I found this site the other day, forgot about this guy.

siouxfallsclassaction.com

Reminds me of the recent BS one of my friends has been going through with the city. They asked me to be a witness to the Gestapo the other day and I have seen documents and heard voice mails.

This shit is real & troubling.

Without going into detail, my question is this; How can you sue someone for something they corrected, and furthermore, expect them to pay the city in the form of a fine, when the offense (if not corrected) only harms the property owner, not the city? Still baffled by these asspipes.

13 Thoughts on “siouxfallsclassaction.com

  1. So your asserting that this assclown has the right to set his smut boxes wherever he wants to. Do you think I should be ale to sell Hustlers on the steps of the courthouse?
    You bark up too many trees and it really marginalizes when you have an actual legitimate topic.

  2. WOW… I’ll never get a job as an editor. EDIT function please.

  3. No, I wasn’t defending him specifically, just pointing out his website. Sometimes people come on here and read too much into what I am posting. Trust me, I am not that mult-faceted.

  4. Guest Poster on December 10, 2012 at 9:36 am said:

    If real Americans really believe in the US Constitution, they would have no problem with him selling Hustlers on the the courthouse steps.

    I for one don’t care if he sets them up in front of post offices, courthouses, churches or on street corners. You need to teach your children the values necessary to not make these publications necessary or desirable. Human nature will makes these desirable by limiting the access.

    In the United States of America, our first responsibility is the protection of the Constitution before all else. Your church or views cannot be protected without the strong Constitution. There is a reason the 1st amendment to the Constitution is the right to practice your religion, free speech, free press before all else. So I don’t care about his smut or yours, it is your right to ignore it or take part in it. Just don’t shove your beliefs down my throat and make me like them.

  5. Wow. 2007 called. They want their story back.

    How about details regarding the current problem instead of a link to a website that hasn’t been updated in 5 years and a post that amounts to “I know something you don’t know”?

  6. I will be posting an interview soon about what I witnessed the other day.

  7. Pathloss on December 10, 2012 at 2:55 pm said:

    Current city action is abhorrent. They impose ridiculous rules not addressed with ordinances. They don’t allow appeals and hold a kangaroo hearing. It’s cruel entertainment for them. Truth is, their government is stagnant. They’re excluded from legal process and have no method to collect fines or get a lien. If you respect democracy and state/federal constitutions, give them your middle finger when they show up. We were nice once and wanted to cooperate. It wasn’t enough. They play foolish games to justify their unnecessary jobs. It’s not only narcisist, it’s dimented.

  8. I don’t know what people mean exactly about Jacobsen’s smut boxes, if you are referring to his lonely hearts newspaper racks, unless the papers have changed an awful lot since the early 90s, there isn’t anything bad in them. At the time that I would occasionally buy one, they were taking the place of the online dating services. I met some really nice guys through the paper, nicer than the ones that I met through friends and church.

  9. yeah, while I never read his pubs but I also never had any indication there was anything obscene in them. Keep in mind that our daily paper has done everything they can to try to force out any indie pub in the last few years.

    Did his video stores have porn? Yes, but they also for many years were the ONLY stores to stock anything that wasn’t of the blockbuster type. If you were looking for any obscure documentary or indie movie, they were the place to go.

  10. Wow… was that a Geocities website designed in 1996? It is almost painful to read.

    Personally I don’t care if someone wants to put out boxes for newspapers or rags or magazines or whatever, but I feel there should be limits on where they are placed and they should be required to be permitted and licensed. Fact is this guy used to put his boxes right in the middle of sidewalks which made it very difficult for people to get around if they were in a wheelchair or power chair.

    Wasn’t he also the same guy who at one point chained his boxes to telephone poles? I could be wrong, but aren’t there still a few boxes floating around out there which look like they haven’t been maintained in eons? This is why they should be permitted… because if someone isn’t maintaining them and is just placing them wherever – at least the city could eventually pick them up and confiscate them until fines are paid.

    That being said, does this guy even distribute his papers anymore? I have my doubts that in the modern era anyone would read these things. What a waste of ink.

  11. Guest Poster… Saying or reading is very much different than selling on the court house steps and are 2 totally different things. I don’t think the Argus Leader should be sold on public property. If the private property owner gave him permission to place his boxes, I understand.

    There must be laws of public decency as children are very impressionable and a shrinking amount of parents teach children right and wrong on this topic.
    This guy did not place boxes that looked to be “smut” related here but he has done so in other communities.

    If you read the case review (do a google search) you will see that he set one of these boxes in front of a Lewis and Clarke mural. The state poured a concrete pad to move his little box to and he refused.

  12. Guest Poster on December 12, 2012 at 9:09 am said:

    LJL, you are right about the Argus especially when you consider limiting any other publication. I do not care if he was trying to give away classified ad publications, newspapers, or as you say ‘smut’. It does not matter under the 1st Amendment.

    Your smut could be someones religion. I do not agree with much current religion being thrust upon me everyday, should we classify them as smut so they cannot be in public? What if I find the religion offending and do not want my children being exposed to it in public? I find the idiots standing on street corners waving signs telling me to go to their church offending, should I have them put in jail? No. Our 1st Amendment protects them and I respect their ability to stand on the public’s street corner waving the sign.

    It goes both ways. I do not trust anyone who attempts to limit any speech in any way shape or form. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach the children to accept other people and their views. To not make anyone who does not share their limited views a criminal or deviant is wrong in our society.

    I do not care about the state creating a special pad for his publication if the others were not placed right next to his. Fake public morality is still unconstitutional when directed toward one type of publication.

  13. I’m with GP on this one. There is many things in the Public square that I find offensive, but I also try to inform myself about those things and try not to let them bother me. As the English say, “Never mind the Bullocks.”

Post Navigation