Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson Served With Order to Show Cause
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.'"
Where is the itsabouttime tag?
Jack Thompson sues court for defaming him!
So,you see, the Florida Bar means nothing to Jack Thompson. I guess not even Chuck Norris scares him...
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...
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
... himself has been ordered to explain Jack Thompson ...
...
What a surprise!
What's next?
Jack Thompson Finally Put Down?
Jack Thompson Looking For The Force?
The Future of Jack Thompson?
Child-Suitable Alternatives To Jack Thompson?
100-Lawsuits Air-Powered Jack Thompson Headed To Disbarment Next Year?
Profit?
Well, it's getting a wee bit long, just put an end to his misery and suffering with medication
...the true meaning of the violent-gamer term "PWNED".
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
This message goes out to your legal career:
BOOM HEADSHOT!!!
Sincerely,
Gaming community.
GP's claim was one in a billion player is also a murderer, you claim is that it is only one in a million. Most recent US murder rate is around 59 victims per million people per year. So unless there is a strong negative correlation between games and murder (which is quite likely), you are still off by a couple of orders of magnitude.
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.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
It's probably more likely than us getting rid of this perennial problem. Long may the religious zealots burn.
JT at least worths a good laugh.
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/
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."
Nobody puts Jack Thompson in a corner.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
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.
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
He's a lousy joke at best.
+0 Meh
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!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
He's abused the legal system like a 14-year-old boy upon first discovering his own peenor: often and badly.
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
... of course, they aren't simply off the deep end like Mr. Thompson, they're just bloodsucking leeches.
... well, maybe there's not so much difference after all.
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
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Indeed, and that's most likely the career he intends to pursue now. By this time, it's pretty clear that he's pretty much doomed as a lawyer; so what he's trying to do is go out with a bang and get as much publicity as possible. He'll be back as the head of some deranged lobbying group next, or as a "pundit" on Faux News, or something similar, and in order to garner a large audience, he needs to be remembered, ideally as "the valiant lawyer who was disbarred for speaking the truth".
Of course, given his filings, maybe he really IS insane, too, but my bets are on him carefully constructing his new career currently - and any reporting he gets, on Slashdot and elsewhere, is a success for him.
The "picture book" is here. (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 mean, as long as there aren't any more school shootings he can use to pump up his books and to send out tons of press releases and offers for paid appearances, he should be able to whip up an answer and send it over. But if a deranged youth kills someone, he might not making it. He's got to make a living after all. Profiteering ain't easy.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
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.
...we should all chip in and send him a copy of CounterStrike so he can unwind.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
besides by doing that you would violate the temporal prime directive ;)
they pull the same thing on the RIAA for abusing the legal system?
Christ. I hate when people say things that make sense, but only because they don't really know the logistics.
Courts are basically immune from suit. You don't like what they say, you appeal it, if you can.
And because I don't feel likereplying to the other questions in the thread separately:
An OTSC isn't proof that "The *COURTS* have found that he's bringing baseless lawsuits. They did this because *OTHER LAWYERS* complained about him" as someone says later in this case. It's a standard device, drafted by a lawyer saying that they're right and the other person is wrong and thus, if he wants to prove he's wrong he's got to serve a pleading defending himself. Then the lawyer who drafted the OTSC only has to find one judge somewhere in Florida to say "ok, I guess you've shown that he might be filing crap pleadings now we need to hear from him" to sign it, and it's good to go.
Jumping to the conclusion that the "Court" has determined he's bringing baseless lawsuits because of this OTSC is about as intelligent as saying that the "Court" has determined video games are harmful to minors because a complaint has been filed alleging as much.
Some who live deserve death and many who die deserve life. But can you give it to them? Do not deal death too readily for not even the very wise can see all ends.
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.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
And if we allow people to drive cars, then why don't we just allow people to drive aircraft carriers and tanks?
