Slashdot Mirror


Judge Recommends Guilty Verdict for Jack Thompson

GamePolitics is reporting that a Florida Judge has recommended that Jack Thompson be found guilty on 27 of 31 counts of misconduct and is awaiting a Florida Supreme Court verdict to back him up. Thompson is striking back with allegations against the Judge and others, complaining that loyalty oaths were never signed. "Tunis made 21 recommendations of guilt in relation to Thompson's participation in Strickland vs. Sony, an Alabama case in which the anti-game attorney represented the families of two police officers and a police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old Grand Theft Auto player Devin Moore. Tunis also recommended that Thompson be found guilty on four out of five counts relating to his 2006 attempt to have Rockstar's Bully declared a public nuisance in a case before Miami Judge Ronald Friedman. An additional two guilty counts stemmed from a non-video game matter."

235 comments

  1. Ummm... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who is Jack Thompson?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Ummm... by RandoX · · Score: 5, Funny

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:Ummm... by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's a singer who really uses nothing but an acoustic guitar and his folk roots to make his music. Very popular, although I find his music repetitive at best.

    3. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are you posting on slashdot without knowing that?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29

      He is the bane of all civilized peoples. He alleges that video games "MAKE" people commit crimes.

    4. Re:Ummm... by Red+Samurai · · Score: 1

      Thank you. This guy will only be around as long as he's given a platform.

      ...or do you really not know who he is?

    5. Re:Ummm... by wiggles · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the wikipedia entry.

    6. Re:Ummm... by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jack Thompson is a lawyer who has made a bunch of lawsuits against several game manufacturers.

      Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    7. Re:Ummm... by mike+nathan · · Score: 0

      Ummm... leave the cave much?

    8. Re:Ummm... by egyptiankarim · · Score: 5, Funny

      And if you take away the platform, he'll probably start railing against PC games!

      ;)

      --
      Eek!
    9. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How are you posting on slashdot without knowing how to make an html link?

    10. Re:Ummm... by mortonda · · Score: 4, Funny

      make a ridicules lawsuit I'm trying not to be one of those ridiculous people who ridicules people for bad spelling... ;)
    11. Re:Ummm... by radarjd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people.

      That's sort of like saying "Al-Quaeda hates freedom" -- I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. He has further picked a particularly poor method for promoting his values.

      To be more technically correct (and as this is slashdot, that's the best kind of correct), I'd say he believes that video games (and other media) containing sexual or violent content are the root of all evil, and that he'd rather have no video games (or other media) than the possibility that the games could contain sexual or violent content.

      This particular story relates to disbarment proceedings against the man for repeated poor (and illegal) conduct.

    12. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How are you posting on slashdot without Firefox and Linkification? Heretic!

    13. Re:Ummm... by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He alleges that video games "MAKE" people commit crimes.

      Hey, maybe I ought to thank Mr. Thompson. If I ever get busted for smoking pot, gambling, or soliciting a prostitute I'll just blame GTA!

      Did you know that Mr. Thompson's middle name is "Golf"?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    14. Re:Ummm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The man is a Fundamentalist Christian who believes he received guidance from God to eliminate video games.

      No, seriously.

    15. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the wikipedia entry. Here's the conservapedia entry.
    16. Re:Ummm... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      I wonder how he'll cope with his deity forsaking him in the courtroom.

      Should make for some fun reading should he choose to make a statement afterwards.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    17. Re:Ummm... by infonography · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's a singer who really uses nothing but an acoustic guitar and his folk roots to make his music. Very popular, although I find his music repetitive at best. He claimed to be the inspirations/author for the well known Beck Song "Loser" and also for the Henry Rollins song "Liar"
      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    18. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't be rediculous

    19. Re:Ummm... by Lord_Frederick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow! It's like Wikipedia without those pesky facts.

    20. Re:Ummm... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Funny

      How are you posting on slashdot?


      No seriously.. I can't figure this out.

      Edit: Oh nevermind, I think I've got this now.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    21. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy. We all know that God loves video games. Thus, God wants the heretic to burn.

    22. Re:Ummm... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      The man is a Fundamentalist Christian who believes he received guidance from God to eliminate video games.

      No, seriously. Citation needed... Well, would be appreciated! :-)
      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    23. Re:Ummm... by XenoPhage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Edit: Oh nevermind, I think I've got this now. I, for one, welcome our new comment-editing slashdot posters....
      --
      XenoPhage
      Technological Musings
    24. Re:Ummm... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I guess I was too subtile. The point is if he doesn't get any press then he is just another crazy but if he gets press then he is a threat. What it all leads down to is a chicken and the egg argument.

      Do violent people like to play violent video games.
      or do Violent video games make people violent.

      I would choose the first. As many people who play these games don't seem to be causeing all the chaos that they seem to protrait. How many people do you see throwing red turtle shells from their cars so they can pass the guy infront of them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    25. Re:Ummm... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      He gives ambulance chasers and shysters a bad name.

      A pettifogger

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    26. Re:Ummm... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      That's sort of like saying "Al-Quaeda hates freedom" -- I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. He has further picked a particularly poor method for promoting his values. AQ doesn't really attack freedom directly - the main way they have affected freedom is through giving Bush the '04 election and thus helping him to cut back on freedoms around the world. Jack Thompson, on the other hand, does directly attack things covered under the First Amendment. I agree that the GP's statement is overly stating the case, but your comparison manages to go too far in the other direction.
      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    27. Re:Ummm... by Kamots · · Score: 5, Informative

      "God is very powerful, and He's not real pleased with Rockstar right now, nor with those who defend it. Watch out. Fire and brimstone on the way."

      "Actually, the people who have cashed in on the deaths is Rockstar. That's why God and I are going to destroy them. Thanks for writing."

      "The 'video game community' surely seems exercised about someone who is a 'joke' and who is accomplishing nothing. You all seem rather bothered and worried about a nonentity. God is in this battle, and I am privileged to be a foot soldier. You all should be concerned, not about me, but about Him."

      Need I go on?

    28. Re:Ummm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Check out this site, which has Thompson's own words. ALso note that Thompson's book Out of Harms Way is published by Tyndale House, which is publishing house well known for producing Fundamentalist Christian books such as Tim LaHaye's Left Behind.

      Trust me, I wouldn't make such a comment without knowing what I'm talking about.

    29. Re:Ummm... by catbertscousin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "God is very powerful, and He's not real pleased with Rockstar right now, nor with those who defend it. Watch out. Fire and brimstone on the way." I seem to recall God having some strict words about people not taking His name in vain . . . is that why you're losing, Jack?
      --
      No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
    30. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That moron would probably think of himself as a modern-day Job... never underestimate an idiot's ability to continue a line on non-thinking, no matter how dire (read: logical) the situation is....

    31. Re:Ummm... by scot4875 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, am I reading Slashdot, or Uncyclopedia?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    32. Re:Ummm... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I knew the guy was a wing nut. I see now how he got that way...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    33. Re:Ummm... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I've heard of Tyndale before; never put the two together though. If I read the article correctly someone is indeed due to get a smiting, but it's not who Jack would like it to be and it looks like someone mortal will be be delivering said smiting.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    34. Re:Ummm... by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Keep trying; you'll get there in the end.

    35. Re:Ummm... by SoulMan007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Jack Thompson (anti-game Flordia attorney) != Jack Johnson (singer/songwriter)

      --
      - SoulMan "Drink Life As It Comes." ~ Gavin Rossdale, BUSH
    36. Re:Ummm... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think Thompson hates the first amendment, it is just (in his mind) trumped by other values. Such as the dollar value of the settlements he hopes to reach.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    37. Re:Ummm... by TheAngryIntern · · Score: 1

      Jack Thompson is the biggest douchebag on the face of this great planet.

    38. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I win" means God supports me and wants me to win.

      "I lose" means God supports me but is testing me, and I must work harder, and He will eventually help me to win.

    39. Re:Ummm... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      AQ doesn't attack freedom directly?

      Wow...

      "Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries."

      AQ is inspired by Qutbism

      Qutb outlined his ideas in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (aka Milestones). Other important principles of Qutbism include:
      Adherence to Sharia as sacred law accessible to humans, without which Islam cannot exist
      Adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits;
      avoidance of Western and non-Islamic "evil and corruption," including socialism and nationalism;
      Vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam
      a two-pronged attack of 1) preaching to convert and 2) jihad to forcibly eliminate the "structures" of Jahiliyya.
      Offensive Jihad to eliminate Jahiliyya not only from the Islamic homeland but from the face of the earth.

