went off the deep end. Guarantee you that it wasn't the porn that got the wife to leave him but that the guy went off his rocker and the porn viewing was more than likely the easy-out for the wife. Kind of like the Judge most likely dismissing the case based on the civil fee being unpaid despite request for waiver. Judge probably doesn't want to say "this guy is freaking nuts" and is taking the easy way out, lol.

In either case, I don't think this sums up anything about the state of lawsuits in America or whether people will sue about anything. A lot of that kind of thinking actually was initiated by McDonald's in response to the "hot coffee" lawsuit. Big money is spent to basically paint a lawsuit as frivolous in the public's eye in part as self defense and also to try to promote the idea that there needs to be tort reform. Interesting article on the subject: www.yalemedlaw.com...

Frivolous lawsuits tend to get dismissed as frivolous.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
The PC Mag article states that "the 50-page filing is rambling, grammatically incorrect, and generally unhinged."


That complaint, meanwhile, manages to mention 9/11, coc aine, the virtues of life in the 1950s, Abu Ghraib, and what he feels are the detrimental effects of allowing gays to serve in the military.




Frivolous lawsuits tend to get dismissed as frivolous.


And so they should as well.

Although if he wins I'm suing my football team for not winning the Premier League last season.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedi_hamster
USA, the land of idiots.

reading the first line is too hard for them already, so why bother.


I must disagree with your generalization regarding the level of cognition amongst those who take residence within the borders of the United States. I have no choice but to find your assumptions laughable.

The actions of one individual who found it necessary to file a frivolous lawsuit for the appeasement of his spouse in no way reflects the views and opinions of the average American citizen. This is obviously a clear cut case of a unsatisfied husband on the end of his pitiful rope who has fled into the arms of a digital siren only later to be thwarted by his significant other. Then after this calamity ensued, somehow had an epiphany which ultimately resulted in this hilarity.

Furthermore, I find your prejudice alarming and cannot help but wonder how you originally arrived at this conclusion. Perhaps you do not give us enough credit?

Your bigotry aside...

Fortunately any judge worth a quarter of his salt will laugh this man right out the door. Also, there is no attorney alive that would take this case... Here's why

I know it's from Wikipedia but it gets the point across.


In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".[2] Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.[3] In one case, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".[4] A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.[5]


Source

P.S. .... pwnt
edit on 16-7-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
In the UK they are introducing a law that will mean all pornographic sites will only be available on an opt in basis. So you will have to phone your ISP and ask them to let you look at naughty things.

Creates a bit of a problem for those of us who live at home in our parents house. I'm not looking forward to the conversation about how we must keep access to porn open.


Or you may be suprised to find out somebody else in the house has already unblocked it



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join