There are degrees in this world, young grasshapper. Something of degree 100 (gun) is not equivalent to something of degree 1,000,000 (nuke), no matter how your tiny mind may try to frame such 2 disparate things as "the same".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I dying to see the headline where the ghost of Jack Thompson sues God for allowing people to get old and become inept geriatric drivers that confuse the gas and break pedal resulting in Jack being run down by some grandma in a 1979 Buick. The ghost of Jack Thompson also sues the caveman who invented the wheel and anyone else who contributed technology to the invention of the automobile - along with every person who worked at rockstar games and contributed to the creation of GTA just to make sure he didnt miss anyone.
The RIAA ought to be in a similar situation, and need to explain their own outrageous and fraudulent actions.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
11th Century Man says: "We must end the horrors of sword culture. Violence would cease if only we could prevent pointless veneration of the sword." 11,000 B.C. Man says: "Rock culture bad. Too many rock kill." Tipper Gore says: "I agree with 11,000 B.C. Man. Rock is kiling us. Rap too."
You are wrong: Canada does NOT have more guns per capita than the US. If you have any statistics to back up what you're saying I'd be interested in seeing them.
Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two.
But that still doesn't explain how the UK murder rate is so high given how few guns they have.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And once he forces the courts to do so, he'll go right to Fox News and get constant air-time claiming how there's a conspiracy against him, orchestrated by gamers, the liberal agenda, courts, and more that he won't deign to name. The net effect is far more publicity than he would get otherwise.
Of course, this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be disbarred. What it means is that Fox should stop their pandering and stop putting him on air after each tragedy so he can blame a boogieman with no evidence whatsoever. But, sadly, they seem to be addicted to it.
Whatever helps the ratings, I guess.
Now how does their gun ownership rate compare? If their murder rate is 25%, but they have, say, 5% of the gun ownership -- Then that pretty much points to people finding other ways to kill people, even if their guns are taken away.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Full citizenship comes into effect for natural persons. The limitations on the government and specific rights enumerated in the constitution apply to all people, not just citizens. Foreigners can and do own property within the US and the government must (is supposed to) respect their right to be secure in their persons.
Abortion hangs on the question of whether personhood (or some lesser rights or protections) should be extended to fetuses, and nothing in our constitution or historical legal frame work offers any cut-and-dry answer to that question.
The number of home invasions that are thwarted by guns in america outnumber the murders by far far far far more than a 4:1 ratio (more like 10 to 1). So yes: Take away the guns, and people can't protect their families. All criminals -- usually the ones who murder -- will still be able to get guns, just like all prisoners can get marijuana INSIDE OF A PRISON. But then law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves. So, basically, criminals will still have guns, but we wont be able to defend ourself. In our case, the murder rate would actually go up.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...Because that would be cool in the extreme.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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 murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
In addition:
* Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [92]
* Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.[citation needed]
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. [93]
* Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population--New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.--and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.[citation needed]
* UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people--0.1% of the population. [94] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite a massive increase in the number of police personnel.[95] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air weapons, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including BB guns and soft air weapons).[96] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.
* Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997. A study published in 2001 [97] shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths, but also reveals an overall rise in non-firearm related violent crime.
* Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned. [98]
Of course, most importantly is -- it doesn't matter if a million people murder a million other people with guns. Taking away MY rights based on the action of others is as unfair as a teacher sending a whole class to detention because 1 person chewed gum (been there, done that). Revolution is a basic human right, and only possible with a handgun. As they say -- freedom isn't free. Freedom comes with a price. You'd rather be in a locked cage, protected by the government... Much like an indoor cat. In the real world, bad guys have guns -- no matter what the ban. And using their actions to justify taking away MY right to protect MY life and MY family is plain wrong. Statistics don't truly matter.
Besides, just look at automobile deaths! Maybe they should take away your license, becuase 40,000 people die in car accidents every year? After all, driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right. But somehow, I suspect you would not like that course of action. Yet to many of us, being able to protect our life is FAR more important than being able to go to work.
(and don't get me started on the domestic violence red herring -- I'm guessing men killed their spouses at greater than or equal rates before guns were around, and the real correlation to spousal murders is probably societal awareness of the equality of women; if a man thinks a woman is less than him, he will find a way to kill her, gun or not.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I prefer to get my health care on a timely basis, from the doctor of my choosing, thankyouverymuch.