      So AQ wants to turn the world back into a 7th century Islamic Theocracy, so no suffrage for women, no education for women, no rights for women beyond what is found in the Koran, no rights for homosexuals...

      Thats attacking freedom directly.

    40. Re:Ummm... by XavidX · · Score: 1
    41. Re:Ummm... by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Pity God is such a wuss these days; OT God would have smote him real good.

    42. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I tie" means God is a soccer fan.

    43. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man is a Fundamentalist Christian who believes he received guidance from God to eliminate video games. Who is George W. Bush?
    44. Re:Ummm... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'd say he believes that video games (and other media) containing sexual or violent content are the root of all evil, and that he'd rather have no video games (or other media) than the possibility that the games could contain sexual or violent content. Wow - kind of like nuking the planet to stop all the murderers and rapists from performing their chosen tasks.
      --
      which is totally what she said
    45. Re:Ummm... by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be your definition of freedom. GP is suggesting that Al-Qaeda have a different definition.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    46. Re:Ummm... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically, he hates the 1st Amendment, and isn't afraid to make a ridicules lawsuit to try and censor people. There are a lot of very smart people that believe that the 1st Amendment does not protect obscene speech -- including two Justices on the US Supreme Court. They don't hate the Amendment, they just disagree with you on what counts and 'speech' that is worthy of protection -- in their mind, obscene speech doesn't even get in the door.

      Their reasoning is that the 1A is intended to protect expressive conduct (which is why you can burn the US flag even though it's not technically speech -- it's expressive conduct). Pornography, to them, is not speech for the purpose of expressing ideas but rather "titillation of prurient interest". As much as I don't agree with them, I have to respect that their interpretation is not unreasonable or ridiculous and that they are, in fact, intelligent people that love freedom as much as I do despite our serious philosophical difference about the meaning of that freedom.

      We are more permissive of government regulation in these circumstances because it is clear from the context in which exchanges between such businesses and their customers occur that neither the merchant nor the buyer is interested in the work's literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "The deliberate representation of petitioner's publications as erotically arousing . . . stimulate[s] the reader to accept them as prurient; he looks for titillation, not for saving intellectual content." Thus, a business that "(1) offer[s] ... hardcore sexual material, (2) as a constant and intentional objective of [its] business, [and] (3) seek[s] to promote it as such" finds no sanctuary in the First Amendment. Justice Scalia, Dissenting in US v. Playboy http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1682.ZD.html (internal citations stripped)
    47. Re:Ummm... by Darby · · Score: 1

      OT God would have smote him real good.

      Even God's a Scientologist now? Damn, I knew they were working on recruiting famous people, but I thought they'd be stuck with just loons like Travolta and Cruise.

    48. Re:Ummm... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Wow! It's like Wikipedia without those pesky facts.

      They've been excluded due to their known liberal bias.

    49. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's got a youtube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

    50. Re:Ummm... by Hojima · · Score: 2, Informative

      From wikipedia:"Thompson returned to file a lawsuit in Tennessee state court in October 2003 on behalf of the victims of two teenage stepbrothers who had pled guilty to reckless homicide, endangerment, and assault...Thompson sought $246 million in damages from the publisher, Take-Two Interactive, along with PlayStation 2 maker Sony Computer Entertainment America and retailer Wal-Mart" So two people had the balls to commit a crime that serious and want to get paid for it (I'm sure he'd get a nice cut too)? Sounds to me like he just cares about money. If he really crusaded against video games, he'd know that you attack with legislation, not money. And he'd know that it's hopeless to attack AN ENTIRE MEDIA INDUSTRY PRACTICALLY SINGLE HANDEDLY (I know those three companies don't fit my description, but I'm pretty sure that it's his target).
    51. Re:Ummm... by mdenham · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, he said "eliminate video games", not "increase oil profits".

      Thanks for playing!

    52. Re:Ummm... by JoshJ · · Score: 1

      It's how religious people rationalize *everything*. Any evidence that their beliefs are false is taken as a "test of faith".

    53. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's valid. He may not hate the concept of free expression, but he believes that other values should come before it - so he presumably hates the first amendment, which says otherwise.

    54. Re:Ummm... by SaintOfAllChucks · · Score: 1

      No, he likes the First Amendment, but only for the speech he approves of. "Freedom of speech protects the speech you hate, not the speech you like" Larry Flynt

    55. Re:Ummm... by adona1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe Jack should start praying to Kratos then...there's a god who'd tear a few limbs from the ESA :)

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    56. Re:Ummm... by ejecta · · Score: 1

      Yes, please do. I could use a few more laughs this morning.

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    57. Re:Ummm... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Additionally, the majority of the current court, in one of their 5 to 4 decisions, has again agreed that commercial speech is not as protected as other speech. As long as the video games in question are intended to make a profit, there's an overall consensus that they don't enjoy all the protections of political speech, as you touch upon tangentially in your last quote. So even if the court were to rule that a particular game wasn't in any way obscene, that would not necessarily give it all the protection due to works which appear to have significant literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The court could even find that a game had some artistic value without having to acknowledge that it was entitled to the same level of protection as a typical campaign speech or technical paper.
            A violent or sexually explicit game is therefore at least two steps removed from the maximum protection of law.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    58. Re:Ummm... by Skrapion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sounds to me like he just cares about money. You don't know the half of it.

      For the tl;dr crowd, Jack challenged Jason Della Rocca to a debate about the Virginia Tech shooting, but when Jason responded that he would be uncomfortable profiting off of a massacre and suggested a free debate at Dawson College (site of the Dawson College shooting), Jack's response was "Sorry. Have to pay the bills."
      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    59. Re:Ummm... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 0
      Are you telling me that this is inaccurate?

      Thompson is known for using personal attacks and inflammatory tactics, rather than hard data, to support his cause.
    60. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mai Tai" means God had a rough week.

    61. Re:Ummm... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think that's right. The Court's ruling on books and film have always treated them as expressive even if they were sold with commercial intent (which was always the case). In order to qualify as commercial speech, it is a necessary element that the speech includes "representations of fact about the speaker's own business operations for the purpose of promoting sales of its products". So long as your work (GTA IV, Mercenaries II) purports to be an act of fiction you are clear of the commercial speech limitations to the 1A -- good luck with the obscenity/indecency/nuisance parts.

      In fact, the framers debated the a version of the 1A that put a direct exclusion on false fact:

      The people shall not be deprived of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, or reputation of others . . . . See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=376&invol=254 NY Times not guilty of slander despite the clear commercial nature of the Times paper.
    62. Re:Ummm... by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      I believe penny arcade explained it better that he was raped by pac-man as a child (Can't find the link to the cartoon).

    63. Re:Ummm... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of setting Donkey Kong on his sorry ass :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    64. Re:Ummm... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      "Muay Thai" means God is coming round to kick ass :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    65. Re:Ummm... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalist Christian books such as Tim LaHaye's Left Behind

      Which, ironically enough, is the basis for a video game...

    66. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack Thompson is one of those oh-so-popular
      Fund-A-Mental-Case Christ-Stains.

      Basically a witless non-sane jackass attack-dog of manipulative lunatics who go against the basic standards of decency, self-restraint, honesty, and charity. In short, a Fake Christian using the Bible as a freak costume to hide under so they can misquote and inversely represent the core teachings of Jesus Christ for a personal profit.

      Usually they are evil Moonie Cultists pretending to be Christian like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or the anti-American George Bush family.

    67. Re:Ummm... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How are you posting on slashdot without looking up?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    68. Re:Ummm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. And that's the reason why Jack Thompson and Tyndale are no longer on speaking terms.

    69. Re:Ummm... by makohund · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd say he inspired a few Megadeth tunes as well.

      Liar
      Hook in Mouth

      Bits of Hook in Mouth:
      "A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes
      A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies"

      Bits of Liar:
      "Make up your stories, truth's so hard to say
      Brain is numb and your tongue will surely dig your grave"

      "Start trouble, spread pain
      Piss and venom, in your veins
      Talk nasty, breathe fire
      Smell rotten, you're a liar
      Sweat liquor, breathe snot
      Eat garbage, spit blood
      Diseased, health hazard
      Scum bag, filthy bastard
      Greasy face, teeth decay
      Hair matted, drunk all day
      Abscessed, sunken veins
      Rot gut, scrambled brain
      Steal money, crash cars
      Rob jewelry, hock guitars
      Rot in hell, it's time you know
      To your master, off you go
      You're a liar
      A fucking liar"

    70. Re:Ummm... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Is God the voice in your head? That personal mental opponent who always has a counter argument to every seemingly brilliant idea you get?

      Basically Jack convinced himself to make it his life mission to eliminate video games.

