Jack Thompson Served With Order to Show Cause 299
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.'"
Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
And Britain? They have something like 5% of the guns, something ridiculously low -- but still around 60% of the murder rate.
Correlation is not causation. More guns is not more death.
Wrong indeed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as ownership is "clumpier" in the US, there can be a higher percentage of gun OWNERS in Canada, with a lower per CAPITA ownership.
Given the number of Americans I know on various forums with 30+ firearms (not joking in the slightest here), it's something that can't be disregarded.
Re:Wrong indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
So (Score:3, Insightful)
The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:[91]
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Countries like Switzerland and to a lesser extent Canada are proof you can have fairly high levels of gun ownership, but not have US style crime levels. It's also true that the UK is apparent proof that you can have very strict gun controls and fairly low levels of gun ownership but still have serious violent crime problems.
That doesn't mean that making guns harder to own in the US (particularly through the enforcement of proper backgr
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right?
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice, but....BLAH BLAH BLAH (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ....
All-y'All keep repeating that until yer blue in the face, BUT YOU'SE NEVER DO IT.
The right to armed bears was originally so that The Populace could physically overthrow an ludicrously irrelevant and generally unsuitable government. But these days they people are happy with ludicrous in their government, and happy with extremely poor decisions from "the top".
Armed Bears in the US today is all about a bunch of blokes who have a severe lack of self-esteem and general insecurity about their manliness. and no
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
A little perspective... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
If that is the only reason then you are not human and should be shot immediately.
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And then go back to the Decider's days as a useless son of a future president and get *him* as well.
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hitler was reportedly "despondent" over not being able to sell a single painting as an art student (he had no talent, from the sample I've seen.) Maybe the answer is to go back in time and buy his shitty painting of a flower.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? The reason why you don't shoot people is that you don't want to go to prison?
Welcome to /. we have no empathy, we are the army of one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Nice, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What!
Lower the skill of doctors? How can allowing a doctor to try and treat anything they come across be detrimental?
I'm not a doctor of medicine, but I worked with many over the years. The most talented doctor I ever met is one I've known since childhood, when he was my family doctor. I then worked with him directly for almost a decade. he was always in the health
Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next up... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Informative)
He's had two evaluations, and supposedly passed both of them. One was recent, and after the first one, he claimed to be the only certified sane lawyer in Florida.
Re:Next up... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course Jack Thompson's brain doesn't have any connection with reality. He probably believes he is in the right.
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
So,you see, the Florida Bar means nothing to Jack Thompson. I guess not even Chuck Norris scares him...
Re:Buttt, but.., (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Buttt, but.., (Score:5, Funny)
That's prima facie evidence for an insanity defense.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is great news (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
You're exaggerating. There's no way it's more than 99.9999%.
Not so great news (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But,
You're assuming that all of those murderers play videogames. I'd be quite skeptical thats the case.
Re:This is great news (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody A murdered someone B, Someone A didn't play violent video games. Therefore video games are responsible for someone B's death.
sellacious (Score:2)
With any luck, he'll learn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Message for Jack Thompson (Score:5, Funny)
BOOM HEADSHOT!!!
Sincerely,
Gaming community.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Humiliation indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but *this* attention monger has political influence with his lies and exaggeration. If he didn't have any ears in Congress listening to him, we could safely ignore his idiocy.
There is also any underlaying problem with a Criminal Justice system that would allow the bile that Thompson spews to be heard by the courts (and opportunities for reforms in the courts is always newsworthy). If he acted rationally and backed his opinions up with quantitative studies that violence in video games is bad... then
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The internet is not just for pr0n (Score:3, Informative)
He's a lousy joke at best.
Ninja/Pirate Alliance (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, it gets even better... (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, it gets even better... (Score:4, Funny)
Had the time of my life? (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody puts Jack Thompson in a corner.
What's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just write a game he'll like... (Score:5, Funny)
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!
What a tool (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a tool (Score:4, Funny)
Why stop at Jack? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Huh
Re: (Score:2)
Thompson'
Link to "picture book" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He should be able to respond. (Score:3, Funny)
So when will... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I like Jack Thompson (Score:5, Insightful)