Per-capita healthcare spending in Canada is half of what we pay. If we wanted too, we could adopt a Canadian-style healthcare system at our current spending levels and get both universal coverage and snappy service.
The ______ Agenda
People can buy gasoline without a license, checmicals and poisons, knives and blunt objects. Not to mention tools such as saws, ice picks, etc. Why would guns have to be banned anymore than all of the above. If a nut wanted to kill a bunch of people they could make bombs out of parts from all over the place. If you don't trust me and other people whom don't have nuclear weapons or various other tanks and missles, then why do you trust them in the hands of the government, when history appears to give numerous examples of governments gone bad. Why disarm yourself but give guns to strangers especially when you have a family with children to protect, people that hate guns appear to hate families protecting themselves from criminals or government criminals. Criminals don't only exist in the private sector, please think about what I just said.
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 nothing else
Yes there *are* (some, rare) genuine exceptions to the above generalization, but as I said, they're rare.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
You miss the point.
First of all, it's BEEN done in this country: it was called the Civil War.
Second of all, we're still relatively democratic. Yes the last 8 years have been horrendous and plagued with awful shit, but this is not the first administration to have widespread corruption, just the most recent. The fact remains that the citizenry are still capable of changing the nation, and THAT is what's important. Do you really think that if we had a president who decided to dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court, that we'd sit idly by? You can argue that doing so over the course of several generations would accomplish the same ends without an uprising, but so long as it has not happened yet, there is no real need for it.
There is always a tipping point. A moment where an event occurs that changes the way we view ourselves and our role in the system. If the next election changes nothing, and the one after that, and the one after that, then there is a problem. But for now, it is not necessary to rise up and do anything more than speak our minds and let our dissent be heard. It is only when that is ignored that it is our civic responsibility as patriots to ensure that the government remembers that they are beholden to the people, and not the other way around.
And you, sir, entirely missed My Point.
Despite the right to armed bears, "you americans" always say "yeah but do you really think that if (somethingsomething) that we'd sit idly by?"
It's easy to claim "if something REALLY bad were to occur, we'd ALL rise up in arms", and claim the things going on around you every day aren't REALLY bad.
Just like all-y'all are doing right now.
Just in case you're still confused - my point is: ALL "you americans" do is say "we would, if it was REALLY bad" , and then provide billions and billions of arguments why it is NOT "really bad" right now.
Your Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at this very moment, absolutely HORRIFIED at what the government is doing , AND YOU DO NOTHING.
At least , nowhere near enough. The definition of "enough" being "enough to change things".
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
thanks for throwing in that bit about armed bears, its like a cute little signpost to not read further
Here's the summary then:
Basically GP is saying that the gov't is working its people so gradually that eventually it will be able to do whatever it wants.
The GP goes on to say (this is where it gets good) that there is a definitive tipping point, it has been crossed, and basically implies that the US populace consists of idiots (for not recognize this tipping point(s)) and\or cowards (for not doing anything about it).
Think that's a fair summary Crypto?
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
http://www.viruscomix.com/page382.html
FINISH HIM!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I wish someone would use deconstruct correctly once in a while. You don't deconstruct things. They deconstruct themselves. It goes back to the definition of reading, I would say. The process of reading is turning symbols on a page into meaning in your head. Deconstruction says that there is no such thing. I'm oversimplifying, or maybe I just have it wrong too. It's not an easy word to define, which kind of goes to demonstrate the concept.
The word Thompson wants is "dismantle."
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
If Hitler was killed in 1925. I believe it is very likely that the Germans would have have won WWII.
The major political turning point for the Germans was Hitler convincing President Hindenburg to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree in 1933, removing the more popular communist party from power immediately prior to the election. This created the fascist state, and was the last free election in Germany until after the war.