      I honestly am starting to believe that these people are just doing this shit just to troll us. And when I say "these people" I mean any of these out spoken fundamentalists.

    71. Re:Ummm... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If he really crusaded against video games, he'd know that you attack with legislation, not money.

      Do you know how many state governments he convinced to pass anti-videogame laws (all struck down by the Supreme Court)?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    72. Re:Ummm... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      For fundies "in vain" means "in the mouth of others".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    73. Re:Ummm... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You forgot the third option: There is a third factor that causes a person to be both violent and play violent videogames.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    74. Re:Ummm... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      old testament

    75. Re:Ummm... by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 1

      "Coat and Tie" means God is eating out at a fancy restaurant.

  2. Just throw away the key already! by konigstein · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's done nothing constructive to date that I know of, he has caused nothing but trouble for everyone. Throw him in guantanamo bay! (the facility, not the actual bay itself.. I wouldn't want him to pollute that pristine caribean water)

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  3. Gotta love Jack by overshoot · · Score: 5, Funny

    We could keep him around for entertainment value alone, but best of all he's so freaking useful in totally discrediting the antigamers who don't froth at the mouth, chew carpets, and fling feces at the judge.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Gotta love Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except he wastes court time, i.e. our tax money, on his self-promotion crap. Give him a blog and let him rant, fine. But it's time the legal profession was reigned in over their bogus lawsuits.

    2. Re:Gotta love Jack by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Quite true. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I suppose this is the beginning of the end for J.T. We'd better gin up some studies and statistics for the next round of the anti-gaming nonsense. Actually, I'm hoping he's managed to kill it off, but if not we'll need some ammunition against the demagogues.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    3. Re:Gotta love Jack by aztektum · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes that way all the tax dollars not wasted on court time with Jack Thompson can be thrown down some other black hole with nothing useful to show for it.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:Gotta love Jack by MrMacman2u · · Score: 0, Troll

      Very well, he can "blag" away in prison and I can add the URL to my blacklist and then everyone will be happy once more playing our violent video games as Mr. Thompson (hopefully) gets repeatedly and forcefully raped by a hairy cellmate called "Bone Crusher". But for the love of Cheesy Puffs and flaming poo throw that loudmouthed ninny in prison!

      --
      This signature is lame.
    5. Re:Gotta love Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes if Jack Thompson didnt exist it would be necessary to invent him.

    6. Re:Gotta love Jack by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's time the legal profession was reigned in over their bogus lawsuits. The legal profession has a perfectly functional (but slow) system of dealing with bogus lawsuits.

      The reason Jack Thompson has been allowed to get away with so much asshattery is because the justice system defaults to not disenfranchising people.

      This is a good thing.
      Keep it that way.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Gotta love Jack by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      One clusterfsck at a time. Fixing a list of problems is often best accomplished by finding the loudest/largest/biggest problem, reduce it to negligibility, move on to the next loudest/largest/biggest.

      You will often find that in doing so, you manage to take care of some of the smaller problems at the same time, while preventing the large ones from becoming overwhelmingly large. Jack T. was a mouthpiece for a fair sized group of people who would also speak out in his place if he just quietly went away. Putting him behind bars fixes some of those little problems down the road. Shoving a cork down his gob in public purview, even metaphorically, has the effect of stifling any who would gladly take his place otherwise.

      Lets hope it works out that way.

    8. Re:Gotta love Jack by hardburn · · Score: 0

      If you can't defend your beliefs without propping up strawmen like Jack Thompson, it's time to reevaluate your beliefs.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    9. Re:Gotta love Jack by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      But it's time the legal profession was reigned in over their bogus lawsuits. The legal profession has a perfectly functional (but slow) system of dealing with bogus lawsuits. The legal profession has a perfectly fictional system of dealing with bogus lawsuits.

      Fixed your typo.
    10. Re:Gotta love Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the justice system defaults to not disenfranchising people"?

      On what planet? The primary purpose of every judicial system in history, worldwide and bar none, has been to disenfranchise poor people. Efforts to introduce fairness and checks and balances have been made and they are laudable - but they have failed uniformly, because the personal political and financial interests of judges and attorneys are the final arbiter in real world application.

      Today in the U.S., the majority of criminal "convictions" are products of blackmail via collusion between prosecutors and defense attorneys who use plea bargains and promises of convictions and life ending sentences to "process cases through". And guess what? In most of the U.S. those who are caught in this grinder lose their civil rights and can no longer vote, the definition (last time I checked) of "disenfranchised".

      When the financial resources of contending parties are equal, "equal justice" may be available. But when there is a strong disparity, the judicial system is a rubber stamp for the law of the jungle.

  4. Judge's Ruling by idiotnot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Up in ur base, killin all ur d00dz, JT!

    1. Re:Judge's Ruling by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      pwned.

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
  5. Stop submitting Jack Thompson stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please stop submitting Jack Thompson stories. His only point to his shenanigans is to gain press via controversy. Please don't give it to him by crossposting stories about him to Slashdot, Fark, etc. etc.

    1. Re:Stop submitting Jack Thompson stories by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No controversy here. More like "ha ha, you had it coming".

    2. Re:Stop submitting Jack Thompson stories by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Informative

      The trial was an interesting and often funny read, this is the ending of JT, this IS news and I enjoy reading it :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    3. Re:Stop submitting Jack Thompson stories by CokoBWare · · Score: 1

      Despite the crap I have to read about him, I actually enjoy reading stories about acting like a total loser, in my personal opinion. Reading of his potential demise justifies the time I waste on him.

    4. Re:Stop submitting Jack Thompson stories by CrashPoint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please stop submitting Jack Thompson stories. His only point to his shenanigans is to gain press via controversy. Please don't give it to him by crossposting stories about him to Slashdot, Fark, etc. etc.
      Screw that. Jack Thompson's incompetence makes him a detriment to his own insipid cause. The more time he spends in the spotlight, the better.
  6. In Soviet Russia... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...you sue Jack Thompson!

  7. Slashdotted already? by smileylich · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Slashdotted 10 min after greenlit? I recommend we find their hosting service guilty of impersonating a server...

    1. Re:Slashdotted already? by Silentknyght · · Score: 4, Informative

      10 seconds of searching in google turned up multiple results for this item. I'd try either Ars Technica or Shacknews

  8. Not trying to defend Jack by benfinkel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But man are they throwing the book against him. I have no love for the frivolous nature of the lawsuits and ridiculous manner he presents his arguments but it sounds like they're really going over the top. I mean, that list of charges against him reads like every lawyer's trial strategy.

    1. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think putting pornography in court documents is normal strategy.

    2. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by benfinkel · · Score: 1

      I don't know, my wife just started in the matrimony department at her firm and it sounds like they get some pretty interesting stuff submitted! :)

    3. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by strider200142 · · Score: 1

      I think he's finally wasted enough time and demonstrated his lack of reason before judges that they just want to make sure he shuts up this time...

    4. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by Brother+Phil · · Score: 1

      I mean, that list of charges against him reads like every lawyer's trial strategy. You say that like its a bad thing.
    5. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      Why does a "Matrimony" department at a law firm sound like a really cynical bit of work, a bit like "Ministry of Truth"?

    6. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matrimony? More like Matrimoney.

    7. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think the bar association had any major issues with the lawsuits themselves. There are all sorts of lawyers out there, but as a lawyer he has to follow the professional code of conduct. The things he accused of doing:

      1. making false statements to tribunals (perjury)
      2. disparaging and humiliating litigants and other lawyers (professional misconduct)
      3. improperly practicing law outside of Florida (professional misconduct)

      Each of these is a serious charge and the judge has determined that enough evidence exists. I don't know Jack Thompson but his actions suggest a man who doesn't think that any rules apply to him.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you read his response, it's typical Jack Thompson. He doesn't argue the merits of the charges (probably because he was guilty of everything that he is being accused). He argues that the judge should be removed because she has a grudge against him.

      One of the charges is improperly practicing law outside of Florida. This one was simple to prove. Every lawyer is licensed to practice law in the state where he passes his bar. To practice law in another state, you either have to (1) take the bar in that state or (2) apply for hac pro vice status if the lawyer needs to work a case. Every lawyer should know this. Jack Thompson (licensed in Florida) did not do either before representing families in the Devin Moore case in Alabama. Eventually he applied for status but had it revoked when he violated the gag order in the case.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by Druegan · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know if this could possibly involve prison time, or if this whole trial mess is simply over the issue of finally disbarring this psychopath?

      I should think that the whole "perjury" bit, as well as the sheer *scale* of Thompson's abuses of people, ought to qualify him for some time in an 8x10 cell with a guy named "Bubba" who thinks he has a "purty mouth"...

