Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jack Thompson Served With Order to Show Cause

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the a-village-somewhere-is-missing-their-idiot dept.

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.'"

20 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Nice, but.... by Nero+Nimbus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where is the itsabouttime tag?

    1. Re:Nice, but.... by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    2. Re:Nice, but.... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Nice, but.... by adarklite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Nice, but.... by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    5. Re:Nice, but.... by bwalling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Nice, but.... by Miseph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    7. Re:Nice, but.... by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Nice, but.... by SendBot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

    9. Re:Nice, but.... by gruntled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Nice, but.... by gruntled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Next up... by imasu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jack Thompson sues court for defaming him!

    1. Re:Next up... by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      going to court and seeing jack thompson escape justice over and over again would definitely damage impressionable young minds.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Next up... by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Next up... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. This is great news by wamerocity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  4. *Sigh* by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. What's sad... by uxbn_kuribo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. I like Jack Thompson by Phat_Tony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  7. Re:Wrong indeed by sodul · · Score: 4, 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 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.