Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Jack Thompson Served With Order to Show Cause

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sat Feb 23, 2008 05:24 AM
from the a-village-somewhere-is-missing-their-idiot dept.
Government The Courts News Entertainment Games
cli_rules! writes "DailyTech has reported that Jack Thompson has been ordered to explain himself. 'Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before March 5, 2008, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system, including, but not limited to directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or other filings submitted to this Court by you unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar other than yourself.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Games: Thompson Vs. Lanning on Game Violence 50 comments
This past weekend Lorne Lanning (of Oddworld fame) and notorious anti-games lawyer Jack Thompson took the stage at the Philadelphia Convention Center to debate the issue of videogame violence. Joystiq has a blow-by-blow liveblog of the event, while Wired offers up a considered synopsis of the event. From that piece: "Lanning laid into Thompson for having a 'business plan' that cashed in on the grief of victim's families, a point he would make throughout the rest of the debate. Thompson seemed both offended and confused by the suggestion, asking how exactly he was making money off his efforts, a point Lanning never really did answer. At one point, Thompson said 'no one in their right mind would say that a videogame by itself would turn an angel into a demon,' but seemed to be splitting his message."
[+] Games: Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial 258 comments
pwizard2 writes "Gamepolitics reports that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson faces the start of an ethics trial this morning, a process which could ultimately see him disbarred. The review board has set aside the entire week to hear details on the case. 'Over the weekend, Thompson turned to the Florida Supreme Court in an apparent effort to block this morning's trial from moving forward. In one court filing Thompson asserted that he was willing to accept a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law. The embattled attorney claimed that such an offer had been on the table, but that the Florida Bar was now seeking his permanent disbarment.'"
[+] Jack Thompson Claiming Games Industry in Collusion with DoD 289 comments
mytrip brings us a Wired blog about Jack Thompson's recent press release, which claims an "unholy alliance" exists between the gaming industry and the U.S. Department of Defense. Game Politics also has a discussion of Thompson's main points. From Wired: "Jim Blank, the head of the modeling and simulation division of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, says that commercial games don't meet the demand of the military, adding, 'first-person shooter games really don't apply in this environment.' Blank's point is that game-like simulations are a valuable tool for training soldiers in situations that would be too expensive to simulate in reality."
Submission: Jack Thompson Served With Order to Show Cause by S by cli_rules! (915096)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Jack Thompson Served With Order to Show Cause 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nero Nimbus (1104415) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:26AM (#22525742)
    Where is the itsabouttime tag?

      • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Grimbleton (1034446) on Saturday February 23 2008, @06:35AM (#22525930)
        "Gun culture" isn't a problem. Crazy people buying guns via non-legal channels and going on a rampage is a problem. Please don't confuse these two in the future.

        • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by hedwards (940851) on Saturday February 23 2008, @01:51PM (#22528274)
          Except that in the case of NIU the individual was legally allowed to purchase firearms from a legally licensed gun shop who performed at least one background check. In the WV massacre last year, the lack of cooperation between agencies allowed him to purchase his weapons through a shop that was observing relevant legislation as well.

          But yes, there is the need to clean up the illegal channels first before we seriously consider whether wider gun bans are necessary. The D.C. Sniper purchased his weapons from the Bull's Eye in Tacoma, a shop which was later closed for multiple violations of gun control legislation. The last thing we need is for the US to turn into the kind of unmitigated disaster that the UK has been since they banned firearms. They did an excellent job of demonstrating that firearm bans aren't really anywhere near enough, and that perhaps registries and gun locks would be more effective.

          Where gun culture plays into it is that there is a ridiculous degree of resistance to legitimate regulation on people buying weapons that serve no purpose other than killing people. Gun nuts that support not just the use of pistols, rifles and shotguns for hunting, but also fully automatic weapons for hunting as well.

          What we really need is better access to mental health coverage and screenings so that those people who do have that level of need can get the treatment they need. Around here Ms. Harps was stabbed to death on new years eve by a man with serious mental health problems, it turns out that he had himself tried to get committed a few days previously and been declined.

          As for how video games may or may not play into this whole thing, it's minimal at best, the extent of it is more likely than not, just the fact that time gaming is time not going outside and having face to face interaction with other people.

        • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SendBot (29932) on Saturday February 23 2008, @01:58PM (#22528318) Homepage Journal
          The attacker in the most recent episode of a domestic mass shooting purchased his weapons 100% legally, as did a man who shot his estranged wife 6 blocks away from where I type this. He likely would have killed himself too had not someone I know personally wrested the gun away from him.

          Look at all the ordinary people who fell in with the pro-war sentiment prior the iraq occupation, and how their attitude that violence is a legitimate solution to a falsely perceived threat has affected this country and the world since then.

          I like guns, but I don't like shooting people unless it's paintball or video games. I wouldn't say "gun culture" is a problem, rather "violence culture".

              • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by gnasher719 (869701) on Saturday February 23 2008, @09:59AM (#22526678)

                forsooth, I as well have a stack of guns, and numerous bad days. The reason i don't shoot people is because i'd rather have a bad day where i live, Vs. a bad day in a federal prison, which comes with a lot more surprise butsecks in the showers. not down with that, so i don't shoot people.
                Are you serious? The reason why you don't shoot people is that you don't want to go to prison?

                If that is the only reason then you are not human and should be shot immediately.

                • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Funny)

                  by gruntled (107194) on Saturday February 23 2008, @10:49AM (#22526956)
                  Can I stop this thread right now by going straight to the end and asking, So if you had the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler in 1925, you wouldn't do it?

                  • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by bwalling (195998) on Saturday February 23 2008, @11:15AM (#22527146) Homepage
                    Don't be so foolish as to think the only way to stop Hitler was to kill him. What's the deal with needing to kill people? Let's figure out why Hitler became Hitler and fix that problem rather than pouring more money into guns or the military. I think it's pathetic that we think guns are a solution to a problem.

          • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by adarklite (1033564) on Saturday February 23 2008, @10:02AM (#22526700)
            As part of the gun culture I have to object to the some of the statements made about how its a part of the problem. The day they decide to outlaw guns is the day I become a outlaw and they can come pry my gun from my cold dead fingers. Outlawing weapons has always been the first step of dictators to exert more control over the populace. History has proven that.

            • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Fallen Seraph (808728) on Saturday February 23 2008, @10:53AM (#22526990)
              Why is he being modded down? He's absolutely right!

              The American Revolution would never have happened if the populace was not armed to the teeth. I hate to say it, but if our government ever collapses into a blatant dictatorship, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be unarmed.

              "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
              -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

              • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

                by rucs_hack (784150) on Saturday February 23 2008, @12:43PM (#22527756)
                Oh come on. No really, how utterly stupid.

                If your government collapsed, it's highly unlikely that you wouldn't be able to arm yourself. The possibility of governmental collapse at some hypothetical point in the future cannot be used as justification for universal gun ownership.

                You've got the highest rate of gun related deaths in the western world. Like it or not, it's because there are so many guns in private ownership.

                  • Wrong indeed (Score:5, Informative)

                    by K.os023 (1093385) on Saturday February 23 2008, @02:03PM (#22528366)
                    You are wrong: Canada does NOT have more [guncontrol.ca] guns per capita than the US [wikipedia.org]. If you have any statistics to back up what you're saying I'd be interested in seeing them.

                    • Re:Wrong indeed (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by sodul (833177) on Sunday February 24 2008, @12:46AM (#22532706) Homepage

                      Well he was talking about gun 'ownership', if you look at the wikipedia numbers there are 90 guns for 100 residents, so obviously the US gun owners have more guns on average than a gun owner anywhere else in the world. I live in CA myself and I know very few people that actually have a gun, still too many to my own taste, but I don't deny their right to own one. So it's still plausible that more people in Canada *own* guns than in the US, the owners in Canada just don't stockpile them under the kids bed like you see on Cops (the tv show) once in a while.

                      If you look at the numbers you gave us [guncontrol.ca] US has 3.3 times more gun per inhabitant than Canada yet the US has 7.9 more murders by firearms. From this I would say that the US gun owners are at least twice as trigger happy than the Canadian gun owners.

              • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by gruntled (107194) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:48PM (#22529912)
                Oh for God's sake. The American Revolution would never have happened if the people who lived here had been able to vote.