    10. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

      I don't think the bar association had any major issues with the lawsuits themselves. There are all sorts of lawyers out there, but as a lawyer he has to follow the professional code of conduct. The things he accused of doing:

      1. making false statements to tribunals (perjury)
      2. disparaging and humiliating litigants and other lawyers (professional misconduct)
      3. improperly practicing law outside of Florida (professional misconduct)
      So in other words, the problem isn't that he drew a penis but that he colored outside the lines.
      --
      In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
    11. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was trying to take a cheap shot at "SECOND LIFE"?

      Gay cartoon porn squirrels (Furry Porn) are pretty old hat in SECOND LIFE with flying penises (not the lovable remote controlled helicopter flying penises found at your local Russian toy store though).

      I'm personally edging toward the "Jack Thompson always batshit crazy, but not able to hide it so well these days".

    12. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Maybe #2 is coloring outside the lines. #1 and #3 are not. Every lawyer knows that they can't lie. They can not volunteer information, but they can't lie. And every lawyer knows he can't practice law where he doesn't have a license or hac pro vice status.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Not trying to defend Jack by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      But man are they throwing the book against him. I have no love for the frivolous nature of the lawsuits and ridiculous manner he presents his arguments but it sounds like they're really going over the top. I mean, that list of charges against him reads like every lawyer's trial strategy.

      Check out the guy's history. Thompson really appears to be a self-righteous megalomaniac who will never stop. If you read up on his history, he's had his wrists slapped enough times that he should have 'got it' by now. He's pissed off judges as well as AG's. It's not just video games, either. He has a long history of fighting rap music, goading local police departments into threatening retailers who sell albums with arrest for indecency. Whether or not his views are agreeable is not the point, however. It's his actions and sleazy tactics. Thompson has persistently angered enough people that the only solution is to the throw the book at him.

      From his history, it's clear that he's the type of guy who thinks that everybody is nuts but him. In such situations, my experience is that the converse is usually true. When it's time to shut someone down, and gentle measures haven't worked -- that's when it's a smart to lay all of the cards down (all 31 counts) and rather than a gentle censure or (state) disbarment, actually making something stick.

      --

      -Turkey

  9. GTA Lawyers by dj245 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    GTA4 has sold over 3.6 million copies. Even if lawyers didn't like to brutally advance their careers through any means necessary, I would expect at least some of these sales to be to lawyers.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:GTA Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would be defending themselves and others against lawyers who did not undertand the games with the others playing for everything.

    2. Re:GTA Lawyers by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      I can confirm at least one sale to an attorney.

      --AC

  10. To quote the OJ Simpson trial: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the gay porn submitted for judicial review doesn't fit, you must acquit!

    1. Re:To quote the OJ Simpson trial: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit off-topic, but, does anybody know if and where the gay porn submitted for judicial review can be found? I'd like to find it for, um... Research purposes.

  11. No big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If he's disbarred I'm sure there is a place for him next to Tipper Gore and Hillary Rosen (RIAA) in the Democrat party.

    1. Re:No big deal by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia says he's a Republican. Both the Republican and Democrat arms of the Corporate Party are against free speech.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:No big deal by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      If not, he can get together and work with Scooter Libby at the GOP.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:No big deal by johneee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huge difference between labelling content (which is what Tipper was going for - dunno about Hillary) and censoring content (which is what Thompson wants).

      I'm all for labelling so that people can make informed choices. I'm way against censorship so that I'm allowed to make those informed choice.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    4. Re:No big deal by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Huge difference between labelling content (which is what Tipper was going for - dunno about Hillary) and censoring content (which is what Thompson wants).

      Tipper was a book burner. She wanted labels because she wasn't allowed to burn the books she didn't like. The labels would be used to prevent content from being sold or used by people she didn't think qualified. So she wasn't going to "ban" a book, but that she would ban all people under 18 from reading it, or at least buying it. Not because she thought labeling was a good idea, but because she couldn't get enough people behind her to burn what she didn't like. She toned it down a little when she was influencing her husband's political image, but that doesn't change what she wanted and worked towards.

  12. As a Lawyer Friend Of Mine Once Said... by macs4all · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you have the facts on your side, then argue the facts. If the facts aren't on your side, then argue the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, then argue procedure.

    Methinks that challenging the Oaths of Office of the Judge falls under the "procedure" category...

    1. Re:As a Lawyer Friend Of Mine Once Said... by nuzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way I heard it was:

      If facts aren't on your side, pound on the law. If the law isn't on your side, pound on the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table.

      That describes JT more accurately. Procedurally, he's a moron -- he's actually gotten himself barred from filing directly to the Florida Supreme Court. Then again he's not exactly that sharp when it comes to facts or law either.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:As a Lawyer Friend Of Mine Once Said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no: If you've got the facts on your side, hammer on those. If you've got the law on your side, hammer on that. If you've got neither, hammer on the table.

    3. Re:As a Lawyer Friend Of Mine Once Said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If facts aren't on your side, pound on the law. If the law isn't on your side, pound on the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table. And if you're a moron, pound sand

  13. Site down / moving? by Rufus211 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just get a "Temporarily Closed" page when loading GamePolitics...great timing to move your host.

    Ars has a writeup that's a summary of GP's: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080520-judges-report-in-jack-thompson-case-guilty-on-27-charges.html

    1. Re:Site down / moving? by nfk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps they are moving the host from a Slashdotted state to a non-Slashdotted state.

  14. Proposed guilty verdict ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I *KNEW* I bought that bottle of champagne for a reason!

    Seriously, I hope this does more than take this man out of the courtroom for a while. And I hope no one else decides to step into his place.

    In case someone does, I'm saving the champagne bottle. They make great Molotov cocktails. I saw it done in a game once.

  15. GTA5 by The+Insane+One · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for the next sequel.

    GTA5:JT Needs Soap-On-A-Rope

  16. "loyalty oaths were never signed" by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is the law, if not semantics? While I don't agree with Thompson, I do agree that until a loyalty oath is signed, no judge can ever issue a binding ruling.

    We as citizens must demand that our government dot it's 'i's and cross its 't's. Without these oaths, the judges are unaccountable. How hard is it to get a signature? How hard is it to take an oath? These oaths are required by the people and in them, the person taking the oath states they will follow whatever constitutions are relevant to the position.

    See http://www.jail4judges.org/

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:"loyalty oaths were never signed" by nuzak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The judges did sign their oaths. Jack alleges that Tunis forged her own signature, which is certainly a pretty novel theory, but if we decide to be more generous than the law even allows and take him at his intended meaning, that she had someone else sign for her, he doesn't have a single iota of supporting evidence, other than the worthless opinion of an utterly discredited "handwriting analyst" who made his opinion based on a whopping two samples.

      Accusing judges of malfeasance is just standard behavior for Jack Thompson. And his probable disbarment is just the start of his troubles -- there's one Cletus Junkin in Alabama (yeah I know ... I couldn't make these great names up) who may be going after him for libel next.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:"loyalty oaths were never signed" by RiffRafff · · Score: 3, Informative

      "...there's one Cletus Junkin in Alabama..."

      That's Clatus Junkin, a former Circuit Court judge...

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    3. Re:"loyalty oaths were never signed" by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      there's one Cletus Junkin in Alabama (yeah I know ... I couldn't make these great names up)

      By RiffRaff:
      That's Clatus Junkin, a former Circuit Court judge...

      Apparently you did sir.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  17. I'll Tell You Who He Is by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is Jack Thompson? A man who knows no restraint to further a cause that has religious roots and backings by watchdog groups whose only goals are to overstep their bounds.

    A man who stood up on Fox news the day of the Virginia Tech shootings (when the bodies of slain students were still warm) and told the nation that he was certain we would find video games in the shooter's bedroom. He then later turned one of the funerals into a media circus and photo op.

    A man who has overstepped laws designed to give Americans freedom and the right to enjoy entertainment in their homes. He has taken the The Bill of Rights into the restroom and wiped his ass with it.

    A man who, after overstepping his bounds an pushing extreme values of the political Right, asked for members of the Bush family (which he erroneously thought would be allies) to remove his disbarment from the Florida courts. Name Jeb & George ... who ignored the tool that was merely carrying out their core values.

    You have a man who has tried to undo the separation of church and state. This same man has been operating in a court of law and using false correlations while pushing his own moral and religious beliefs. He is completely divorced from the sense of Justice and the American People. This same man will soon suffer under The Justice of The United States of America or my faith in it will soon falter ...
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by sm62704 · · Score: 0

      Who is Jack Thompson?
      A man who knows no restraint to further a cause that has religious roots


      Hmm, Wikipedia says "Thompson then expanded his comments in the same interview by saying, 'Islam promotes the killing of innocent people. The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels - not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition".