I also believe that the German offensive was nearly inevitable. The German people were not at all happy about the restitutions they were being forced to pay due to WWI. The restitutions were crippling the German economy, and realistically, payment was probably impossible to sustain. In addition, when Germany gave up in WWI, they had not been pushed entirely out of France, so to the point of view of the average front-line soldier, they appeared to be, if not winning, at least ahead in the war; and that restitution should have been payed by the Entente Powers for Germany to agree to a ceasefire. It wouldn't (and didn't) take the government much convincing for the people to believe they could win the war if it was fought a second time, and it is almost sure that the only way Germany would have stopped paying restitution would be to go back to war.
Assuming the war started in the same fashion, Germany could have crushed the eastern front, and being communist (and not having Hitler in power), could more likely have likely worked out an agreement with Russia. A simple non-aggression pact would have saved the Germans nearly 75% of the casualties that they incurred during the war. Even if an agreement had not been worked out with Russia, Mussolini would likely have joined the Allies, and their subsequent invasion of Greece would have been a disaster for the Allies, not the Axis, allowing Germany to potentially defeat Russia on the eastern front as their invasion would not have been delayed.
In the Pacific, Japan would have still been at war with China, and the oil embargo by the United States, would still likely have led to Pearl Harbor. This would have allied us with communist China, communist Russia, and very possibly communist Germany. Remember that there were significant German and communist sympathies in the United States at the time, and it is very likely that even if the United States had not allied with Germany, the Allied position in WWII would likely have already been hopeless at this point and it seems very unlikely that the United States would have joined the fight against Germany.
I don't believe that killing Hitler in 1925 would have actually accomplished what you think it might have.
As far as the atrocities committed by Hitler and Co? That's hard to say, but there was a very strong anti-Jew sentiment in Germany outside of the Nazi party, and I shudder to think what might have happened if Germany had expanded to *all* of Europe and held it.
The television will not be revolutionized.
Fair summary I believe headcase.
Unfortunately the GP seems to completely misunderstand the purpose of the US having elections every 4 years. Next year, for better or for worse, a new "regime" takes office. Although violent revolutions are sometimes necessary, the GP seems to feel it's the only way anything gets done. It is not. As I said, if we keep having terrible administrations, if our economy keeps falling, if we keep finding more and more scandals in the next few administrations, and if we keep losing more and more civil liberties, then yes, eventually people will say "WTF?" and put a stop to it. But until then, while it's still possible to vote them out, then that's what we'll do.
Also, to everyone saying that the US armed forces would not attack civilians, I agree that MOST of them would not, if it were being made obvious... but you neglect mercenary armies. The number of "private security" organizations like Blackwater has swelled to an amazing number in the last few years, and they can hire from any nation, meaning that there is not necessarily an allegiance to the US. And in a few years when that situation only gets worse, when we begin privatizing our army, our intelligence services (Blackwater already has one and we use it), then it's only a matter of time until our own sword turns on us.
I think I would have modded the parent flamebait over insightful, given the need to bold words in every sentence and make broad hyperboles, but whatever. Apparently someone agrees with you, they certainly don't know insight though.
Look at the statistics. Gun ownership in an area increases self defensibility, which ultimately lowers crime.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
It's unnecessarily divisive. I happen to think rights exist regardless of anyone enforcing those rights. At all times, for all beings. (Not that I respect the rights of lesser beings, I'll kill a spider -- but it still has rights, regardless of whether they are being enforced or not.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And maybe after a few years they'd get real good at only picking the really dangerous crazies, and not "treat" or lock up too many non-crazies by accident.
Of course, they'd never know...
Maybe they should just lockup a random 10% of the population and make wild claims about reduced deaths due to violence. They might even achieve 10%, or more by totally eradicating certain social groups. Of course the elite would then have to be allocated "boring employment duties", but perhaps they would rather have boring jobs done by crazies who occasionally shoot eachother.
In other words: who is trying to solve what problem and how will we know if it works?
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Level 1 morality, a.k.a. fear of punishment is still morality. It's not like the grandposter is a sociopath, just a trollish provocateur, much like the parent poster and myself. ;)