                I have a concealed carry permit for work reasons, but anybody who thinks a fully automatic weapon, or a 50 caliber sniper rifle, or any other firearm you care to name, is going to hold off a squad of United States military personnel trained and equipped with enough firepower to bring down a mechanized infantry unit is freakin' delusional. Trust me, it's not fear of your 45 that keeps the government from kicking down your front door. The vast, vast, VAST majority of the men and women who work for the United States government spend most of their time trying to protect your rights, not scheming about how they can oppress you, and they don't do that because they're afraid you'll "rise up," they do it because it's their job. Get a grip. Crazies give gun ownership a bad name.

                  • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by gruntled (107194) on Saturday February 23 2008, @07:58PM (#22530934)
                    Excellent analogy. Because the Canadians would certainly be directly supporting the American insurgents, plotting to take over the United States for the nefarious ends of the Mounties (or, as they're known at the Department of Homeland Security, the Red Guard), plus the American military personnel would have to function in completely foreign environments, like the neighborhood down the block from the one they grew up in, together with the difficulties associated with a non-native force struggling to understand local customs as well as deal with an enormous supply chain that would force units to drive six inches to rearm.

                    Seriously, the suggestion that the American military machine could not completely shut down any US "revolution," if such an insane thing were to occur, is delusional thinking. But of course, it's no more delusional than thinking that we don't live in a democracy, that you can't affect change through the ballot box, that it always comes down to who has the most bullets, and that the only way to fix things is to get all my fellow believers together and form a militia to defend ourselves against the crypto-fascists who want to take our guns away. (Note: I am not saying there are no crypto-fascists in government, and I'm not saying that nobody in the government ever fantasizes about ruling us with an iron fist, I'm saying that all the other decent people in government won't let that happen, and I would argue that the recent revelations about "bad things" the current government has done or tried to do is evidence that it's pretty hard to mount a secret conspiracy to take your rights away). Hey, you want to start a revolution? Run for office.

                    Since I started carrying a pistol (death threats; need I mention they're from crazy gun freaks?) I've been forced (like, at the gun range) to come into contact with this bizarre subculture whose members are convinced that everything about America is a lie. It's like they think XFiles is a series of documentaries. From my perspective, if it's a choice between worrying about people who are professional bureaucrats suddenly throwing all their ideals out the window and deciding to shoot American civilians versus worryng about people who are honest to god crazy, I'd worry about the crazy.

            • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Informative)

              by gweihir (88907) on Saturday February 23 2008, @11:30AM (#22527272)
              Outlawing weapons has always been the first step of dictators to exert more control over the populace. History has proven that.

              Dead wrong. In Irak, e.g., almost every houshold had an assault rifle and ammunition under Saddam. Numerous other counterexanples exist.

              So if you think gun control is a reliable indicator for the level of freedom in a society, you will wake up surprised one day. And far, far too late.

              Seem to me your command of history is right up there with your grasp of the gun problem.

            • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by boyko.at.netqos (1024767) on Saturday February 23 2008, @02:03PM (#22528364)
              I always thought the first step of dictators to exert more control over the populace (according to historical trends) was invoking a terrifying internal and external enemy, followed by creating a prison system outside the rule of law, developing a paramilitary group of scary young men to terrorize citizens, setting up an internal surveillance system, harass citizens' groups, engage in arbitrary detention and release, target civil servants, artists, and academics with job loss, control the press, cast dissent as treason, and suspend the rule of law.

              Confiscating guns seems to me to be, if anything, purely optional, and is almost always done AFTER an armed resistance would have little to no effect anyway.

      • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Miseph (979059) on Saturday February 23 2008, @11:38AM (#22527318) Journal
        ATTN: Gun owners

        gun culture != gun ownership

        Many places have widespread gun ownership and do not share our gun culture (see: Switzerland).

        Furthermore, asserting that a cultural norm of using firearms against other people will not result in people using guns on one another is just outwardly silly. Tell everyone that shooting people is cool (which we most certainly do) and it stands to reason that people will actually do it.

        • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Belial6 (794905) on Saturday February 23 2008, @04:07PM (#22529202) Homepage
          Actually we don't have a gun culture. We have an anti-gun culture. When combined with our "bad boy" culture, you get problems with guns. Our population is bombarded day an night with how bad guns are, and how they are the root of all of our crime. Children are taught in school that guns are evil, and that they should report it if they see one. Heck, just walking down the street with an unloaded shotgun is likely to get you arrested.

          Of course, at the same time, we are bombarded with the idea that it's cool to be bad. That criminals and assholes get all the sex. That power comes from crime. This leads to two things. 1) When someone wants to show just how "bad" they are, they use a gun. Not because the gun IS bad, but because they have been convinced that it is bad. And 2) Taking away the guns won't help in the slightest, as there are not "bad guys" because of guns, and the people wanting to show how bad they are will simply use something else.

        • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday February 23 2008, @08:05PM (#22530974) Homepage Journal

          We don't have a gun culture, what we have is a culture of media-ocrity. Kids spend more time watching television than going to school and the media exalts violence and commercialism. Lately it's been getting slutted up too. Anyone who says that watching eight hours of mass-media television a day won't rot your brain is obviously a dillhole, every system except for a few involving bacteria are garbage in, garbage out all the way. Any "gun culture" you may have believed existed is just an offshoot of our "media culture". It's part of the public paranoia promoted by a news media that shows us only the sensationalistic crap that will ensure their ratings because we as a people have shown that we react well to being shown bright and shiny things.

          If we really had a "gun culture" problem then we'd have more firearm deaths than alcohol deaths or auto deaths. In 2001 (easy stats to find) we have around 75,000 alcohol deaths [cdc.gov], ~40,000 auto accident deaths [car-accidents.com], and 29,573 firearms deaths [ojp.gov], 57% of which were suicides - which means that they could as easily have been slit wrists or heads in the oven, assuming the statistic is correct. (ho ho)

          As you can see from that last link, the total number of deaths is falling over time, and the percentage of suicide is rising... and of course the population is rising in this country. So uh... it looks like what gun problems we have - and there are problems, just as there are problems with knives, and there were problems with swords and bows before them, are being worked out.

          So sorry, I don't see your gun culture bit. Guns are tools meant for killing, and we enshrine violence. Guns are just a symptom. They're the most convenient way to kill someone, so of course we're going to use them. Get rid of them and you'll just see more stabbings and stranglings.

        • Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rucs_hack (784150) on Saturday February 23 2008, @12:51PM (#22527814)
          I prefer to get my health care on a timely basis, from the doctor of my choosing, thankyouverymuch.

          And if you lose your job and cannot pay health insurance, or are denied a payout on your health insurance, that's ok too?

          Guess so.

          It's interesting that most people who don't view the lack of universal health care as a problem, currently have health insurance.

          Go ahead, say it's because of Micheal Moore that I say this.

          Wrong...

          I worked in social services here in the uk in the eighties. Back then I attended a lecture series on the US health system. This included details about people being left to die in parks after being dropped off by ambulance, denial of care based on it being 'experimental' (e.g. expensive), and many other points that he raised.

          Outside of the US, many of his points are old, old news.

  • Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imasu (1008081) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:28AM (#22525746)
    Jack Thompson sues court for defaming him!

    • Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)

      by jez9999 (618189) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:34AM (#22525766) Homepage Journal
      If you think about it, courts are murder simulators, or at least very damaging to society. I mean, you can go there any day of the week, and see ruthless criminals! This would definitely damage impressionable young childrens' minds.

    • Re:Next up... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lloyd_Bryant (73136) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:38AM (#22525786)

      Jack Thompson sues court for defaming him!
      RTFA - he has *already* stated that he's going to challenge this in the federal courts, and "deconstruct The Florida Bar".

      • Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)

        by yotto (590067) on Saturday February 23 2008, @08:40AM (#22526334) Homepage
        I fully expect, as they're dragging him away, him to yell, "But.... but I'm INVINCIBLE!"

        • Re:Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by schon (31600) on Saturday February 23 2008, @09:41AM (#22526596) Homepage

          How can we reject in advance one argument while allowing other arguments to be heard endlessly?
          What the hell are you talking about?

          The *COURTS* have found that he's bringing baseless lawsuits. They did this because *OTHER LAWYERS* complained about him. What the hell does that have to do with people protesting abortion?