      That's the only occurance in the wikipedia article where the word "religion" is used. Could you expound on this thought further? What are these "religious roots" you speak of, and which religion?

      Or do you just hate religion in general?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate religion in private.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the Ars Technica article, citing GamePolitics:

      (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080520-judges-report-in-jack-thompson-case-guilty-on-27-charges.html)

      "GamePolitics was able to get Thompson's closing statement, and the man spoke like a captain straightening his coat as the ship goes down. "I'm simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivationsâ"which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nauseaâ"are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture. I quoted the biblical passage where Jesus says, reportedly: 'If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea.'"

      Maybe those religious roots?

      Remember: Wikipedia isn't the final authority.

    4. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A man who, after overstepping his bounds an pushing extreme values of the political Right, asked for members of the Bush family (which he erroneously thought would be allies) to remove his disbarment from the Florida courts. Name Jeb & George ... who ignored the tool that was merely carrying out their core values. To be fair, haven't Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton shown far more interest in censoring video games than George Bush?

    5. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Informative

      From an article at law.com -

      "Thompson also has sued both the Alabama and Florida bar groups in Orange Circuit Court in Orlando, Fla., claiming the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.

      Thompson "seeks to be left alone to serve God in the fashion that God has chosen, not in the fashion that two liberal bars would choose," his pleadings state. "

      DISCLAIMER - I do hate religion in general. Well, maybe hate is a strong word, but "dislike and generally find useless in most cases" is an acceptable alternative.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    6. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by maxume · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Maybe not funny, but it is a play on words, not a troll. Hate religion in *general* vs hate religion in *private*, see, they are both syntactically correct sentences and military ranks.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or do you just hate religion in general?

      This being Slashdot makes that question somewhat rhetorical.

    8. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Kamots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The 'video game community' surely seems exercised about someone who is a 'joke' and who is accomplishing nothing. You all seem rather bothered and worried about a nonentity. God is in this battle, and I am privileged to be a foot soldier. You all should be concerned, not about me, but about Him." -JT

      Naw... there's no religious roots there...

    9. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by PriceIke · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yes, and that's common knowledge. But don't let facts get in the way of any opportunity to link a religious whack job to Bush.

      And, welcome to Slashdot. :)

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    10. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by rrohbeck · · Score: 0

      Sounds like he should be a hero to many Americans.

    11. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by D66 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Thompson is not a tool of the Proper Right. Maybe the Fringe nuts that call themselves the "Religious Right" who have tried repeatedly to Hijack Conservatism. but not the proper Small-Government, strong America, lower taxes, more freedom Right.

    12. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by D66 · · Score: 1

      Jack has nothing to do with Religion... except the modern fluffy-bunny make everything safe and nice secular religion

    13. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by maxume · · Score: 1

      You picked an odd reply button to push.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wish he was an hero.

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
    15. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Lurker187 · · Score: 1

      Who is Jack Thompson?
      A man who knows no restraint to further a cause that has religious roots


      Hmm, Wikipedia says "Thompson then expanded his comments in the same interview by saying, 'Islam promotes the killing of innocent people. The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels - not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition".

      That's the only occurance in the wikipedia article where the word "religion" is used. Could you expound on this thought further? What are these "religious roots" you speak of, and which religion?

      Or do you just hate religion in general? Why not ask if he's stopped beating his wife while you're at it?

      If you SFTFA (searched for TFA), you could have easily found this on Ars Technica (emphasis mine):

      GamePolitics was able to get Thompson's closing statement, and the man spoke like a captain straightening his coat as the ship goes down. "I'm simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivations - which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nausea - are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture . I quoted the biblical passage where Jesus says , reportedly: 'If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea.'" Yeah, nothing about religion in there.
      --
      [command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
    16. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Dr.+Donuts · · Score: 1

      RTFA. Instead of making inflammatory accusations.

    17. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Darby · · Score: 1

      . Maybe the Fringe nuts that call themselves the "Religious Right" who have tried repeatedly to Hijack Conservatism. but not the proper Small-Government, strong America, lower taxes, more freedom Right.

      Dude, you're talking about the center or Classical Liberalism. The right is as opposed to those things as the left are, just for different reasons.

    18. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by ejecta · · Score: 1

      I think religion is fine and gives many people hope & purpose, which is great.

      I find many acts carried out in the name of religion, such as this, deplorable.

      --
      Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
    19. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't defect Jack Thompson at all.

      However, there are many that do not agree with the current ideology of "separation of church and state" - it's not part of the US Constitution, and is only supported by such through "Freedom of Religion", however, there is nothing saying that the "state" could be non-separated and still provide "Freedom of Religion".

      On the converse, many of the issues today can easily be traced back to court decisions such as the one instituting "separation of church and state" on the educational system.

      So please, take it elsewhere. Your first point and third point would have been sufficient - the other two could have been done without. Your comment would have been a lot better as such too.

    20. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking it went kinda -
      "Mesa wanting make big bucks. So mesa find big bandwagon to jumps on. And shouts lots. You give mesa big bucks now?"

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    21. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty damned hard to do when it's slashdotted. And, what "inflammatory accusations"?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    22. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for being civil, so many slashdotters have a knee jerk hatred for anyone who dares to disbelieve that the universe and sentience itself is a coincidence.

      The religion practiced by Jack Thompson, Pat Robertson, George Bush and other neocons bears incredibly little resemblance to what the man who started that particular religion taught. I waih those people would quit calling themselves "Christians."

      Never trust a "Christain" preacher who wears a five thousand dollar suit.

      T original FA was slashdotted; I finally saw a link to the Ars story.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    23. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "so many slashdotters have a knee jerk hatred for anyone who dares to disbelieve that the universe and sentience itself is a coincidence."

      Believing that is not religion, it is philosophy. Religion is a set of rituals, beliefs, and superstitions that tell you how to live your life.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    24. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by gonzo67 · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't reply to an AC, but you make a wild accusation about the country going bad due to forced prayers by educators being banned by the courts.

      Children are free to pray any time they want. The ruling you refer to in typical religious nut-job way, stated that the GOVERNMENT cannot require prayer by students and cannot lead students in prayer as that as the implication of Government endorsement of religion.

    25. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Liberalism IS a right-wing ideology.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    26. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The establishment clause means that the government is not permitted to declare a state religion. This implies that the government cannot favour one religion over another, especially by teaching one religion in school or forcing children to adhere to its practices, otherwise the clause is useless as a religion could be made the state religion in all but name. Forcing children to perform the acts of one religion does restrict the free exercise of religions that do not include those acts or even prohibit them. Teaching children the teachings of one religion conflicts with the parents' desire to make their child a follower of another religion. The separation of church and state is required to guarantee the free exercise of religion.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    27. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Darby · · Score: 1

      Liberalism IS a right-wing ideology.

      Oh, bull crap.

      The left and right got their names from the fact that during the French Revolution, the representatives of the Aristocracy and the Church sat on the right of the aisle and the representatives of the commoners sat on the left.

      All of them were interested in using the power of the state to fuck the others.

      Liberalism was the rejection of both viewpoints and the idea that the government should stay the hell out of people's lives, everyone should just grow up, take responsibility for themselves and quit giving the state more power to use against whoever they didn't like.
      Individual liberty was held in the highest regard. Liberalism necessarily arose from the left, but rapidly diverged, which makes your assertion that Liberalism is right-wing all the more idiotic.
      If you'd claimed it was left-wing, you'd still be wrong, but at least you'd have some small historical basis on which you could blame your mistake.

      Now, would you care to explain how the fuck you think it's even sane to claim that a philosophy of individual liberty and restriction of state power has SFA to do with an inherently elitist philosophy put forward by royalty and the massively powerful and corrupt church in order to maintain an inherently unfree market, and inherently unclimbable social ladder, and maintain a system where they got paid just because they thought they were born inherently better and therefore deserved to collect off of other people's creativity, labor, and enterprise?

      Seriously, that's a completely idiotic statement.

      It's no surprise you hear people repeating that nonsense though, given that both the right and the left in this country are totally opposed to Liberalism. Just like the aristocrats and clergy of old, those on the right in America find it much easier to legislate themselves massive corporate welfare payments than to actually provide some worthwhile service.
      Similarly, those on the left like to vote bread and circuses.

