Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Game Violence Lawyer Profiled

Posted by simoniker on from the manchurian-candidate-is-you dept.

Thanks to Reason Online for their article discussing recurring anti-game violence lawyer Jack Thompson, whom they describe as "nothing if not relentless" for his repeated attempts to sue videogame companies on behalf of violence victims. They also shine a light on his pre-videogame concerns, which include acting as "a primary force behind 2 Live Crew's obscenity woes", and even "peddling some genuinely intriguing claims about Janet Reno's time in Miami." The piece concludes by referencing similar "brainwashing fears" common to Thompson and an earlier crusader, Fredric Wertham, who "was at the forefront of the campaign to stop comic books from rotting the minds of the young with fantastic, colorful tales of violence, horror, and unconventional living arrangements" in the '50s.

1 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Why don't sharks eat lawyers? by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because they're full of frothy, liquid shit...that's why. And this guy is no different, I'm sure.

    I really want to know when this whole idea started that the government (in particular, the federal government) is responsible for your personal well-being? When the US was founded, the whole idea was to keep the government weak so that individuals could live as they please, and you wouldn't have lawyers and politicians running the show behind the scenes. That's why the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government can't do, not a list of things it can.

    Now, it seems, it's the government's job to tell me what I can eat, drink, smoke, say, think, fuck, and buy. And It's all because lawyers like Mr. Thompson (and the judges who used to be lawyers like him) have turned the Constitution into a "living document", that can be interpreted as they see fit for any particular situation. "Oh, creating a video game, that's not free speech. But donating money to a political candidate, that's protected by the first amendment."

    Excuse me? Could you explain that again slowly? And please repeat the parts that are supposed to make any fucking sense at all?!?

    Government is evil. It's evil because all government eventually devolves into tyranny. Good ideas established by Good people get warped and twisted and preverted by guys like this, until eventually you just have to tear the whole thing down and start over again. Which is a damn shame, because up until now, we had a pretty good thing going here.