          So the real question lurking behind it all is just how responsible can anyone be for creating material that will set a lunatic on a bad outburst.
          No, that's begging the question.

          First prove that these "unstable people" are being triggered by the content, and not by simply reacting to other factors in their lives.

          • Re:Next up... (Score:4, Funny)

            by Nimey (114278) on Saturday February 23 2008, @11:14AM (#22527134) Homepage Journal

            So the real question lurking behind it all is just how responsible can anyone be for creating material that will set a lunatic on a bad outburst.
            No, that's begging the question.
            Holy shit, someone just used "begging the question" correctly. Pinch me.

    • Re:Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by budgenator (254554) on Saturday February 23 2008, @11:20AM (#22527196) Journal
      IANAL but

      02/19/2008 ORDER-SHOW CAUSE
      TO: JOHN BRUCE THOMPSON

      It appears to the Court that you have abused the legal system by submitting numerous frivolous and inappropriate filings in this Court.


      Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before March 5, 2008, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system, including, but not limited to directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or other filings submitted to this Court by you unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar other than yourself.


      They are not really saying he did anything, they are just saying that it looks that way, if he has evidence that the court has not seen that would show that they are wrong, he's invited to present it. If there is no evidence then things are the way they look and he's going to have the legal equivalent of needing to hold an adults hand before they let him cross the street! I doubt there is going to be a practicing attorney that will either sign-off on Jack's filings or take his case in Florida; I think a defamation/libel suit is out of the question. I expect if he starts running his mouth about this publicly the next step would be dis-barrment or even contempt of court.

  • Buttt, but.., (Score:5, Funny)

    by mangu (126918) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:35AM (#22525768)
    He *did* explain! In his own words:

    I shall now, through a new federal lawsuit, deconstruct The Florida Bar ... This court has threatened Thompson. He does not threaten back. He hereby informs this court that he will see it in federal court.

    So,you see, the Florida Bar means nothing to Jack Thompson. I guess not even Chuck Norris scares him...

  • This is great news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wamerocity (1106155) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:35AM (#22525772) Journal
    I really hope the legal system totally tags this guy. If I didn't already know he was a staunch conservative Christian, I would have thought he was a scientologist, just because of how sue-happy he is.

    My favorite thing about Jack is the non-sequiter logic he always trots out. "Somebody A murdered someone B, Someone A played this violent video game. Therefore video games are resposible for someone B's death." Only Stephen Colbert comes up with greater syllogisms. (Although he knows he's at least being funny when he makes his). I especially love that he never brings up the 99.9999999% of normal people who play violent video games and DON'T kill people, but that's not sellacious and newsworthy (unless you're The Onion).

    Oh well. I can't wait for some psychological journal to critically bash the stupid article that he parrots all the time about how video games cause violence, and replace it with realistic information like people who are already really disturbed tend to GRAVITATE towards violent video games, rather than make them disturbed. A man can dream...

    • Re:This is great news (Score:5, Funny)

      by djmurdoch (306849) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:41AM (#22525792)
      I especially love that he never brings up the 99.9999999% of normal people who play violent video games and DON'T kill people,

      You're exaggerating. There's no way it's more than 99.9999%.

    • Re:This is great news (Score:4, Informative)

      by Gordonjcp (186804) on Saturday February 23 2008, @06:03AM (#22525842) Homepage
      that's not sellacious

      I *think* you mean "salacious" (which broadly speaking means "appealing to one's baser instincts"), but I love the word "sellacious". Folks, we have the neologism of the day.

      • Re:sellacious (Score:5, Funny)

        by Migraineman (632203) on Saturday February 23 2008, @10:21AM (#22526802)

        sellacious : adj - appealing to one's baser need for cash
        Example: "Mr. Thompson's sellacious behavior may indicate that he is a money-grubbing attention whore."

        How's that? I do believe this is my new favorite word.

  • With any luck, he'll learn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Atario (673917) on Saturday February 23 2008, @05:42AM (#22525794) Homepage
    ...the true meaning of the violent-gamer term "PWNED".

  • Message for Jack Thompson (Score:5, Funny)

    by FoolsGold (1139759) on Saturday February 23 2008, @06:43AM (#22525962)
    This message goes out to your legal career:

    BOOM HEADSHOT!!!