      Left and right are inherently both supporters of big government.
      While the Republicans and Democrats don't map smoothly to Left and Right as they both have elements of both, my point becomes really obvious when you look at them. They are both big government parties, the Republicans even more so than the Democrats since 1980.
      Republican spending tends to be corporate welfare, while Democrat spending tends more toward individual welfare.

      Both of these are true as far as they go, but they're not absolute, just look at farming subsidies, utility subsidies and the rest of the rural welfare programs. Those are destined primarily for Republican strongholds.
      On the other hand, the DMCA, UCITA and such were Democratic corporate welfare handouts.

      One of the major reasons why our economy is in the shitter right now is because of the excesses of the left *and* the right and the near complete elimination of Liberalism, even though it's the basis of our constitution.

      So please save that nonsense. Liberalism is the philosophy of individual liberty and equality *under the law*. The left is an ideology of "equality" in the sense that you have 2 chickens and I have none therefore I should use the state to rob you of one of your chickens for my benefit. The right ideology is inherently aristocratic and explicitly *unequal* under the law and says since I'm rich and powerful, I'll seize ownership of both of your chickens and your land and you will be stuck working on it for my benefit.

      Liberalism is: all of you keep your grubby mitts off of my chickens. I'm raising them for eggs because I see a market for them, I'm sick to death of eating nothing but chickens and eggs and I plan on making enough to buy a steak.

      MMMMM steak.

      On that note, since it's the first warm day of the freaking year in Chicago, I'm going out to fire up the grill.

    28. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Complete freedom for everyone means everyone is free to fuck the other over, the rich have more ways to do so than the poor. It may not be intended as right wing but it is in effect. E.g. the job market usually has a scarcity of jobs compared to the number of workers and the workers need the job more than the employers need the job filled (because the worker will starve, the employer will just have a bit less income), this lets the employer pretty much dictate the terms of the employment. I really don't believe that the "they can just get a different job" claim that always comes up works, for one thing being inhuman to your employees is more profitable so it should be done to maximize profits and for another there's simply not enough jobs with better conditions going around and people just cannot wait indefinitely until a job with conditions they like becomes available, they must get a job to survive so there's a steady supply of people who will take the worst jobs. I for one think that's one of the areas where the government has to step in because it'll not get better by itself.

      The rich and the poor are unequal no matter what the law says. Your guy with the two chickens won't be able to make much money because the guy with 20000 chickens will be able to make them cheaper (less profit needed to feed himself, economy of scale makes many things cheaper for him) and use some of his money to buy advertising. Libertarianism these days seems to be founded in a strong belief in the American Dream and the belief that class mobility is restricted by laws, I really don't think that's the case. Class mobility is simply low no matter what, it requires performing way above or below average as you have to grow or shrink your money by several orders of magnitude. I also don't see how the law restricts that, what I do see as restrictions is that bigger businesses are more capable of doing what the market wants than small businesses and can often use their weight to crush smaller opposition (take e.g. Wal-Mart's dumping when they're new in an area until everyone else is dead, not a whole lot the small businesses can do there because they cannot survive on those prices and don't have the money reserves to just sit them out until Wal-Mart stops using them).

      I don't think having a few big guys own most of the land and the others working as peasants on it requires skewed legislation, it just requires a rich guy deciding that buying up land for farming is profitable (which I doubt it is) and then hiring workers to do the actual farming (you can be pretty damn sure the workers will get paid less than they could make were they the owners of the land). After all, you've got most other sectors tied up by large corporations, especially ones with high entry barriers.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    29. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by Darby · · Score: 1


      Complete freedom for everyone means everyone is free to fuck the other over, the rich have more ways to do so than the poor. It may not be intended as right wing but it is in effect.


      No, it isn't.
      You're arguing an entirely different point now. You're arguing that pure Liberalism is an inherently unstable equilibrium, and that in order to achieve any sort of stable free society a moderate amount of left leaning ideas are necessary. History (and the present even) clearly demonstrate that there's a great deal of merit to that idea, but it doesn't, in any way, back up the point you're trying to make.
      If it's not the state actively working to promote the elite over the interests of the general citizenry, then it isn't right wing.
      You're arguing that similar results can (and even inevitably will) occur in the absence of state interference. That might well be true, but then it ceases to be a question of right/left.

    30. Re:I'll Tell You Who He Is by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      It's still a valid statement from what I have seen. There are MANY slashdotters that despise any form of belief in a 'higher power', let alone a supreme God.

  18. At least he'll have more time to play GTA4 :D by amasiancrasian · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the bright side: no job means more time to play GTAIV!

    1. Re:At least he'll have more time to play GTA4 :D by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Not ol' Jack-off Thompson. He's currently working on his big comeback in a huge lawsuit against the makers of urination-themed video games! :P

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:At least he'll have more time to play GTA4 :D by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That's because one of the targets is lawyer who says all games are evil.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  19. Still framing the issue THEIR way by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old Grand Theft Auto player Devin Moore.

    You could have also phrased that as, "..police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old fluoridated-water drinker Devin Moore."

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are all sorts of fun ways you can spin stories.

      "..police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old heterosexual man Devin Moore."

      "..police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old non-vegetarian Devin Moore."

      "..police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old Darwinist Devin Moore."

    2. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by nfk · · Score: 1

      I agree with your general point, but in this case the wording is correct. If it weren't for that sentence I would have no idea about who Devin is and why an anti-game attorney is involved.

    3. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Even with that phrase, I still have no idea who Devin is and why an anti-game attorney is involved.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those dihydrogen monoxide addicts will stop at nothing to get their next "hit"...

    5. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      .. police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old Grand Theft Auto player Devin Moore.


      You could have also phrased that as, "..police dispatcher slain by 18-year-old fluoridated-water drinker Devin Moore."

      Or "18-year-old vaccine recipient."

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    6. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by Ankhenaten · · Score: 1

      I will agree that any sort of stimulus has an effect on biological brain chemistry, but I will not agree that the fact that the 18 year old Devin Mooris played Grand Theft Auto was in anyway related to the fact that he knowingly commited three acts of premeditated homicide. While it may help you draw the connection between Jack and Devin, it only serves to sensationalize the issue and distract from the real problem. Devin Mooris murdered three people! He did it, he is responsible for his actions, he deserves the credit, not GTA.

      Just like the saying; guns don't kill people, people kill people. You cannot blame an inanimate object for the poor choices of a person. The person is responsible for their actions and must live with the consiquences. Until we reach the day where murder is 100% preventable and the system operates with absolute perfection I will not agree with targeting objects as faulty for poor human choice.

      I am terribly saddened by the fact that people kill people for no reason or bad reasons or even good reasons, but it happens and shifting the blame from the perpitrator to the objects surrounding them is no way to enforce personal accountability.

      Video games don't kill people, people kill people. Jack Thompson is not part of the solution he is part of the problem. He is giving these creatons a way out of their poor choice by telling them its not their fault, its the video games that made them do it. Devin made the choice to shoot three people, Devin must live with the consiquences of said choice.

      Jack Thompson made the choice to recklessly pursue frivalous and unconstitutional legal action and continued even though he was told numerous times to stop by ruling judges on the cases. His misguided crusade has found him going down a dark path where all that he worked for is being brought down around him and still he does not know when or how to stop. Everyone watching should try to take notes and learn from Jack's mistakes. I fear it is false hope to expect him to learn something from this, but you never know.

    7. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the odds are that the police officer played Video Games?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Still framing the issue THEIR way by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Funny

      He drinks fluoridated water? Well it's no wonder then. Probably eats bread too.

  20. Just two counts? by Rydia · · Score: 1

    Actually, none of them are videogame-related. He is being reprimanded for misbehavior regarding his role as an agent of the court. They arose in the context of a lawsuit which featured games as part of its subject matter, but none of this actually has anything to do with games.

    But hey, someone who disagrees with "the viewpoint" is being punished. That the malfeasance and reprimand has nothing to do with that viewpoint is irrelevant, so long as everyone gets their blood.

    1. Re:Just two counts? by kennygraham · · Score: 1

      When someone abuses the judicial system to fight against "the viewpoint", sure we consider it a good thing when they're punished for abusing the judicial system. Or should we just wish him the best of luck trying to take away our rights? Stop being a passively aggressive pacifist.

    2. Re:Just two counts? by cowscows · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well what'd you expect? There is no body of video game related laws that for someone to violate. Much of the nonsense that he's perpetrated has been as a result of the bizarre war he's trying to wage against games.

      The issue isn't just that some guy doesn't like video games, it's that he's not only embarked on some sort of loony campaign against them, but he's also abused the legal system to harass video game developers and publishers. And he's also made sweeping, negative, and sometimes offensive generalizations about an entire branch of media and the millions of people who consume said media.

      Whether this guy is unethical enough to purposely crap all over the legal system over something like video games, or whether he's just plain insane, either way he should not be practicing law. And he certainly shouldn't be wasting tax dollars on his bizarre personal crusade against a bunch of gamers. The legal system is better off without him, regardless of his views on video games or anything else. He's pretty much proven that he has no respect for the proper functioning of the courts/etc.

      And third, this guy has managed to convince various media outlets that he is a credible expert on video games. Having an opinion on something does not make you a credible voice. We can only hope that whatever the end result of all this is, news programs will stop asking him to share his thoughts on video games or anything else.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:Just two counts? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Personally, as someone "in the business", I think it's great when someone is reprimanded for misbehaviour regarding his role as an agent of the court, regardless of what "the viewpoint" is.

      The fact that he's a Christofascist with a grudge against free speech as expressed through video games is just a bonus.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    4. Re:Just two counts? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Actually, none of them are videogame-related. He is being reprimanded for misbehavior regarding his role as an agent of the court. They arose in the context of a lawsuit which featured games as part of its subject matter, but none of this actually has anything to do with games.

      No kidding... Everyone understood that it was "game related lawsuits" automatically... Well almost everyone I guess. Why didn't you?

      But hey, someone who disagrees with "the viewpoint" is being punished. That the malfeasance and reprimand has nothing to do with that viewpoint is irrelevant, so long as everyone gets their blood.

      But it does have something to do with "the viewpoint". These were game-related trials he was involved in, in which he was pushing his "viewpoint". The fact that he could only push his viewpoint in the courtroom via acts of malfeasance tells you something about the validity of his arguments. He had no facts or legal arguments on his side, so he had to resort to childish BS like putting gay porn in briefs, or making baseless accusations against judges that rule against him. He uses the same techniques of slandering his opponents outside the courtroom, because his arguments even freed from the restrictions of the courtroom are equally weak.

      So yes, there is a rather significant connection between his anti-gaming views, and his ability to back those views up in the courtroom in a legally acceptable manner.

      Oh and don't pretend this is just "someone" who disagrees with "the viewpoint". This is Jack fucking Thompson, gamer-hater #1, who has gone out of his way to slander gamers and game makers with anything he can think of, and is thus hated by gamers more than anyone else. You can't possibly believe than just anyone who is anti-gaming would get the same reaction as JT, because that is demonstrably not the case.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  21. I've had a really bad day today by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I'd like to thank GamePolitics, Scuttlemonkey, and especially the Florida judge for brightening up this bad bad Wednesday!

    Oh yea, and I want to thank Jack Thompson too, since if he wasn't such a stupid, obnoxious, self-serving buffoon this story would have never made it to slashdot!

    My life is SO filled with coincidences. Last night at Felber's one of the ladies there called me a "fuckmonkey" (in regards to my bringing Amy there half an hour before taking Tami there), I just got back fro Top Cat's, where today's drink special is the "Drunk Monkey", and now the Jack Thompson story brought to us by Scuttlemonkey!

    Weird. But not as weird as Jack Thompson.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:I've had a really bad day today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird.

      Simian, almost...

  22. Watch out violent video games! by Yogiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If he gets locked up, someone might emerge who can actually argument and make the public belive that the cause might be worth fighting. Somebody who has only stayed in the shadows because Jack Thomson has made all video game opponents look like a big bag of crazy. Someone who is actually mentally stable and sees, that such lamenting has only made the public side up with the game makers.

    Beware!

    1. Re:Watch out violent video games! by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the public wants to have a reasonable and adult discussion about violence in video games, I don't think that's something to be afraid of. Just as our culture went through similar grumblings about movies and television, and almost repeatedly about music, it's a valid conversation to have. There's a useful discussion to be had about the appropriateness of certain types of games for particular age groups, and the most effective ways to introduce children to various things they might experience through games. At the end of the day, we've still got the first amendment, and not a particularly realistic chance that video game violence will somehow end up banned.

      What's most likely going to happen is that a smattering of state laws will get passed and quickly be overturned because they're unconstitutional. Ten more years or so down the line, there will be enough people in positions of authority who grew up as gamers that the issue will mostly go away. There will still be the occasional whining and controversy, just like we've got with movies/tv/music today when a game really decides to push the envelope, but most people won't give it a second thought anymore.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Watch out violent video games! by not_anne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even fair a minded discussion on the topic doesn't have much weight. There just isn't any credible evidence of direct causation that video games make people into murderers. If it were true, there would be over 3 million new murderers running around because of GTA4 alone.

      --
      My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
    3. Re:Watch out violent video games! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You know, when I was in high school(78-82) I figure all the people from the 60's and 70's would be in power a pot would be legal by now.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Watch out violent video games! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ten more years or so down the line, there will be enough people in positions of authority who grew up as gamers that the issue will mostly go away.

      We have a coke user as President that thinks all coke users should be in federal prison. The former president was a pot smoker that did nothing to legalize marijuana. It doesn't work. "I used it, but no one else should be able to." It's the same with cops. They speed all the time. They go 100mph in a 55 mph zone and will tell you that they manage it safely, but that the limit should be 55 because no one else can do it safely. My dad used to illegally street race (back in the '50s) but whines about the street racers and fast drivers more than anyone else. When people get old, they remember all the bad things about what they used to do, none of the good, and don't realize that most people would be able to do what they did and still end up as functional and well balanced. So in 10 years when former gamers get in positions of power, they will not act to defend gaming. Well, they may, but I wouldn't count on it based on the history of such things.

    5. Re:Watch out violent video games! by cowscows · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between a hobby that millions of 10 year old kids enjoy on a daily basis and illegal drug use. One of the main differences being that one is already illegal and the other is not. I don't think it's a particularly informative comparison.

      Let older people remember all the bad things they did. Gaming isn't bad. 99.9% of the people out there doing bad things are not doing them as a result of playing video games. Street racing is actually a very dangerous and irresponsible activity, and your dad's experience makes him well justified to have strong opinions about it. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many people who have been gamers but then later decided that it was a dangerous mistake. A waste of time maybe, but not really dangerous.

      I doubt we'll ever see any politicians working to actively defend gaming, more like they'll just ignore the issue, because there won't be as many 40-50 year olds with nothing better to do that complain about video games that they've never even played. Instead, those bored 40-50 year olds will go play video games with their free time, because that's what they've always done, because it's entertaining.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  23. Loyalty Oath by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I love what the judge has done to this asshat, I think first (if it is not) that all judges should sign these oaths, and second, that if he was supposed to, and didn't, the judge should get fined for leaving an open door for a "not guilty by technicality" to occur over something so minor. I'm a programmer for the County Schools and I had to sign the loyalty oath to the US and California consitution when I got my parking pass just to program, I'd hope they'd hold a judge to this rather simplistic requirement (its not like having to take a physical or anything, and if it is a problem for him, he shouldn't be on the bench.)

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    1. Re:Loyalty Oath by portentum · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Loyalty Oath by Eco-Mono · · Score: 1

      See above.

      --
      (rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
    3. Re:Loyalty Oath by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly, I think it's appalling that McCarthy era loyalty oaths are still on the books. I hope the refusal to sign was intentional, and that this issue is persued to the point of being fired, which would then create an outcry in the judiciary leading to the legislature overturning this fascist act.

      What's wrong with a loyalty oath you ask? Take a look at what's happened to our government over the past few years, could you honestly swear loyalty to *this* government? What if it got worse?

      If you think about it, anyone who really meant their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States... against all enemies, foreign and domestic" would have taken up arms against this government a long time ago. Ever since Wickard v. Filburn it's been clear that even the SCOTUS is a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

      Dissent is an essential part of a democratic society. People who disagree with current policy should not be discriminated against, even if they are communists.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Loyalty Oath by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      That's fine and all, but the Judge did sign her oath. Jack Thompson accused her of having a third party forge her signature in order to "get out of it" or something.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    5. Re:Loyalty Oath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think about it, anyone who really meant their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States... against all enemies, foreign and domestic" would have taken up arms against this government a long time ago.
      Taking up arms is not the only way to defend the US Constitution; it's important to heed the warning in the Declaration of Independence - Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
  24. He's going to need.... by 8127972 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... Some Hot Coffee to keep him calm.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  25. ...at Law.com by sillivalley · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can read a good summary at law.com:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421556225

  26. Thanks Jack by bforsse · · Score: 1

    Rockstar should give this guy a percentage for all the free marketing. Without the controversy and media attention would GTA sales be as tremendous as they are? I mean the guy invented the term "Pixelante".