    Sincerely,
    Gaming community.

  • *Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kitsunewarlock (971818) on Saturday February 23 2008, @07:07AM (#22526040) Journal
    I've said it here before and I'll say it again.

    This article's existence on slashdot is depressing. Why? Because giving the even a second of any of our days to cover this over-hyped, attention-mongering fossil is beyond the common sense and rationale we, as human beings capable of accessing the vast wells of knowledge known as the internet, should be capable of having. In the end we are all attention mongers to some extent I guess...

    Then again, I just wasted at least 20 seconds on this post.

  • Oh, it gets even better... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hannah E. Davis (870669) on Saturday February 23 2008, @07:23AM (#22526084) Journal
    Game Politics unearthed a filing that may well be what got him in trouble in the first place:

    http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/22/did-this-document-bring-florida-supreme-courts-wrath-down-upon-jack-thompson/ [gamepolitics.com]

    From the article:

    "The court described one of Thompson's recent filings in detail. [Thompson] dubbed it a "children's picture book for adults," interspersing images with text in his motion due to "the court's inability to comprehend" his arguments.

    Images included "swastikas, kangaroos in court, a reproduced dollar bill, cartoon squirrels, Paul Simon, Paul Newman, Ray Charles, a handprint with the word 'slap' written under it, Bar Governor Benedict P. Kuehne, a baby, Ed Bradley, Jack Nicholson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Julius Caesar, monkeys, a house of cards," the order said."

  • Had the time of my life? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SoundGuyNoise (864550) on Saturday February 23 2008, @07:23AM (#22526086) Homepage
    This court has threatened Thompson. He does not threaten back.

    Nobody puts Jack Thompson in a corner.

  • What's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uxbn_kuribo (1146975) on Saturday February 23 2008, @07:35AM (#22526106)
    Is that once he's disbarred, he'll blame the gaming community, and still go on Fox News being the world's biggest douche, and have plenty of ignorant people around to believe that the gaming community did this to him. Just because he won't be a lawyer anymore won't stop him from being a massacre chaser and ranting like a madman on TV.

  • Just write a game he'll like... (Score:5, Funny)

    by itsdapead (734413) on Saturday February 23 2008, @08:27AM (#22526290)

    Get him hooked on a videogame himself and he'll soon change his tune. You just need to find somethinmg he'll relate to...

    How about:

    Grand Theft Auto VIII: Ambulance Pursuit!

  • Why stop at Jack? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday February 23 2008, @09:04AM (#22526430)
    Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before March 5, 2008, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system

    He's not the only one deserving of this treatment, he's not the only one abusing the legal process. The music and movie industries need to be taken down a notch too ... of course, they aren't simply off the deep end like Mr. Thompson, they're just bloodsucking leeches.

    Huh ... well, maybe there's not so much difference after all.

  • Link to "picture book" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Baldrake (776287) on Saturday February 23 2008, @09:37AM (#22526578)

    The "picture book" is here [gamepolitics.com]. (Warning, this is a word document.)

    His basic premise in creating the book was to make his arguments crystal clear, through illustration. In fact, his submission is a wandering and apparently pointless scree. It's reminiscent of the kind of rants people write when their WoW account is suspended.

    I can well understand the court's reaction. It isn't because of the fact of using a picture-book style; it's the lack of any coherent argument in said picture book.

  • I like Jack Thompson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phat_Tony (661117) on Saturday February 23 2008, @01:03PM (#22527900) Homepage
    Or at least I think it's in our favor that he exists. The gaming community is lucky to have as its biggest opponent a raving lunatic. If there were someone calm, reasonable, and sensible, someone who could get along with others, build coalitions, and speak convincingly, the gaming industry would be in much more danger of facing stifling, free-speech curbing legislation. Jack Thompson is the gamer's standard refrain for pointing out that the anti-video-game movement is a crusade lead by nuts. Perhaps more importantly, Lieberman and any other "think of the children" politicians with an anti-free-speech history who might have gotten together to regulate video game content probably don't bother trying to build coalitions to get anything done because of the inevitable presence of Jack Thompson on any such committee.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.