  27. Wow. Just... wow. by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I always suspected that "Thompson" was the Russian word for "Golf" ("...you thought Golf was inwented in Scotland? No, it was a Russian inwention!" -Ensign Checkov) but the Ars story had me giggling.

    Thompson has included gay pornography in his court filings, causing the Judge presiding over the case to note that "Mr. Thompson made available for unlimited public viewing, on the court's docketing system, these graphic images." In this most recent case, Thompson created a picture book in reaction to "the court's inability to comprehend" what he was saying. The book contained pictures of swastikas, a copied dollar bill, monkeys, and, in a surreal touch, a handprint with the word "slap" written under it. That's leaving out the cartoon squirrels. Earlier this year, Thompson asked why another gaming writer doesn't "just molest children directly rather than through Rockstar. It would be more personal that way."

    Before the release of Grand Theft Auto IV, Jack Thompson wrote Ars Technica a letter that compared the game to polio.
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  28. Which game? by denttford · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what videogame was he playing that turned him into a criminal?

    --

    Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    1. Re:Which game? by semiriot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, of course.

    2. Re:Which game? by Cctoide · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the forthcoming* video game version of Shark.

      * Not forthcoming, thankfully.

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
    3. Re:Which game? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Ach wie ein Feingeist?

      Here's another Rilke citation for you:

      Tod ist wenn einer lebt und es nicht weiss.

    4. Re:Which game? by sco_is_for_babies · · Score: 1

      So what videogame was he playing that turned him into a criminal? obviously...
  29. Corrected! by Ch*mp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    make a ridicules lawsuit I'm trying not to be one of those ridiculous people who ridicules people for bad spelling... ;) I'm trying not to be one of those ridicules people who ridiculous people for bad spelling... ;)
  30. Re:Some facts about Barak Hussein Obama: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Cool! It's like mad libs.

    I'm going to fill in the blanks here with "Person's Name:" Obama

    Obama used to work as a rodeo clown
    Obama is part of a secret organization that wants to eliminate zippers in pant flys
    Obama doesn't like vanilla ice cream
    Obama will support the right of ducks to cross roads before geese
    Under an Obama Presidency, use of Netscape Navigator 3.0 will increase 40934%
    Within the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama will send in for sea monkeys off the back of a cereal box, but will still be waiting for them
    Obama likes big butts and he cannot lie
    Within the first 150 days of his presidency, Obama will be sorely dissapointed, because the sea monkeys weren't like in the picture

  31. Bogosity resistance by overshoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The legal profession has a perfectly functional (but slow) system of dealing with bogus lawsuits.
    Shall we make a date to revisit this question once the various SCOX kamikaze suits are finished?
    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Bogosity resistance by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Shall we make a date to revisit this question once the various SCOX kamikaze suits are finished? Lets set the date for when the various counter-suits are finished.

      SCO will pay their due punishment, either in cash or in company assets.
      If any lawyers get sanctioned, it is only because they were sloppy.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Bogosity resistance by overshoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SCO will pay their due punishment, either in cash or in company assets. If any lawyers get sanctioned, it is only because they were sloppy.
      Well, they haven't any cash and they haven't any company assets; they're in bankruptcy right now and are burning their remaining assets fast enough to make sure that there's nothing left before the creditors (including Novell and IBM) get a dime.

      As for the lawyers, they have been incredibly sloppy. A number of attorneys have opined that in their whole careers they've never seen such flagrant violations of the FRCP, Rule 11 not least of all. The same lawyers are also very doubtful about any sanctions being assessed against the lawyers involved.

      So, by all means, let's see what happens when the counterclaims and any possible motions for sanctions are wrapped up.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  32. Maybe he should take God's advice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    It's a pity, then, that he forgot to get guidance from James 1:26-27:

    [26] If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is unprofitable and useless.

    [27] Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
  33. .. and in Jack Sparrow's voice... by meglon · · Score: 2, Funny

    ....but, he is a tool.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  34. Good bye fucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are about to get what you finally deserve. Enjoy your permanent vacation.

  35. An appropriate punishment by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 1

    If he is found guilty then how about a fitting punishment?

    I'd lock him in a room with some Cacodaemons. Or slap him with a chainsaw. (How can you tell I haven't played any video games for 10 years????)

    1. Re:An appropriate punishment by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      Id want him in a room full of Imps.

  36. The real victims by Seska · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having painfully(1) read GamePolitics' coverage of the trial, I find myself concluding that the real victims of Thompson are not gamers but the lawyers and judges of Alabama and Florida. As gamers, we can ignore him and go back to playing our games while occasionally enjoying schadenfreude at his expense.

    The lawyers and judges that had to deal with him endured harassment, patently false accusations, completely incoherent arguments, abuse of law and process, and threats at every turn. It made me glad to be on the receiving end of only the news stories about him.

    (1) Both because Thompson's rants are difficult to parse and because GamePolitics.com's servers were awful.

  37. From Thompson's Wikipedia article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "In sending documents to opponents, Thompson would frequently attach a photocopy of his driver's license, with a photo of Batman pasted over his own, just to make sure they knew who they were dealing with. Thompson said, "I have sent my opponents pictures of Batman to remind them I'm playing the role of Batman. Just like Bruce Wayne helped the police in the movie, I have had to assist the sheriff of Broward County." He also wore a Batman wristwatch."

    LOL

  38. He already has a backup plan by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Word is that he's planning to serve the local McDonalds with a cease-and-desist order and a job application.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  39. He better start dodging the cops by GreenSquares · · Score: 1

    It looks like he has four out of five stars.

  40. Re:Some facts about Barak Hussein Obama: by VagaStorm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    lol, I like this game....

    Obama will outlaw "Soviet russia" and "imagine a cluster of...." jokes
    Obama will outlaw all otehr comunication than ip over pidgin.
    Obama will then send lazer sharks to iran.

  41. Good riddens, and besides... by Synthaxx · · Score: 1

    ...his whole argument has been null and void since the beginning anyways, due to the very fact that he's still alive.
    If gamers were so influenced by violent games, someone would have surely shot him.

    He's the lowest of the low, he uses terrible events like shootings to push his agenda on people.
    I hope he does some time so he can find out what REAL violence is all about.

  42. Hmmmmm..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1, Redundant

    If I were the head of Take-Two, I'd have fun in my next edition of Grand Theft Auto.....

    I'd immortalize Jack Thompson, and that other idiot Devin Moore, in my video game by making them the most useless, idiotic, and retarded babbling simps in the entire game.....

    Personally, I'd try to be as insulting as possible:

    1) Avatars are monkeys wearing diapers.
    2) Babble incoherently, with coherent excerpts of their statements mixed in among the babble.
    3) If naked, give them *VERY* small johnsons.
    4) Make them "bosses" in the game, ones that like to hump parking meters and small animals.
    5) Refer to them by their actual, real-life names.

    and last but not least.....

    Include a copy of the letter, with pictures of both morons, in all game cases. Maybe even include a coupon for flagrantly insulting anti-Thompson and anti-Moore merchandise.

    Revenge is a bitch. Especially when it's legal.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  43. Two Words for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prison Rape

  44. Run away from the light by DuChamp+Fitz · · Score: 1

    Wow! I just clicked that link and was sucked through some sort of dimensional vortex, like in Poltergeist! Luckily, I was able to rescue myself using "the back button".

  45. Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is not just almighty and truthful, he is also just. Even though God does not like to kill people, being just he has to mete out due punishment on people who violate the Commandments. Soon there will be another school massacre or someone running amok serial killing cops or so, because America has abused its principles and deserves punishment and reflection for turning itself into a death-cult society.

    God will hand the souls of one or two of those GTA game addicts to the Satan and the utmost devil will make them commit heinous crimes in real life, crimes that will shock the nation. If those game addicts were morally good people, they could resist the Satan and stay innocent, but their souls have already rottent due to exposure to excessive violance and pronography, making them easy puppets of the devil for the purposes of capital crime.

    If the american nation is as christian as it claims to be, it shall return to the way of God and repel the masonist media and political machinery which is turning the whole world and especially the USA into a death-cult society as preparation for a cabal-based global regime's rule.

    It is truly saddening how much young generations have been indoctrinated with the desire for more violance, loveless and unnatural sex or drug use via all-powerful media imagery. Even though many of those young people are guilty only in their lack of will to stand up for moral good, they cannot excuse themselves from the consequences. Remember, God is just!

  46. This summary.. by scubamage · · Score: 1

    Made me guffaw, titter, and rofl all at once! One less source of corruption in the world!

  47. He's a Boob! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't belive he's still breathing.

  48. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!! Too long has Jack sat atop his high horse

    Just hope we never hear from him again!